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.
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”.
At this point, I’m only sure of NOT BIDEN.
They want to consume him, like a hearty stew. Every last drop of Booty Judge. Yum.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Okay, fine - I’LL RUN. Who wants to be for Vice…er, President, that is?
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.
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.
If that means the President of Vices, I’m in!
Sorry, that job is taken. President of Vises is still open, though.
it’s just pretty arbitrary. there’s so many ways to help people that don’t involve giving money to charities. you could volunteer time, you could purchase from thrift or other stores whose proceeds benefit a charity, you could spend your weekends buying retail goods and handing them out on the street… none of those things would show up as direct donations to charity in this list. it’s a faulty metric to me.
But why would disclosing the journalist’s charitable donations make it any less faulty or arbitrary?
well, i’m just saying fair is fair. it doesn’t make it less faulty or arbitrary, but if one person’s gonna be the judge, i’m curious to know how the judge compares based on their own metric.
