McCain, Clinton Win New Hampshire

Well the title says it. I figured some of you guys might be interested in the results of New Hampshire. Next week is Michigan, where I live. Somehow I don't expect any of the campaigns to ring me up.

Comments

fuck the news media

[Shakrai]

I watched just enough of the coverage last night to walk away with one observation: Fuck the news media.

Seriously. They spent more time talking about Hillary "tearing up" then they did talking about policy differences between the candidates.

"Do you think those were genuine emotions on her part or was it calculated?" WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK! Why don't you tell us about her health care policy? Or her votes in the Senate? Why don't you do some research into Obama's time as a state legislator, because most of us outside of Illinois know next to nothing about this period in his life.

And why all this goddamn focus on who "wins" each state? The primaries (at least for the Dems) aren't a winner-take-all. All three of the leading Democratic candidates walk away from this with delegates to the convention. All three of them walked away from Iowa with delegates. Yet somehow Hillary's loss in Iowa all but doomed her campaign in the eyes of the media.

*sigh* And they wonder why people are disillusioned with the process.....

Re:fuck the news media

[timster]

Why don't you tell us about her health care policy? Or her votes in the Senate?

Well, as we all know the answer is mostly ratings, there is at least some sense to it. While the President does have a bully pulpit, they don't write laws, and can't ultimately pass a health care policy, and certainly don't vote in the Senate. That is the job of legislators.

If you consider the Bush administration, most of his important successes and failures are not legislative in nature. The famous tax cuts are somewhat overblown, since there was a surplus at the time and everybody (including Gore) had a tax cut proposal. The much-hyped social security reform did not occur. The immigration plan did not pass.

Presidential candidates are always full of legislative proposals, but they are seldom remembered long. Bush's operational record is much more interesting -- the years of failure to react when Rumsfeld's war plan was not working, the laid-back approach to Katrina disaster relief, the poor international relations. The point is that if you judge presidential candidates entirely by their policy positions -- as if they were running for the Senate -- they can all look deceptively similar. So it's not surprising that the electorate at large is looking for signs of leadership and a particular philosphy more than they are looking for detailed policy proposals.

Re:fuck the news media

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you want a president that starts crying in front of foreign leaders because foreign policy is just darn too difficult?

Re:fuck the news media

[Shakrai]

Well, as we all know the answer is mostly ratings, there is at least some sense to it. While the President does have a bully pulpit, they don't write laws, and can't ultimately pass a health care policy, and certainly don't vote in the Senate. That is the job of legislators.

While I completely agree with what you are saying, I still think it would be a better service to our Democracy if the media focused less on Hillary's personality and more on the viewpoints and positions of the candidates. Who the hell cares how "likeable" she is? You realize that in 2000 and 2004 people voted for the candidate that they'd "rather have a beer with". How'd that turn out again?

So it's not surprising that the electorate at large is looking for signs of leadership and a particular philosphy more than they are looking for detailed policy proposals.

I'm starving for leadership. That's probably why I've become a fan of Obama. He is actually inspires me, which I haven't been able to say in a long time about a candidate for Federal office. Regardless, I still fail to see how the media spending hours talking about Hillary's tears and whether or not they were "real" is a productive use of time.

Re:fuck the news media

[Reality Master 101]

"Do you think those were genuine emotions on her part or was it calculated?" WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK! Why don't you tell us about her health care policy? Or her votes in the Senate?

I'm not going to defend the TV news media (I don't watch them AT ALL, and I don't understand why anyone does), but on this particular point, of course genuine emotions matter! The sincerity and trust of the candidate is paramount to everything. What difference does it make what a candidate *says* they stand for, if you can't believe they speak with any sincerity?

The biggest knock against Hillary (and Bill) is that they'll say ANYTHING to get elected. It's all about manipulation.

I'm not that much of a fan of Ron Paul's ideas, but I believe him when he says that's what he'll do when he's in office. With Hillary, I have no idea what she'll actually do once in office. Her promises mean nothing.

Re:fuck the news media

[hey!]

Well, because character does matter.

I've read the position papers of the candidates on things like health care, and Iraq. Every one is full of holes as swiss cheese, because there aren't simple and universally supported strategies to solve the kinds of problems that don't go away on their own.

You must can't take an issue like health care and reform it by making a wonderfully clever proposal. You've go to have the mother of all hissy fit fights even to tweak something a bit. In a real reform fight, having the trust and confidence of the American people is a huge asset.

