# Find your political compass



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Here is an interesting test that determines where on the political left-right scales you sit. The results should be quite interesting.

Take the test here: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ 

Please post your results back here, but don't discuss them or how the test works in to much detail. I will graph them and post it later after there are a a few responses.

<blockquote>
Economic: -2.88
Social: -1.28</blockquote>

[ August 13, 2004, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: PosterBoy ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Several more - all interesting in different ways and also the tests sources ( ie Europe the one above ) etc show differing political centres.

*IOP Political Personality Test*

http://www.iop.harvard.edu/programs/other/natlsurvey/personality_test.php

*Politopia*
This one shows you against the US spectrum and shows Kerry against Bush. Note the orientation is NOT left right. Look at the labels along the edge. http://www.politopia.com/ 









The red star is my orientation point. 

and another whose questions are a bit ....odd but I like the way it supplies a political hero. It nailed one of mine. FDR
* Political Stereotype??*

and finally this one is a rewritten variation on the Political Compass above. Comparing the two results might see a shift as the French test seems a bit left from a North American viewpoint.

http://politics.beasts.org/scripts/survey

Have fun. Publish your results.......if you dare.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.05
...
You are a Traditional Liberal.
...
South-You are a Southerner-an egalitarian-which means that you advocate an increased role for the government in the economic realm. You are more or less pleased the government's role in the personal realm.
...
Democrat - You believe that there should be a free market which is reigned in by a modest state beaurocracy. You think that capitalism has some good things, but that those it helps should be obliged to help out their fellow man a little. Your historical role model is Franklin Rosevelt.
...
Axis Position 
1 left/right -3.3114 (-0.1993) 
2 pragmatism -1.0537 (-0.0634)

[ August 13, 2004, 06:56 AM: Message edited by: MACSPECTRUM ]


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macdoc,

If it's not too much trouble, can you post your numbers? Thanks.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.64


----------



## buck (Jan 10, 2003)

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10


----------



## Chris (Feb 8, 2001)

Hmmm, my results are: Economic Left/Right: -4.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

I seem to be in the same zone as Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. Not bad company!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I have made a graphic of the results so far. You can view it here.

If you haven't taken the test, please don't look at it until you have. Knowing too much about the outcome may influence your answers and skew the results.


----------



## MrVermin (Jul 26, 2002)

Hmmmm... Took the test... 

Here are results...


> Your political compass
> Economic Left/Right: -2.25
> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.77


Interesting.... 

Only proves one thing though... The results of ANY survey can be skewed to show whatever the author wants it to show depending on how the questions are worded and asked.

Reading Material: Darrell Huff's How to Lie with Statistics. published in 1954 ISBN: 0140136290 

Facinating stuff.... 

MrVermin


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ghandi/Dalai Llama turf as before but I think the test is skewed.
I think I was a bit less left first time as currently I'm particularly anti - Republican









*Economic Left/Right: -6.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.90 *

•••••••
the other variation - Political Beasts.
1
left/right
-4.9986 (-0.3009)

2
pragmatism
+2.9076 (+0.1750

A pragmatic leftist. That's about right. That was a UK variation.

I think for North Americans the Politopia probably is reasonably accurate and shows Canada versus US differences.


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.67

That sounds about right for me. Maybe a bit to left then I really am though. I believe in Social Democracy.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

No surprise here, I'm diametrically opposed to G.W. Bush!

Economic Left/Right: -8.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05

 
M


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

Economic Left/Right: -6.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

Symmetrical at least! Jeez i guess I AM one of those damn lefty liberal pinko bleeding heart radicals that MacNutt keeps on railing about. Who knew? Well I guess I'll never be Prime Minister. At least. What a relief! interesting that nobody has scored any positive (+) results. um... Yet.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_Interesting that nobody has scored any positive (+) results. um... Yet...._ "
Social safety net and personal freedom.  We be Canadian eh.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41

I think too many of the questions are leading


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

The questions are somewhat leading, aren't they?

Updated version of the results graph.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

I seem a little off the beaten path here, hovering rather closely to dead center.



> Economic Left/Right: -0.25
> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.87


----------



## Pantechnicon (May 9, 2004)

Here's mine:

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.74

Regarding the most recent graph: to whom does the blue dot belong?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Graph! 

I've started collecting responses from AppleInsider, too.


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

I am surprised by these results. Although this is a small sample and does not represent Canada, it certinaly does not show how our current social system is; Considering how left wing the results are. I work in the social service's field and it has gone down hill over the years. People on Ontario Disability are treated like crap and given the bare minimum to live on. Our current Government both federal and Provincial is way too far to the right for me. Instead of giving million dollar interest free loan's they should be putting it into social programs. An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure. They dont look at it that way and that is one reason why social programs are getting cut and in the end we pay more.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Actually, from reading and participating in the discussions here, the results are not very surprising at all.


