Stupid question, but can any of you recommend sites comparing the candidates’ positions on different issues? I don’t expect someone who will crush the fossil fuel lobby and open the borders in the 1st 100 days, but I’d like to know who comes closest.
4 Likes
3 Likes
Thank you, is there some way to stop the flashing and navigate the site?
Like that front page flashes the images.
https://www.isidewith.com/elections/ doesn’t load properly and occasionally flashes the whole page.
https://www.isidewith.com/poll/734977926 doesn’t load properly, resizes the graph while loading, jumps up and down, and includes postion:fixed or position:sticky elements on either side.
Didn’t help me at all. I answered every question they had. Apparently I’m a Socialist, Green, or Democrat, align most closely with voters in western Massachusetts and upstate New York, and can pretty much vote for any Democrat.
It’s nice that they can loosely identify my party affiliation after I did all the heavy lifting and then some, but how does this help me? I’m a registered Independent, so I have no party affiliation. The really useless part of all of this is that it doesn’t help me decide between any of the candidates. I am apparently in at least 85% agreement with Gillibrand, Yang, O’Rourke, Buttigieg, Booker, Sanders, Warren, Gabbard, and a couple others whom I’m blanking on, but in reality, I think:
- one of them is my preferred candidate
- two of them are people I’d be okay voting for but aren’t my top choice,
- three more shouldn’t be running because they’re only confusing the field and not really offering anything different or original
- another two are complete ciphers to me, and I wouldn’t even vote for them if I had the opportunity (big if there)
- the rest don’t even pass my recall test
My big problem with this site is that I can’t really compare and contrast candidates the way I’d like to. As much as I’d like a cheat sheet, I think the only way I can find out what I need to know is through in depth research
7 Likes
I’m getting similarly useless results. It’s telling me that 8 candidates are a 97% or better match, including some I have major reservations about.
I do hope some of the less distinctive candidates drop out and the choice becomes easier, or else we get ranked choice voting for the primary or something. I don’t want it to come down to Biden vs. splitting the progressive vote between three different relatively close choices.
6 Likes
Goddamn…
I thought I was drinking the Democrat kool-aid with at least 8 matches between 85% and 95% (none higher). I remember back in the runup to the 2008 election when my closest match was Obama at 54%.* I was a lot more libertarian leaning then than now, though, so I didn’t fit in with either of the major parties.
*it had actually been Democratic candidate Mike Gravel, whose campaign flamed out in 2007.
Such as the anti circumcision independent candidate I’m an 87% match with 
My real issue with this site is that it conflates mouth farts with support. A candidate who makes a lot of mouth farts will match a lot of people and match them strongly. Take Buttigieg, for example.* I’m not sure what he actually believes about anything, but I match him 90%. This is because he’s got a good rhetoric game and says all the right words, but also makes cringy statements about SJWs and identity politics and completely ignores class issues. Same with Beto, to an extent.
*and take him far away
I ran into this same issue in the 2016 election. People would link me to this site and then say, “Look, you match Hillary Clinton 90%. Why not support her instead? You’ll get most of what you want anyway, and at least she’s electable.”* Nope, doesn’t work that way. Just because someone agrees with something the other candidate said, after they pivoted in that direction but before they pivoted in the other direction, doesn’t mean I’ll “get what I want”. It doesn’t even mean I can get what I want if i work within the system. It means “candidate X will briefly talk about such and such position, which has been a mainstream political idea for the past 20 years but which X never even said they supported, because they think it means they can get votes”.
- Narrator: She wasn’t
6 Likes
At this point, I’m only sure of NOT BIDEN.
5 Likes
They want to consume him, like a hearty stew. Every last drop of Booty Judge. Yum.
3 Likes
7 Likes
Not many surprises here. Biden, Harris, O’Rourke, and Trump are all cheap, and Sanders and Warren are (at least somewhat) putting their money where their mouths are.
6 Likes
i find this high-horse stuff bullshit. let’s see them in comparison to some republicans, at least, but saying “they need to give more because they are liberals” is so destructive and gets us nowhere.
4 Likes
Not sure if that was real life or a scene from Chuck Tingle’s latest, Pounded in the Buttigieg by the Latest Democratic Flavor of the Month
4 Likes
There are Republicans in that article (Trump and Romney at least, from what I recall). Although I don’t see the relevance, as pertains to the question of who should be the candidate running against Trump in 2020.
3 Likes
I don’t think it’s bullshit at all. It helps me distinguish between the people who think they should throw crusts of bread because “they’re liberals and they’re better” from people who actually believe in supporting others.
3 Likes
meh. unless we get to see how much the author gives, i think it’s crap. who gets to say how much people have to give? i’m happy people give at all, and the more the better, sure, but to judge people based on how much they give is super off-putting to me.
1 Like
Okay, fine - I’LL RUN. Who wants to be for Vice…er, President, that is?
7 Likes
Again, what relevance does that have to the 2020 election? Is a story about a comparison of candidates’ border policies crap unless the author states their own preferred policy? And the same for budgets, militarism, drug enforcement, etc.?
If you’re talking about the family living next door, sure. But these are people running for president; their relationship with their community can absolutely be a factor in who people should vote for.
4 Likes
Who cares how much the author gives? Journalists are one rung above cockroaches in my estimation.
I get it. If we make this a regular thing, then politicians will give to charity solely to prepare for the election. Speaking of one rung above cockroaches.
But it’s really telling when someone has more money than any one person should know what to do with, and they still give fuck all to charity.
1 Like
If that means the President of Vices, I’m in!
2 Likes
Sorry, that job is taken. President of Vises is still open, though.
4 Likes