When a candidate has a moment of unguarded emotion, it becomes a crisis point in the campaign. Do the people believe it was real, or was it feigned? Was it a sign of weakness, or strength? What people believe about that incident tells you a great deal about the kind of political power he will be able to marshal for his programs.

The HRC "welling tears" incident may well have been a watershed moment for HRC. When asked to explain it, she said something extremely revealing. She was touched by somebody expressing concern for her, and at the same time she was uncomfortable because she wants to be judged by what she does, not who she is. In short, she is most comfortable if she can campaign with a firewall of proposals, position papers, and resume items between her self and the people who might vote for her.

This explains something about HRC's candidacy that has bothered me for a long time. She is obviously extremely bright, hard working, and experienced, but somehow she her performance has had a canned, lackluster quality. The party is fixing to set the electoral barn on fire, and Hillary's been obstinately waving her wet blanket of experience and cautious centrism. In light of the events leading up to NH, what is clear is that the wet blanket is there to protect her ego. She knows probably better than anybody else how personally painful politics can be, so while she's quite happy to have her ideas and proposals set up for criticism, she's been withholding herself from criticism.

People don't change overnight, but HRC is clearly a hard working, ambitious and determine person. The question is whether she'll take the personal risks needed to achieve victory, or whether she'll only make a pretense of doing so.

Re:fuck the news media

[OldeTimeGeek]

So Hillary showed a moment of (probably unscripted) humanity. So what? Does this make her any more qualified to be President? Is it better to have someone who is competent or charismatic? Not saying, of course, that any of the Democratic candidates is less competent than the others for the office, but two are definitely more charismatic than the other.

To me, the problem lies with how people project their own personalities onto the candidate rather than how the candidate actually is.

Hillary Clinton, who most people will agree is very smart, has problems because people just can't connect on a personal level with her. And because of this, people feel that she's being disingenuous with them.

Barak Obama does better because, along with being intelligent, he makes people feel that there is a commonality between them. People think that they see something of themselves in him and are able to see what they want or hear what they want. People want to hope for something new and he gives them a platform to place this hope upon. This in no way diminishes from his intelligence, it's just the way that people work.

I see a lot of parallels between his candidacy and the one of John Kennedy. Youthful, smart, well-spoken and someone that people connect with. In 1960, people wanted youth and energy. In 2008, people want hope. Funny thing is, didn't people want much the same thing in 1992 when a complete unknown named Bill Clinton was elected?

Re:fuck the news media

[hey!]

So Hillary showed a moment of (probably unscripted) humanity. So what? Does this make her any more qualified to be President?

What I am saying is that it might. It depends on what the most marginally informative piece of new information you might have. If you'd never heard of HRC, then it is unlikely to be very useful. If you know a great deal about HRC, it might provide insight you didn't have before.

The fundamental political skill of anybody who wants to change things has to be be the ability to get around professional opinion formers and connect directly with enough people to neutralize them. Otherwise you get stuck endlessly explaining that, no, you didn't claim to have invented the technology behind the Internet.

Does this mean HRC can do it? I have had doubts all along. But if she proves she can, this incident will be seen in retrospect as a watershed. If she doesn't, it'll be another one of those things that just happened and nobody is sure if it meant anything.

Re:fuck the news media

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this 'insightful'?

Well, as we all know the answer is mostly ratings, there is at least some sense to it. While the President does have a bully pulpit, they don't write laws, and can't ultimately pass a health care policy, and certainly don't vote in the Senate. That is the job of legislators. Yet the president certainly has the ability to set the tone... Not to mention appointments the SCOTUS. And its competently predicted that the next prez could appoint up to three seats.
So, on these two points alone, the media/candidates should be focused on positions and record as opposed to 'change'. Which by the way is just a bumper sticker. I have YET to hear any of the dems DEFINE this 'slogan'.

If you consider the Bush administration, most of his important successes and failures are not legislative in nature. The famous tax cuts are somewhat overblown, since there was a surplus at the time and everybody (including Gore) had a tax cut proposal. The much-hyped social security reform did not occur. The immigration plan did not pass. And these statements reflect a presidential position and his ability to motivate/direct/influence.
Hello!
BTW..the tax cuts were not overblown. They served their purpose well. It didnt 'kill the economy' as was 'predicted'. It actually helped. The tax cuts followed past cuts by Kennedy and Reagan. Just as it worked then, it worked again.
SS reform was wacked by the Dems who seem to believe SS is 'just fine'. Well, fine, if they get their way and raise taxes thru the roof.
Immigration 'reform' didnt pass due to public backlash. For ONCE 'we the people' actually had some influence. Unlike the fence that was legistatively passed but is receiving no funding and is 'dead' due to a clause in the law that includes the phrase 'as deemed necessary', rather than, 'shall be done'.