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

I am just surprised how left it is, and this may or may not represent the majority of how our Country feels. I think the people of Canada may in fact be way more left then the curent Government, but in the end decides to do nothing and vote back in a Right wing government (There is not too many good options unfortunatly). That is what I am surprised about considering the way our country's social system has gone over the years (Paul Martin and his refusal to give money to hospitals etc, but then bail Bowing out). I guess I may have worded it a little off. I think a lot of people maybe more left in some aspects, but not in others, such as mental ilness and people with disabilities.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The centre of that poll would not be a Canadian political centre on a bell curve in my opionion.
Move about 15% left and a bit down for a Canadian centre. 
I think the Politopia is pretty accurate.
If you plotted those I suspect it would be a shifted different distribution. 

Take a look at some US results on the Politopia 

Here's one board
http://www.digsmagazine.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/001234.html 

versus another

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000818.html 

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1871 

 A google on "politopia results" gives some interesting insights.

One response to the test itself



> odkaDude, the questions on "Political Compass"
> just reek of eurosocialist assumptions. I betcha a
> bottle of your favorite booze this puppy was designed
> by a couple of British lefties.


Can we guess where he might be.









and here are compendiums of quizzes to while away the hours

http://www.selectsmart.com/politics.html 
( this one is pretty extensive and includes Canadian content )

http://www.fzc.dk/thomas/politica.htm


----------



## ShawnJ (Aug 14, 2004)

Economic Left/Right: *-10.00*
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.49

Yes-- I'm in agony here in Pennsylvania.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh my goodness......our sympathies indeed. Thinking about emigrating??


----------



## ShawnJ (Aug 14, 2004)

Hey MacDoc. 

Yes, I have thought about emigrating to Canada-- but have only given serious thought to it in a vague sense. I think it would be an ideal place to live and raise a family. However, I'm going into law soon. I feel my work is here in the states, fighting for civil rights and trying to improve this country for those currently marginalized and oppressed. It's what I choose to devote my life to. But maybe I can do the same in your country. Now there's something to think about....

I've thought about moving to Quebec and raising a bilingual family-- or Toronto, where my favorite Canadian, Jane Jacobs, lives. Vancouver sounds lovely as well. I'm sympathetic to the Quebecois separatist movement, but I'm still learning about it (can't quite make an informed judgment at this point). Maybe I'll start a thread.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

The results thus far possibly suggest a couple of things to me:

a) That the test is flawed. Left results seem to be skewed libertarian, whereas right results seem to be skewed authoritarian.

b) That there really is a direct correlation between being left and being libertarian, being right and authoritarian, and that being either a left-authoritarian or a right-libertarian is an outlier, an oddity.

c) That respondents have a pretty good idea where they want to end up before hand.

It's still interesting, though.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It appears that is reflected as well in the 45 degree "Mainstreet" on Politopia.

I just think the centre point is off a bit for Canadians


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Economic Left/Right: -4.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.56


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Graph, Updated.


----------



## godot (Jan 17, 2004)

Economic Left/Right: -6.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Through the entries so far, either those who have responded are generally left of centre, so does that mean that those left of centre are more "vocal" in that they actually respond? (That is, still assuming that a conservative right of centre majority actually exists).

I feel kind of old-fashioned and out in the boonies with the current graph.









I'd be really interested in seeing this test done on a much grander scale, ie. Several thousand people in order to get a more accurate count on the general consensus on (Canada preferably) North American culture.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

As would I, but I think this test tends to skew things farther left than they really are.


----------



## canuck1975 (Dec 7, 2003)

I'd done this a long time ago, my results... that always seemed to be better than my eyesight:

Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.56

(I saved it in my LJ)


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

It would be interesting to conduct this test at a PC forum. We've got A LOT of lefties using Macs, here. Coincidence?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

From a US standpoint most of Canuckistan if way far left anyway.

Have any of you taken the Politopia?? 
Chealion try that and see where you end up.
That can be posted with a screen shot or send the PDF to PB for charting.

I think Politopia is more relevant to North American politics and the "Mainstreet" is a good "norm".


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

<div align="center">








</div>


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

<div align="center">









</div>

<blockquote>*Centerville*-You would feel most at home in Centerville, which means that you are more or less pleased the status quo-you think the US government has just about the right amount of control over your economic and personal decisions. Your neighbors include democratic and republican party leaders and others who call themselves "moderates" and "centrists."
</blockquote>

I took this test before and basically on the centre of the map. Just shows to go you how much your answers can change based on mood, time of day, etc.

