ChrisMaverick dotcom

on presidential candidates…

took the Select Smart presidential candidate quiz just for the hell of it. Apparently I should vote for the Socialists this year.

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate.   (100%)  
2. Socialist Candidate   (67%)  
3. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT – Democrat   (65%)  
4. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR – Democrat   (65%)  
5. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO – Democrat   (64%)  
6. Sharpton, Reverend Al – Democrat   (62%)  
7. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL – Democrat   (61%)  
8. Edwards, Senator John, NC – Democrat   (55%)  
9. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH – Democrat   (53%)  
10. Kerry, Senator John, MA – Democrat   (50%)  
11. Libertarian Candidate   (44%)  
12. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT – Democrat   (41%)  
13. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. – Democrat   (29%)  
14. Phillips, Howard – Constitution   (28%)  
15. Bush, President George W. – Republican   (18%)  

om

7 comments for “on presidential candidates…

  1. January 14, 2004 at 10:01 am

    My results were pretty similar to yours… Sharpton above Dean, though.

    1. mav
      January 14, 2004 at 10:08 am

      well, I’m thinking the 3% difference I’ve got between Dean, Clark, Gephart and Sharpton has got to be considered margin of error for the “highly scientific” web poll…

      1. January 14, 2004 at 10:20 am

        (My results:)

        1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
        2. Sharpton, Reverend Al – Democrat (79%)
        3. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL – Democrat (76%)
        4. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT – Democrat (76%)
        .
        .
        .

        Hunh. There’s the 3% margin of error again.

        1. mav
          January 14, 2004 at 10:52 am

          well, their politics aren’t all THAT different really.

  2. January 18, 2004 at 7:31 pm

    Wow. I knew I hated him, but I never would have guessed that I actually agree with Bush on 0% of the positions they ask about.

    1. mav
      January 18, 2004 at 8:51 pm

      wow… that’s pretty impressive… who was your top link?

  3. Anonymous
    January 6, 2005 at 12:13 am

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.