Presidential candidates are always full of legislative proposals, but they are seldom remembered long. Bush's operational record is much more interesting -- the years of failure to react when Rumsfeld's war plan was not working, the laid-back approach to Katrina disaster relief, the poor international relations. The point is that if you judge presidential candidates entirely by their policy positions -- as if they were running for the Senate -- they can all look deceptively similar. So it's not surprising that the electorate at large is looking for signs of leadership and a particular philosphy more than they are looking for detailed policy proposals. War plan not working.. I have to give you that. The 'surge' should have been implemented much earlier. Bush seemed to be relying on 'the good people of Iraq'. That was a big mistake. We needed forces to 'seek and destroy' those that doing the killing.
Katrina. Please..PLEASE.. Enough with the revisionism. Its FACT that N.O.'s gov and Nagan were the cause. Both in their complete failure in implementing local disaster policies and their initial REFUSAL to accept help. Gee, if Bush sent em in WITHOUT the appoval, everyone would be screaming FACISM at a Federal g'ment that marched in, regardless of cause, without the states approval.
Philosophy verses policy? Well I for one look toward policy. Policy reflects Philosophy.

Re:fuck the news media

[jedidiah]

If a man slips on the street and cracks his head open do you "wait until he asks for help"?

What kind of assinine crap is that.

You don't just sit there not lifting a finger until he regains conciousness and can ask
for you to call an ambulance. You line up the resources. You ensure that your relevant
project manager has all his ducks in a row.

Alternatively, you could actually pay attention to the situation and step in
if need be.

You don't an engraved invitation to offer help.

Some private citizen old geezer in Texas understood this. Why doesn't "the leader of the free world".

Ron Paul Denouement

[fishdan]

Like most /.ers, I've been enamored of Ron Paul, but this poor showing in what should have been Ron's best state is disheartening to me. Yes, I know it was better than Fred Thompson -- but to be 2 places behind Huckabee? Ron's campaign seems to be so much more about the message than the man, which is great -- that's the way it should be. But the message is not getting our there. And I'm not sure why. Ron had a great point in the ABC debate when he pointed out that the price of a barrel of oil in gold is the same as it was in 1992. Everyone can understand that, and it clarifies why fixing fiscal policy is a giant issue. Ron's ideas of cutting spending, ending the war, following the Constitution and removing the income tax seem to be at least talking points that should be doing better than what Ron seems to be getting in the polls. So where is the disconnect?

I think the problem is that getting elected is still about campaigning -- and Ron's campaign is not being run as skillfully as others. Living in MA, I was waiting for the call to volunteer. I signed up to make phone calls, hold signs, do anything. I was never contacted or asked to do anything.

So I'll still keep giving money -- I want Ron's ideas to be heard everywhere, so that in 2012 the right candidate will not be buried/censored/mocked by the main stream media. And hopefully the campaign will raise the money sooner, and hire a real campaign manager. To change everything, as Ron and his followers want to do, will mean winning a presidential election -- and doing that means winning an American style presidential campaign. The message can win -- if it gets out there.

I hope someone can convince me there's still hope for this year, because I want to believe.

Re:Ron Paul Denouement

[MicktheMech]

The disconnect is that he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about on some of his key points.

Ron's ideas of cutting spending, ending the war, following the Constitution and removing the income tax seem to be at least talking points that should be doing better than what Ron seems to be getting in the polls.

Those are things a lot of people can get behind. The problem is when he starts talking about monetary policy (eliminating the fed, returning to a gold or other commodity standard). It sounds nice and he's good at putting it in terms people can understand. Except, those terms are misleading. What he's proposing will not fix the China problem, what it may do is tank the global economy. Before you get on the Ron Paul bandwagon look up a serious, respected economist and ask him how effective Paul's plans will be, I think it would be enlightening.

I realize that I'm criticizing Ron Paul on slashdot and the zealots will mod me down pretty quickly. I don't care about the karma, this needs to be said.