Also, I entered all the info in excel and started having it auto-generate a graph for me.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

The Excel graph, once again, is updated. I added a graph of all the mean values, too. Is there any analysis that anyone would like to see? trend/regression lines, etc?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

As I...and several others here at ehmac...have found to our great chagrin, this forum is dominated by leftish types. Many of them seem to be ideologically blinded and totally unrepentant leftish types, as well. Completely insulated from the reality that is unfolding all around them on a daily basis. More's the pity.

No way around it. Just the way it is.

On the test, I scored 3.50 on the first scale and 1.03 on the second. Which puts me roughly where Tony Blair is on the political map.

Personally, I thought I'd be just a bit to the right of Ronald Reagan (I always thought he was a bit soft on communism) 









I suspect it was my total acceptance of same sex marriage and marijuana legalisation that kicked me over the line into semi-left territory. And my feelings about major corporations.

Fair enough. My hatred of firearms and the fact that my two best lifelong friends are both members of different racial groups than I am probably brands me forever as a semi-leftie in some people's minds...and in some methods of testing.

The cruel reality is that this particularly right-wing curmudgeon...ehmac's resident "right-wing *******"... is, apparently, at the VERY same place on the political map as the LEADER of the British Labour Party, should give some of the more radical amongst us reason for pause. Should make them all sit up and think, for a moment.

I haven't changed my views one single whit in the last thirty years or so. I am a SERIOUS conservative, in a political sense. No question about it. Have been since I was in my early twenties...and saw how things REALLY were, while living in some very distant lands.

But the fact that the British Left...which was, at one point, leading the modern world in leftishness...seems to have done a 180 degree about face during that reasonably short period of time...should really TELL everyone something.

So should all of the other "about-faces" that have occurred over the past two decades in the many, many, other countries that used to be so staunchly "left" back then. 

But...I don't actually expect any of the seriously indoctrinated around these parts to actually admit this simple fact to themselves. Or to any of the rest of us, here at ehmac.

Most of them are still in total denial. And completely insulated from the political reality that swirls around them on a daily basis. 

And I expect that many of them will argue that point while still hoping, against all hope, that the rest of the world is still contemplating a sudden last-minute leftish political shift.

They will worry away at this ad nauseum. And argue for the adavantages of it. Despite all of the many decades of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Watch and see.

[ August 19, 2004, 03:56 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

My political compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.25

Just as Macnutt saw Reagan as soft on communism, I saw FDR as a bit soft on the banking system and very wealthy capitalists. Still, he did bring us the New Deal (e.g., Social Security, the WPA, the CCC, etc., which were/are great testimonials to what a nation is able to do for itself if we all pull together to help our neighbors and our enviroment).

Macnutt and I are in agreement, except for one word. Substitute "rightist" for "leftist", and this is how I see the Bush administration.

"Most of them are still in total denial. And completely insulated from the political reality that swirls around them on a daily basis. 

And I expect that many of them will argue that point while still hoping, against all hope, that the rest of the world is still contemplating a sudden last-minute leftish political shift.

They will worry away at this ad nauseum. And argue for the adavantages of it. Despite all of the many decades of overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

Yes, "watch and see" the American voter rise up and help to "take back America" comes this November. No person, or president, is above the law and should be allowed to trample upon the basic social freedoms inherent in a democratic society.

Trust me on this.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MacNutt's view of heaven circa 1900 or circa 2000


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Sail on ship of state, sail on, a union, strong and great! Humanity with all its fears, with all its hopes of future years, is hanging on thy fate!" Maybe Macnutt knows something that Longfellow does not. Of course, Longfellow also wrote that "Ships that pass in the night, and speak each other in passing, only a signal shown, and a distant voice in the darkness; So on the ocean of life, we pass and speak one another, only a look and a voice, then darkness again and a silence."

We shall see...........


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I have been watching John Kerry's poll numbers with great interest. Especially since he hooked up with John Edwards as his chosen VP candidate.

I am on record here as saying that Kerry could be a big winner with Edwards as his running mate.

But the polls are not showing this at all.

Kerry is still even with, or slightly trailing Bush. In ALL the polls. He didn't even get the expected and traditional "bounce" from the recent Democratic Convention and all it's publicity.

Funny about that, eh?  

A decorated war hero with a VERY charismatic running mate up against what the media is telling us is a VERY unpopular current President should be a slam-dunk by any reasonable measure of things. The American people should be flocking to his side and abandoning the present leader, right about now. In DROVES.

But they're not.

In fact...the latest polls show Bush to be pulling slightly ahead of Kerry in popularity among the American people.

What gives?

And...in the face of these cruel facts... are some of you more ideologically driven types among you out there STILL willing to go wayyy out on a limb (the way Michael Moore did, just before the last US Congressional Elections) and predict a massive WIN for the Democrats in November?

If so...why?

