Candidate Match Game (Did Every One See and/or Take This Test?)

USAToday (Title/Link Only) ^ | Recent | Multiple

[Why So Serious]

Did you take or see this quiz? I did and my winners were Bachmann, Paul, and Santorum [in that order]. I would say that Newt was on my radar screen, as was Bachmann and Paul. Santorum never even entered my mind. I would have thought I preferred Paul over Bachmann [test says, NO!].

Every person on my desk took it and none of them came up with Romney

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game

[Mount Athos]

Bachman ideologically is in my opinion closest to the typical freeper.

But she’s really bad at obeying the Reagan commandment about not attacking other republicans.

[Red Badger]

Why do you have people on your desk?.....................

[Why So Serious]

Better on than under ... I am on a seven man trading desk.

[humblegunner]

What test? Is it invisible?

I like invisible tests.

[A_perfect_lady]

Hm. I got Ron Paul first, Mitt Romney second, and John Huntsman third. I think that test might be a little “off.” How could Paul and Romney be side-by-side like that?

[Not A Snowbird]

I think I need a vacation.

#1 Ron Paul, #2 Rick Perry, #3 Newt Gingrich

Wow.

[shortstop]

Amazing quiz. Bachman came out on top for me, but Romney and Obama were in a tie for last place.

[mmichaels1970]

lol...Perry, Gingrich, Paul...not bad. Funny thing is that Romney ranked just below Obama for dead last.

[Sacajaweau]

One more question: “Which candidate states a conservative view as a self serving vote getter with no “REAL” evidence of having always supporting that view.”

[apillar]

I got Bachmann, Santorum, and Paul. I think I agreed with Bachmann and Santorum on 6 of 10 issues and Paul on 4 of 10, as expected Obama was at the bottom. I'm not sure how really accurate the quiz is, it seems to take quotes from the various candidates on the issues and on some issues like national defense 2 or 3 of the quotes were so close that there really wasn't any practical difference.

[betty boop]

Very interesting "test," Why So Serious! Thanks for the link.

Unexpected results, in my case: Ron Paul #1, Michelle Bachman #2, and Newt Gingrich #3. I'd have to seriously hold my nose to vote for two of these people. And the person I'd actually like to vote for didn't "make the cut" on the basis of this question set: Rick Perry.

Thanks again for the link!

[PapaNew]

For me it was

1) Perry

2) Paul

3) Huntsman

Paul seems to have a screw loose with his off-the-chart radical America-hating attitude about 9/11. If he wasn't so obsessively bizarre about defense and 9/11, I'd probably be for him.

I thought that Perry would be the guy after Sarah took a powder (permanent trip to the power room), but I wish he wouldn't keep gaffing himself to death.

[PoloSec]

My results were as follows:

1st Paul...I have not even considered voting for him, although, anyone but Obama.

2nd Bachman...My current choice.

3rd Perry...My current next choice after Bachman.

Some of questions did not really fit my thinking, but I picked the closest, so as not to check the Other Box.

[Sans-Culotte]

In order, my candidates (according to the test) are:

1.) Bachmann

2.) Santorum

3.) Gingrich

I'm not surprised; but Bachmann's and Santorum's chances are about as likely as the Colts making the playoffs (unless they are VP bait).

[PapaNew]

Curious: what are the substantive, objective (non-inflammatory) differences between Perry and Bachmann?

[discostu]

Problem is what’s the definition of less or more important? I think socsec is important in that I want it shot in the head, people who want to “save” it also think it’s important. Serious flaw there.

[aruanan]

Mine were Paul, Perry, and Santorum. The “test” is BS.

[Michigan Bowhunter]

Bachman, Paul, Santorum, Perry. Silly thing is, I predicted this.

[GSWarrior]

Same for me. Santorum and Gingrich were 2nd and 3rd.