Re:Ron Paul Denouement

[riseoftheindividual]

Have you been watching the media on him? Last night, for example, I had to dig through googlenews to find his percentage of votes. The first 5 stories operated by mainstream outlets did not mention him in the writeups, though they mentioned that 4th place guy in the democratic primary that like 3 people in the country know about.

Change isn't going to come through a single candidate in a single election year. We didn't get to where we are through a single candidate in a single election year after all. Change is going to come when we stick to our guns, year after year, and vote for the candidate we think would be the best as opposed to voting for the one we think would suck least. Steadfast and true, never deviating from the conviction that we must vote for who we think would be best.

Our system is so corrupted with stupid homer simpsion ideas like "voting for who you think would be the best is throwing your vote away if he loses" and "we need to vote for this guy to stop that guy and worry about a good candidate in the next election"(which of course, never happens). That's really what we're fighting at this point. I have a friend who thinks Ron Paul is great, but he's voting for someone else because he doesn't believe Ron Paul can win against the democrat candidates. This thinking, year after year, election after election, is an extremely huge reason why we never have substantial change for the better in this country. Because we do the same things, engage in the same broken thinking, time and again, expecting a different outcome.

So what if it doesn't look like he can win(after the first two primaries in which no clear front runner has emerged I might add)... Do you think he's the best candidate for the job? If you do, stand by him till the end. Besides, what real choice do you have? I guess Huckabee is kind of appealing, he's got chuck norris and he can jam with rock bands. :P

Re:Ron Paul Denouement

[amorsen]

Your argument sounds kind of circular - don't use gold; it's not really worth anything. Use something valuable,

True, I'm arguing two things at once. First: If you WANT backing, gold is useless. It's a fiat currency in itself. So don't use gold. Use something with actual value.

but don't actually set it aside to back the dollar.

Second: You don't actually WANT backing. Proper backing means taking a lot of valuable stuff and hiding it away.

The ideal is to use something that is not 'useful', but is in limited quantity, so it means something that it backs the dollar. Gold sounds like a pretty good candidate to me.

Dollars are not useful and are available in limited quantities. And you don't actually have to hide anything away. Lots of useless work is done mining gold; in fact gold mining kills people.

Re:Joy!

[east coast]

May the best one win!

Knowing voters? They won't.

For the most part the top three aren't going to change. The media is doing their damnedest to see this holds true. The best I really hope for at this point is that some ideals sift to the top and people start to embrace candidates who don't march to the beat of a party drum. As much as I'd like to see Ron Paul at the top I think it would be just as sweet to see some more of his type of independence in the house and senate.

This might be good news for Obama...

[wbren]

If Obama can come within 2% of winning in a state that is about 97% white, I think he's got a very good chance nationwide. I don't think it's unfair to think that had something to do with the loss.

Re:Think for yourself, don't let the TV do it

[Manchot]

And before any of the Paulites offer a retort like, "Ron Paul says he didn't even write the newsletter," consider this. Whether he did or did not read the newsletter is completely irrelevant. The quotes are not isolated: for example, the entire "article" about the L.A. riots is a six-page racist tirade. Moreover, they span over a fifteen year period. Therefore, one can reasonably conclude that one of two things is true. Either a) Ron Paul read the newsletter and tacitly approved of what his ghost writer wrote or b) he didn't read the newsletter which he lent his name and support to once in fifteen years. Neither speaks well about his integrity.

Re:Michigan meaningless for Dems

[saider]

This is the problem with the media and over reporting of the primaries. It plays on people's unconscious desire to support a winner.

There should be no "momentum" in an election. The fact that there is illustrates that a significant number of voters "follow the leader". This is not to say that people are _completely_ sheepish, but rather when faced with a decision, a significant part of that decision is what other people are doing.

But, I guess that is how all social animals behave.

You understand? Then explain it

[SmallFurryCreature]

What is the point of comparing the price of oil with the price of gold?

Oil is bought with dollars (Venezuela and Iraq both considered switching to euros, guess which two countries the US didn't like) not gold. This is actually important, it is considered one of the things to help keep the dollar somewhat alive.

Gold is also not nearly as stable as people seem to think. So explain why this connection should be so clear and what it all means.

I have read up on Ron Paul and the couple of policies that he has sound intresting until you start to wonder how to actually implement them.