And will you also be ready to instantly pull or re-edit all of your totally wrong predictions the day AFTER the elections? (The same way that Michael Moore did AFTER the US Congressional Elections) in order to save face and not seem to be so radically naieve?

If so....why?

Please explain in detail.


----------



## ShawnJ (Aug 14, 2004)

Apparently, *macnutt* hasn't been following the polls quite closely enough. All but the CNN/ USA TODAY/ GALLUP poll show a Kerry lead among likely and registered voters. (PollingReport.com)


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Kerry is still even with, or slightly trailing Bush. In ALL the polls.*

As of Aug. 19th, Kerry has 54% support in California (vs. Bush's 39%), 53% support in New York (vs. Bush's 35%). He's leading by 10% or more in 9 states.

Bush is leading in more states, but most of them are states with a far lower average population.

Kerry is currently heading towards an estimated 301 electoral votes, Bush just 213.

In other words, to say that Kerry is only even with or trailing Bush in all the polls is just a touch uninformed.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

In overall popularity and job approval ratings right now, Bush is at or near the 54% level. No American President has ever had this sort of job approval rating this late in the game and still lost the upcoming elections.

And George W. has the all-time record for sustained popularity among the American people. FDR, wasn't this popular with so many people for such an extended length of time. JFK wasn't even on the same page. Even Ronald Reagan couldn't hold those numbers for that long.

Clinton? Carter? Don't make me laugh.

In short, I'd say that Kerry is a very long way from a "sure-win". Even when he's riding on the popular coattails of John Edwards.

Bush is a known quantity for the American public. Even his worst critics have to admit that he has resolve.

Kerry, on the other hand, seems to change sides and bend in the political wind like a fragile stalk of grass. Much like our own liberal politicians here in Canada.

Some people outside of the Big Cities might see this as a certain form of weakness.

And a LOT of people in all of America might not want to gamble their collective future on a guy who seems to be a little weak in this area.

They want resolve. They want strength of will. Especially right now.


It's going to be a rather tight race, I'd say.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*In overall popularity and job approval ratings right now, Bush is at or near the 54% level.*

Really? According to who? According to CBS, Bush's Job approval is at 46% (source) and his favourability is at 43% (source).

Please show us where you are reading your polls. Just copy the URL of the poll from the address bar of your browser and paste it into the ehMac reply window, please.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

My source is MSNBC and CNN...which I have running in the background 24/7.

Plus, I get regular emails from a whole bunch of people that I used to work with in the USA. Most of them are pretty divided about the upcoming elections...but are leaning away from the wishy-washy Kerry.

And most everybody seems to be wondering what I am wondering right now.

Why is Kerry not a slam-dunk win right now? Especially if Bush is a unpopular as some people seem to think he is?

Like I said earlier...it's going to be a tight race.


----------



## ShawnJ (Aug 14, 2004)

I'm not sure what's worse, *macnutt*-- being uninformed or refusing to admit your repeated mistakes. CNN and MSNBC certainly don't comprise "all polls." We *do* have more than one media outlet in the states.







According to PollingReport.com, President Bush is *trailing* Kerry in head to head match ups in all but one poll. And his favorability and job performance ratings are certainly nowhere near mid-50's. They haven't been for quite a while.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Macnutt clearly subscribes to the 

*"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."*

school of thought. Since he sees no Fascist issues with the US currently I guess it fits.....given the author.  

Most Canadian hearts and minds are with YOU ShawnJ from PA.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, eventually, it will be believed"

This sounds like a Michael Moore philosophy. Or a Ralph Nader one. 









Michael Moore is currently being sued by a newspaper for artificially manipulating their headlines in his latest "documentary" in order to fake data and alter the perceptions of his few remaining fans. He is facing several other lawsuits for similar manipulation or ommission of "data"... and is currently suing an independant filmmaker for following him around and trying to document HIS life in the very same way that he has "documented" his chosen enemies on the right.

Poor Michael is, apparently, rather concerned that this independant filmmaker might actually use the very same methods that Michael himself has used so very many times in the past, on HIS subjects, in order to discredit his message and make him look silly in the eyes of the public.

Perish the thought. 

Ralph Nader...a longtime darling of the American Left, is currently being widely attacked by that very same American Left. In a big way.

And he is also accepting the lion's share of his political donations from the Republican Party, no less!

While he potentially takes a few hundred thousand (or a few MILLION) votes AWAY from the Democrats. Just as he did in the last American Presidential Elections. 

With NO hope of winning anything. It's strictly another ego-play by yet one more of the Left's tarnished former "Heroes".

And...get this... a couple of hundred of John Kerry's own fellow Vietnam buddies, who served in the very same boat squadron as he did, have banded together and said, publicly, that the guy was a scary wimp in battle. And that he accidentally shot himself while running away from a river battle, no less.