End the war. Oh goodie, another vietnam style strategic withdrawal (read route, if you are dumping your helicopts overboard to make room for new refugees, you ain't withdrawing, you are running)? The US made the mess, would be nice if you clean it up first before you go back home. It don't matter if you are pro or anti the war, it is a fact and you have to deal with it and you can't just runaway.

Cut spending. Another lovely one. I got a way to cut spending right here. NO SALARY FOR THE PRESIDENT and he pays rent for the whitehouse and buys his own airline tickets. Wanna bet NONE of these simple spending cuts will be taken up? On a larger level, you just can't cut spending. It just never works out, even if you try to do it for real and massively re-organize the state, the cost of the re-organisation will take years to re-coup in savings. Companies know this, that is why big companies when they make cuts in staff to save money ALWAYS reserve extra cash to pay for it. Saving money costs money. It gets even worse in big projects because the money you are cutting is somebodies income. Close a department and you are firing people, never a good idea for somebody who is elected by a popularity contest.

A policy of cutting spending is like a good intention with no actuall plan attached. Show me where you are going to cut spending, how you are going to deal with the sideeffects and how much it is going to cost to achieve in the first place.

Removing the income tax, another idiotic scheme. Sure it can be done, but it would require a massive change and is going to upset a lot of people. Voting people. It would basically force a radical change on how the US funds itself and what it can and cannot do. How are politicians going to buy votes with pork projects if there is no cash?

No Ron Paul is just another smooth talking figure head who promises everything that people like you want to hear without actually ever going into how he thinks he is going to achieve any of this.

In the Netherlands we got something called the "rekenkamer" (mathchamber) which during campaigns checks the various political parties agenda's for financial soundness (normaly they check the goverments policies). They don't judge right or wrong, just wether the financial side of it all makes sense. Promise free public transport, abolish taxes all fine with them, but the figures have to match up.

Perhaps the US should do something similar, check all the politicians promises and do the math.

Democracy in action

[clickclickdrone]

Considering how keen America is on exporting democracy to all and sundry, have you any idea how damned wierd your particular version looks to non-Americans? I've just had to spend twenty mins on Google trying to work it all out what with primaries, electroral collages etc. The fact that it seems to require so much money just to get heard doesn't help. Not really a very good advert for democracy in action.

Re:The current delegate count

[Steve525]

That doesn't match what is listed on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#R

Some of the difference may be due to the inclusion of unpledged delegates on CNN. But even so, Huckebee should be probably listed as 21, not 31, (and puts Romney considerably ahead).

Doesn't believe in Evolution!

[GnuPooh]

How anyone on Slashdot can seriously consider anyone that doesn't believe in Evolution is beyond me. It seems like a one question sanity test.

Re:Being a non-USA-ian

[devjoe]

This election, and the other ones in other states recently and in the near future, are not elections for any office. These are actually party elections within the major parties to determine which candidates the major parties will place on the ballot in the actual presidential election, which is this November just as you thought. Each election actually chooses delegates who are pledged to the various candidates, and this summer will attend a party convention where they actually choose their candidate.

Wikipedia provides a more detailed explanation. In particular, many states have moved their primaries to earlier dates this year in an attempt to have a greater perceived impact. The parties don't like this, and, since these are party events after all, they have reacted by stripping some or all of the delegates to be awarded in these early elections.

Re:Diebold locales for Clinton, Hand-counts to Oba

[Blakey Rat]

Yes, it's utterly impossible that different locales could have different election results. Everyone knows every state is entirely homogeneous.

Nah, seriously, I'm glad people like you are keeping tabs on things related to computer voting, but this little statistic just doesn't sound significant to me.

Re:The Candidates don't matter

[Just Some Guy]

Then there's his religious background. Even if you are willing to ignore his Muslim heritage (and, yes, I know the madrassa thing was overblown)

I am a white conservative Christian Republican. Obama is none of those. And yet I still think you're talking out your ass. Your allusion to "his Muslim heritage" fails in two huge ways:

• It's been proven time and time again that he isn't a Muslim, so why bring it up?
• It implies that there's a set of acceptable religions for those in government and a corresponding set of unacceptable ones. As a Baptist, I don't want Baptists added to the "bad list". Therefore, neither can I tolerate another religion added to that list. I don't agree with Islam and I'm not particularly in favor of Muslims in high office here, but intellectually I understand that I can't deny anyone that freedom while expecting to retain it myself. So drop it already, OK?

his current church is known for running astroturfing campaigns against telecoms, and astroturfing for Comcast.