Which is how he got his purple heart. There is a LOT more about this subject on the interrnet. Look up "SwiftBoat" on Google if you want to be a tad more current on this subject. It's rather eye-opening. To say the least.

By now we are all well aware that Kerry's well-publicised post Vietnam anti war protests included a televised moment when he symbolically threw his war medals into the Potomac river. Trouble is, he bought those throwaway medals at a pawn shop. He still HAS his OWN medals.

And it is a well-known fact that he voted FOR the invasion of Iraq.

It is also a well-known fact that John Kerry is many times RICHER and more wealthy than George W. Bush.

But...he claims to represent the "common man".

While maintaining many different multi-million dollar homes in several different states. And changing his political position on many different issues according to the political wind.

George W. has ONE single home, in a small town in Texas, by the way. And he NEVER changes his position on ANY subject once he has made a decision...no matter WHAT the polls say.

Kerry has also publicly stated that he would be MUCH less likely to favor free trade with foreign countries. He would...like most Democrats...be a "Protectionist".

That would mean that the Americans...who are our BIGGEST trading partner, by far...would very likely try to curtail that trade in a big way, under a new Kerry Adminstration.

But...despite all of this...the more leftish amongst the Canadian public STILL seem to favor Kerry over Bush in the upcoming American Presidential Elections. Oddly enough.

(Must be the terribly pollouted water in the biggest of our cities. It's affected their judgement. No other way to explain it.)

Too funny.
















[ August 21, 2004, 05:13 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Just checked all of the polls availble in a Google search.

What did I find?

Kerry and Bush are pretty much neck and neck. Kerry is very slightly ahead THIS week (last week he was behind Bush).

So...my question remains....

Why is he not flying WAYYY out ahead of George W right now?

Why is he in such a close battle? With a President that the media is telling us is wildly unpopular, and is the butt of jokes?

And has been, for a very long time?

Care to delve into this puzzling situation? Care to share some insight?

We're all listening. Trot out your very best spin for this one.


----------



## ShawnJ (Aug 14, 2004)

*Macnutt*










You stubbornly did a "google search" after learning you were wrong. Anything wrong with Polling Report-- where you can conveniently find *all* major polls at once?  To each, their own, I guess. Sure are stubborn, though!









But, yeah, you're basically right this time-- Bush and Kerry are very close right now. Kerry still leads the President in all national polls except one-- but he's mostly within the margin of error-- so it's a statistical tie in that sense.

If anyone had a simple answer as to why it's a tie right now-- despite the failure of most of Bush's major policies-- I'd love to hear it. Political scientists, journalists, and armchair pundits like us have mulled over the question throughout the campaign. And the biggest reason I can think of is one the most polarized electorates in history. People have already made up their minds about Bush and Kerry to a large degree. And that's that, as they say.

As far as the media's role-- I've not once seen any newspaper claim Bush is "wildly unpopular" at home. Just until recently, most newspapers referred to Bush as a "popular wartime President"-- which was true in the months following Sept. 11th but hardly true since the months following Saddam's capture in December. However-- world opinion about Bush *is* particularly low. Newspapers have done a good job reporting that.


----------



## ShawnJ (Aug 14, 2004)

OH.

 

Those misnamed "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" have been thoroughly discredited in the news media. Knight-Ridder and The New York Times have both reported on the group's contradictions of previous statements supporting Kerry-- as well as demolished its claims that are completely unsupported by the facts.

I won't get into the rest of your post. With all due respect-- it just seems like a list of Republican talking points


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> ""If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, eventually, it will be believed"
> 
> This sounds like a Michael Moore philosophy. Or a Ralph Nader one.
> "


Macnutt you continue to spew uninformed "lies" - you don't check your background - as you didn't here.
You exaggerate and bull**** to your heart's content. The quote's source is as far MM and Nader as you are.

His ideas were thoroughly, thoroughly discredited as well tho they certainly had the "ride em cowboy", might is right, attitude deeply embedded.

You never learn to check the background before you blather.
Nader or MM......





































I notice you share the same compass corner with Thatcher and the author of the quote.........how perfect. 

[ August 21, 2004, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well we KNOW SSI attracts the edge dwellers - you're just the teeter to MacNutts totter......and we're very glad of it.  

I think you a Dr. G are anchoring the edges of the nation with double - 7s.  You've got good company there in Ghandi and the Dalai Llama


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Economic Left/Right: -7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03

I did this test before and seem to remember an 8 for one of my numbers. Put me on the graph as an anarchist.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

MacNutt: *My source is MSNBC and CNN...which I have running in the background 24/7.*

Yet it is the _rest of us_ who are brainwashed ideological sheep! Thank you for that insight. With all respect, I suggest you moderate your _intake_ and introduce a little more _variety_ to your own "programming", MacNutt.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

The graph has been updated with all the latest numbers.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Ahh the insults and personal attacks fly my way once again. The blather and bluster continues...