Obama owns a church? Wow! That's more impressive than I'd given him credit for. Back in reality, it's pretty much guaranteed that every religious group has members that do something unappealing, and equally guaranteed that the other members have nothing to do with it.

Re:Some momentum is legit

[cayenne8]

"The existence of a Super Tuesday meant that elections after that have been meaningless, and ones before that are support important. That's what has been screwing up the elections, and letting "winners" of a small state with split delegate counts to screw things up."

This is what I don't understand...why the hell are Iowa and NH always first and second in this process?

I'd dare say they don't reflect a good spread of what the whole country thinks or wants. Why aren't ALL states voting at the same time, like in the national election? It sucks that candidates that would be more viable to the country as a whole are kicked to the curb early on before the rest of the country gets to vote for them to represent their party.

At the very least...they should move the starting primaries to different states each time...so that each state would get a chance to be first to evaluate the candidates.

There are many things that need to be considered for change in our election system, but, I'd say the primary method should be first to change as that it effects the WHOLE process early on...

Bad assumptions

[SuperKendall]

If Obama can come within 2% of winning in a state that is about 97% white, I think he's got a very good chance nationwide.

What a nice backhanded way of saying you think most people are racist pigs. Voters (especially) are better than that.

Re:Some momentum is legit

[alexhmit01]

This is what I don't understand...why the hell are Iowa and NH always first and second in this process?

Historical process? The national conventions officially pick the candidates. Local party activists and elected officials were the delegates (or picked them). There was the fighting in 1968 (mentioned elsewhere), but I think that New Hampshire created the idea of elected delegates (similar to how our electoral college is chosen by statewide popular vote, while originally the state legislatures named the electors) from a primary. The Iowa Democrats decided to have a caucus day for party organization, where people would show up all at once and conduct party business, and name the delegates to the national convention or something similar. In 1980 the Republicans in Iowa decided that they wanted to be first in the nation as well, so they set up a primary... but legally New Hampshire was protected as first primary, so they called it a caucus.

The argument for leaving it alone... If you come up with an idea to reform Democracy, and everyone copies it, should you keep a benefit? On top of that, the people of Iowa and New Hampshire, by the nature of the situation, appear to take primaries VERY seriously. Polls of the people showing up to vote have spent more time on the matter than others do. They have created a culture around their Caucus/Primary process, and maybe it's not a bad thing to do.

The pushed up Super Tuesday debacle is bad, but what if you leave Iowa/NH alone for historical reasons, but then have rotating small state regional ones. Michigan is big, but gives you a midwest primary, SC a southern one, Wyoming popped up with a western state early, but seemed mostly ignored... throw Oregon in there and you've done a round of regional voting. Add Delaware if you think that Midatlantic states get short thrift.

If you did those over the span of 2 months, then moved to larger regional primaries... i.e. have 2 states/week for the next 2 months, then let the big states move, you'd get a more fair system. The small states could let candidates practice retail campaigning, which lets non-corporate or rich candidates compete, but the big states would pick in the end.

In the end, a Super Tuesday with the 10-20 largest states would mean that in any contested primary, they pick who wins.

I would also standardize delegate selection... either winner take all or proportional. But by most places being proportional (which has the added benefit of the chief backers of major candidates all getting to go to the convention), and California being winner take all (IIRC from 4 years ago). California has a HUGELY disproportional affect... possibly to the point of single handedly decided a contested race.

California, by population, is something like 25x-30x the size of New Hampshire... It shouldn't have 100x the influence.

Re:The Candidates don't matter

[glwtta]

Hey, I like some of his policies. Though I do think that many of his economic policies, in particular, are completely unworkable; and his "social" policies mostly regressive.

I was referring to the fact that, policies aside, the man is batshit insane. Did you watch his speech? Even if he came up with the best policies on earth, the "leader of the free world" just shouldn't be a crazy person.

Re:votebyissue.org

[anaesthetica]

That poll would be better if it allowed you to weight each of the ten issues (say on a 1-5 scale of importance to you). Then it could calculate a weighted score for you--my concern about the economy is not equivalent to my concern about health care, and maybe other people vice versa. Assigning an equal weight to each issue distorts your final results.

Re:votebyissue.org

[Zott and Brock]

That quiz you mention is terribly long winded and uses insufferable political language. I found this short test linked from the Dennis Kucinich web site. It's centered on 25 key issues and takes only a few minutes of your time.