And I'm _LOVIN_ it!  

Because it only serves to cover your inability to answer the basic question that has been asked:

"If Goerge W. is so unpopular, and Kerry the war hero is such an obviously better choice (especially when running with the JFK-esque John Edwards).....then how come it's still such a tight race? Especially right after the recent Democratic Convention?"

Shouldn't all of the positive publicity have given them a BIT of a bounce in the polls? What about Micheal Moore's much-vaunted "Farenheit 911" that was released at almost the very same time? Shouldn't all of this have ashcanned George W's re-election chances? Big Time?

But it didn't. None of it has had much effect at all. And the Republican Convention is just around the corner.

Will the Bush campaign get a "bounce" in the polls after the RC?

Anyone care to go out on a limb and make a prediction here?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, re your questions -- "Will the Bush campaign get a "bounce" in the polls after the RC?" Yes, unless he gets extremely negative about Kerry.

"Anyone care to go out on a limb and make a prediction here?" Bush has not sunk as low as he might because he is still the sitting president. It was not until people realized the shere magnitude of the war in Vietnam, in terms of lives lost and billions squandered, that the public turned on LBJ. If Bush is reelected and remains in Iraq, his support too shall plunge lower than any president in recent memory, especially when the recession sets in due to all of the wasted money that was spent in Iraq. He has wisely redirected the campaign towards Kerry and his war record, rather than dealing with current issues, such as the economy and Iraq. 

So, Bush, just like the badger, shall burrow underground and wait, trying to stay out of the daylight of truth. Luckily for America, "help is on the way", in the form of Kerry the dachshund.

Trust me on this.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, 7 is my lucky number. Still, I was able to be free in that charting and disregard the reality that there are no Utopian Socialists running in my riding.


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

I'll go out on a limb here and judging by what I've been reading about the new computer voting machines I'm predicting a huge chaotic mess which will result, I'm sure, in the election process being dragged through the courts again.

You're an American ?, you voted ? are you sure ?

http://verifiedvoting.org/

in the words of our good friend macnut...

"trust me on this"


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

New electronic voting machines or ancient punch cards with their notorious "hanging chads"...

It's all just a great smokescreen to hide the REAL reason. Simply a convenient excuse.

Ralph Nader will steal enough votes from the dems to seriously hurt them, once again, and Kerry/Edwards are not nearly as overwhelmingly popular as they SHOULD be right now. Especially after all of the public attacks and ridicule that's been heaped upon Bush by celebrity types, and after the nationwide screening of a notorious politically motivated "documentary" that trashed him severly while raising all sorts of questions about his connections to the bin Laden family.

I'm not saying a Bush win in November is a sure thing. Not hardly.

But I don't quite understand why a Bush LOSS isn't a dead nuts certainty right now, given all that we have heard, and all that has been said.

And nobody seems to be able to come up with a decent answer to that question. Interesting, eh?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, once again I say this is because Bush is the president in office. No one gave Clinton much of a chance in 1992 because Bush Sr. was the president in office who was seeking reelection. No other president who was elected to the office in a presidential election, and sought reelection, was ever defeated in the 20th century except for Taft in 1912, Hoover in 1932, and Bush in 1992. William Howard Taft was President Roosevelt's chosen successor when TR decided not to run again in 1908, but when he again ran as a Progressive in 1912, he split the vote, helping Wilson to win. Hoover had the Depression around his neck and Roosevelt had the "New Deal". After Bush Sr. came out with his "Read my lips -- No new taxes!", on which he foolishly "flip-flopped", and Clinton had the phrase, "It's the economy, stupid.", Bush Sr. became the third Republican president who had been elected and wanted to be reelected to a second term go down to defeat. 

Hopefully, Bush Jr. shall carry on with this Republican and family tradition and go down to defeat. "Help is on the way."

Trust me on this.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_and nobody seems to be able to come up with a decent answer to that question._

You're on the wrong board but I'll fill you in - the question was asked - similar to yours but phrased better.

"_I would love to discuss why after Bush’s questionable behavior is this race so close?"_

An answer to THAT question



> Bush's behaviour is "questionable" only in the minds of about 8% of registered voters.
> 
> In the eyes of 87% of Republicans he can do no wrong.
> In essentially a two party system with first past the post AND the electoral college system, that 87% support figure automatically means it will be close race.
> ...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*And nobody seems to be able to come up with a decent answer to that question. Interesting, eh?*

And nobody will ever be able to come up with an answer that Macnutt will find "decent". Maybe if he took the blinders off ...

His questions have been answered again and again yet ehMaccer's patiently help him out again and again. But he seems to not be able to answer questions that others have posed directly to him. 

It's all become rather tiresome.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You mean like responding to Bin Laden's letter in an intelligent manner. Yes noticeably absent.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

*And nobody will ever be able to come up with an answer that Macnutt will find "decent". Maybe if he took the blinders off ...*

... or took a break from the 24/7 MSNBC/CNN feed...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Still unable to come up with a decent answer, eh? Only insults and ridicule that are designed to mask your creeping collective fear that Bush will be re-elected this fall. 

I expected as much.










Okay then...you didn't do so well with that last question, so here's a new question for you all to carefully dodge in (not so) clever ways:

"What would it actually TAKE to soundly defeat George W. Bush in the upcoming election?"

Clean slate here. Let your minds roam free and come up with a wish-list of Democratic candidates and scenarios that would be a slam-dunk to make the current President of the USA vanish from the scene.

Remember....a popular Democratic Presidential candidate who is also a decorated war hero coupled with the modern incarnation of JFK won't do the trick. Neither will a massively popular "documentary" trashing everything about Bush and making him look like he's both a criminal and an idiot. Neither will pretty much every talk show host and celebrity in the media...plus almost all of the political cartoonists in America...regularly lampooning him and making him look like a fool. For the past two years or so.

All of that has been tried...and it just aint cuttin it.

Neither will having most of Europe and the rest of North America calling Bush a "terrorist" on a regular basis.

None of that has worked. He's still running neck and neck with Kerry.

So...given all of that...what will it take, in a perfect world, to soundly defeat George W. Bush in the upcoming Presidential election?

Interested in hearing your replies.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"So...given all of that...what will it take, in a perfect world, to soundly defeat George W. Bush in the upcoming Presidential election?"

For the LAST time, "read my lips" -- It shall take the American people expressing their democratic right to vote, if Bush allows the voting to go forth on the first Tuesday in November. If these votes are counted accurately, then you shall have your answer. Luckily, we won't have Bush "...to kick around anymore". Then, in January, you may turn your wrath upon President Kerry.

Trust me on this.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Actually Dr. G, I don't dislike John Kerry. I think he might just make a good President. He certainly seems qualified (unlike Clinton or Carter).

And I have been saying, for a VERY long time here at ehmac, that John Edwards has a touch of true greatness about him. THIS guy could be what JFK promised to be...but never was. 

Unfortunately for those here who are great fans of the leftish side of the fence...it will take rather more than a good turnout at the polls and reliable voting returns to catapault Kerry into the Whitehouse.

It will, at least at this point, require a sudden change of heart by a signifigant number of solid Republicans PLUS the total turnout by ALL of the comitted Democrats. And NO signifigant vote for Ralph Nader.

And, perhaps a full moon. And an unexpected planetary alignment.

So...I ask, once again...what would be the best case scenario for a major Democratic WIN in the Presidential Elections this november? What will be a clear cut "slam-dunk" in your minds? What would it take to practically guarantee a sure-win for Kerry?

Anyone?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You get answered and you don't bother to read - YOU WERE ANSWERED



> Bush's behaviour is "questionable" only in the minds of about 8% of registered voters.
> 
> In the eyes of 87% of Republicans he can do no wrong.
> In essentially a two party system with first past the post AND the electoral college system, *that 87% support figure automatically means it will be close race.*


Just more mindless blather on your part. Republicans like Bush, you like Bush.
What would it take for a slam dunk??
Republicans and the likes of you to wake up and join the world......and if you're an example of cotton filled ears and minds populating that mindset.........is not likely to happen anytime soon.

Mindset????.....yeah, set in concrete.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Lame answer. 

The people who think that the US is doing just fine under George Bush are pretty much evenly balanced by the people who do not think so right now.

But the ones who do NOT think so can't seem to come up with any sort of alternative course of action that will accomplish the same end that everyone seems to want.

They just hate Bush. Most aren't even really certain why. They just hate.

And, no matter WHAT they do, they can't seem to convince even a small amount of the poeple who think Bush is on the right track to flip over and follow THEIR guy.

Mostly, I'd suspect, because THEIR guy seems to switch sides as often as the wind changes direction. And this scares a lot of people at a time when real resolve is needed. (it even scares some hard line Democrats)

So....I ask again:

What sort of monumental change or revelation could turn enough comitted Republicans over to the Democratic side to make Kerry a sure-win?

Or...better yet...what could Kerry do or change in order to reassure a whole bunch of Republicans that he will NOT be too wishy-washy in the war on terror? And, therefore persuade fence-sitting Republicans to vote for HIM instead of Bush?

The swing vote in the USA is ALWAYS there. ALWAYS.

You just have to say or do the right thing to make it come your way.

What would it take to get Kerry a sure-fire win?

Care to speculate?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"What would it take to get Kerry a sure-fire win?" Since there is no such thing as a "sure-fire win" in US presidential politics (i.e., "Dewey defeats Truman"), there is no answer to your question. A high turnout in US federal elections indicates a voting against the incumbant. It has happened before and, hopefully, it shall happen again this November. We shall see.

And, for the last time, trust me on this.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MacNutt you're an ass - you ask for an answer then you claim it's lame. What's lame is your never ending dodging and ducking.

You patently have not a clue what you are talking about nor do you understand the English language very well. 

[ August 24, 2004, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

First Test:
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.38

Second Test:
You are a Traditional Liberal.


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

I think the person's personality goes far when it comes to politics. I dont think Kerry has the personality say of a Bill Clinton. I think that personality would take someone over the edge at a fairly close race. Look at Ronald Regan.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*- you ask for an answer then you claim it's lame. What's lame is your never ending dodging and ducking.*

Agreed!









Macnutt has attempted to set himself up as the arbiter of all debate. He poses his supposedly "killer" questions, that he thinks the befuddled lefties can't possibly answer, then when they do, he either ignores or dismisses their answers out of hand, while at the same time ignoring direct questions posed to him. In most of the threads he participates in, he lowers the quality of the discussion by resorting to unsubstantiated facts and opinions and fallacious argument. Whenever he is asked to back up his "arguments" with a few facts, he never does. But he will continue to go on repeating the same unsubstantiated facts, ad naseum.

He is fulfilling the traditional position of a troll in this forum. The best way to deal with a troll is to ignore him.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Back to the subject of this thread.

Thanks, Posterboy, for making the graph. It's truly instructive to see where most of us stand on that scale.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Whack the Troll is too violent.......Shun the Troll is too anti-social.........and Curse the Troll is not my style. How about the game "Accept the Troll for who he is and get on with Life"???


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

I have remapped PosterBoy's results onto a new chart for yet another perspective. I don't know what it means - but you might find some engaging analysis here . Yes its a slow day.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

What I keep getting when I ask the simple question "What would it take to decisively defeat George W. Bush" is a bunch of hooey and nonsense. It's not an answer, it's just smoke and mirrors to cover an embarrassing lack of momentum in the Kerry campaign.

(yeah..."all of the Republicans would have to suddenly wake up and change their minds"....but you neglect to say just exactly WHAT it would take to do that)

The whole thing masks a much deeper insecurity amongst the left/lib types. Especially since their best and brightest have recently trotted out the very best that they could, and put it out on display before a nation that is already not too terribly happy with how things are going at the moment.

But, surprisingly, it hasn't had much effect on the poll numbers. Hardly any effect at all, really.

This has GOT to be a scary time for those who hate Bush and want him gone. My heart goes out to them.

And it makes me want to reach out to them. And tell them this:

I hear the unspoken fear beneath your outrage and blustering insults...and I feel your pain. It would be a terrible blow to you if, after all that's happened, George W. was re-elected this november. Scary canary. 







 

And...this is the really frightening scenario...what if, after another half decade of strong Bush rule, the middle east actually WAS beginning to turn into a collection of prosperous and self-determining states that no longer seemed to have the will to generate the kind of horrific violence that has begun to touch all of us?

What if...like the Soviet Union and China and Japan and Germany...a former major threat had been turned into a happy trading partner by a pivotal and forward-thinking US Adminstration that made just the right moves at just the right time?

What if, like Reagan, George W. was beginning to be revered as a "man who made a difference" by then?

This must be a truly frightening scenario for all of those of you who have been busily spewing anti-Bush vitriol in such a public way for so very long. Especially since it's all now a part of the public record.

Better hope that Bush doesn't win this fall. And that the whole Iraq/middle east thing fails badly. Best to hope for the worst all around, really.   

(What a thought.)  

Oh...and by the way, macdoc.

If, at some point during our ongoing debates, you feel an overwhelming need to vent your frustrations and insult me on a personal level, or call me nasty names on this forum...then perhaps you might want to do it in a Private Message (just to preserve the civility and politeness that this place has become rather well known for.)  

After all, I have never called YOU any nasty names, or purposely made you look like a fool, here at ehmac.

You seem to be quite capable of doing that all by yourself, without any outside help at all, or so it would seem. 

[ August 25, 2004, 03:42 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## Kardnal (Feb 5, 2003)

Huh, I thought I'd turn out to be more libertarian then I did...

Economic Left/Right: -1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41


----------



## Greenman (Feb 22, 2003)

Just about where I thought I'd be...

Economic Left/Right: -7.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.97


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

No surprise here: 
Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44


----------

