Which Democratic candidate best aligns with your views?

Reader Simon called my attention to this quiz in the Washington Post that asks about your views on issues like gun control, immigration, government-sponsored health care, voting rights for felons, the Electoral College, and other stuff that we’ve been talking about. You get to answer 20 multiple-choice questions, and after giving each answer you are shown which Democratic candidates agree with you.

At the end, they tally up your answers and tell you which candidates agreed with you most often overall.

Take the test by clicking on the screenshot, and put your results below. Big fun!

And here are my results. I guess that makes me a centrist rather than a “progressive” Democrat. So be it. I’d still vote for any of these folks were they the candidate.

104 Comments

  1. Posted January 19, 2020 at 8:35 am | Permalink

    I can’t add a screenshot on my phone app, but I got #1 Yang, #2 Biden. I will be voting for Yang.

  2. Janet
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 8:41 am | Permalink

    Interesting…mine came up Yang in first place too, I was surprised. But he is just so level-headed and smart.

    Klobuchar second, yeah, go Amy.

    • Mark R.
      Posted January 19, 2020 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

      I’m with you!

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted January 19, 2020 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

        I had Yang in first place too. I knew I liked him: he and Klobuchar were my choices without knowing all these positions.

        I got:
        Yang 14
        Buttigieg 12
        Biden 11
        Bloomberg 10
        Klobuchar 9
        Steyer 9
        Sanders 7
        Warren 7
        Gabbard 7

  3. Diana MacPherson
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    I had Yang, Steyer, Buttigeg, Klobucher, Warren, Biden, Bloomberg.

    I’ve always liked Yang. I want a President Yang partly because racists would hate it and partly because I think he tells funny jokes but mostly because I think he’s sensible, has good ideas, and understands the issues without getting distracted by the nonsense. I
    He was on Maher’s Realtine this week and was only a fraction of the swarmy politician you normally see on the show.

    • Mark R.
      Posted January 19, 2020 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

      I loved his joke on Maher’s show…(paraphrasing) when I first decided to run I was told by people that an Asian can’t win POTUS…and the people were my parents.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted January 19, 2020 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

        Yes the quote is “….early on in my campaign, some people told me that an Asian couldn’t win the White House. And those people were my parents.”

        • Mark R.
          Posted January 19, 2020 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

          Thanks…call me lazy today. 😉

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted January 19, 2020 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

            I think it would have been funner if he had said “Early on in my campaign I heard from Asians that an Asian couldn’t win the white house and those Asians were my parents.”

  4. BobTerrace
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    I got Bloomberg with 15 matches and Steyer with 14. But a lot of this is just a matter of degree, not necessarily disagreement. A couple of the questions didn’t give me a suitable choice. There is too much nuance in these issues to be boiled down to a Chinese menu choice.

    • eric
      Posted January 19, 2020 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

      I got Bloomberg too. But I won’t vote for him in the primary. Like you, I thought several of the questions didn’t give a suitable choice. Moreover, I think he’s merely using the presidential run as a stepping stone to governor or senator, rather than being serious.

      Having said that, if it comes down to 2 or 3 candidates and he’s still in, I’d vote for him ahead of Warren or Sanders.

  5. chris moffatt
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    Guess I’m a centrist too but Tulsi Gabbard is the only one I really like. She’s right about America’s war involvement which curiously, wasn’t one of the twenty questions and the one that most distinguishes her position.

  6. cbranch
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    Thanks for posting this! I hope people who get Yang first will seriously consider him if they weren’t already.

    • Posted January 19, 2020 at 9:17 am | Permalink

      I am voting for him in the primary. I will happily support whoever the nominee is in the main election, however Yang is the perfect combination of progressive and pragmatic.

  7. Max Blancke
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 9:06 am | Permalink

    I got Bloomberg followed by Yang. But I am a gun collector, so Bloomberg is just not viable for me.
    Probably most people have multiple issues they care about, but a couple that are personally very important to them.
    If I thought they would leave my guns alone, I would go back to voting for abortion rights.

    I think there are a lot of us who find that every candidate is strongly against one or more of the viewpoints we hold.

    • Stephen Barnard
      Posted January 19, 2020 at 9:11 am | Permalink

      So your gun collection is more important to you than school children being massacred by well-armed maniacs.

      • Rita Prangle
        Posted January 19, 2020 at 9:29 am | Permalink

        It seems to me that these gun reactionaries don’t just want to own guns: they want to allow everyone, even people who should never have access to guns, to have them. I think they must resist any gun licensing tests because they either know or are afraid THEY can’t pass a test that would prove their ability to safely own guns.

        • Alexander
          Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:08 am | Permalink

          I t is common knowledge that any gun collector has a masculinity problem. Just like the people speeding in cars and causing the largest percentage of fatal accidents.

          • Posted January 19, 2020 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

            With respect, that is the worst example of an unscientific generalization based on personal bias I’ve seen in some time. And I am in favor of stricter gun control.

            • Diana MacPherson
              Posted January 19, 2020 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

              I agree. I guess I too have a problem with masculinity because I own a gun (passed down to me). I better go trim my moustache.

              • Posted January 20, 2020 at 4:29 am | Permalink

                Aawww, I think it suits you 😉

              • Diana MacPherson
                Posted January 20, 2020 at 6:44 am | Permalink

                🤣

            • Alexander
              Posted January 19, 2020 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

              When I did my one year long compulsory military service, our training included shooting with guns, machine guns and revolvers. Sometimes the targets consisted of a profile of a man, and then I realized fully how terrible it must be to be hit by a bullet from an army rifle. So I’m mystified how one can cherish these objects as one would do with antique telescopes or microscopes, for example.

              • Diana MacPherson
                Posted January 19, 2020 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

                Some of it is part of history. My great grandfather was a sniper. I was always a good shot. I think some of that is from him. My dad has antique guns – one is a muzzle loader so good luck trying to fire that one. He removed all the firing pins.

              • GBJames
                Posted January 19, 2020 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

                I have an 1848 Garibaldi rifle used during the Civil War hanging on the wall. The firing mechanism is rusted so it couldn’t be fired, but the bayonet could do some damage. It was handed down the generations to me.

                I’d melt it down in a heartbeat in exchange for serious gun control.

        • Jeff Chamberlain
          Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:15 am | Permalink

          I don’t know of any pro-gun person or group that fits this profile.

      • Max Blancke
        Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:39 am | Permalink

        That is so far from the truth, it is hard to even address.
        Just the fact that you might be serious about that remark says volumes about how far from reality the gun control arguments have gotten.

        I am sure that we both believe strongly in protecting children from maniacs. We seem to disagree on the solutions. Imagining that I am motivated by monstrous evil is not going to help us cooperate on finding workable solutions.

        I would be happy to discuss this, at length, without appropriating this forum and topic.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:43 am | Permalink

          Perhaps look at their gun policies. I don’t think you would lose your guns. I think they are advocation registration which, if fairly exacted, shouldn’t be a burden. I tend to be more sympathetic to gun owners, which I use as one of the pieces of evidence that I am a “bad Canadian”. 😀

        • Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:45 am | Permalink

          That’s so disingenuous. Our host’s sentence does not imply gun owners are motivated by “monstrous evil”, just that their priorities are screwed up. If you want to start a reasonable discussion on this topic, this is not the way to go.

        • Stephen Barnard
          Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:46 am | Permalink

          Bloomberg’s gun control policies contain nothing about confiscating gun collections. They are in my opinion common sense, moderate policies. By your own words, you appear to be someone who rejects any gun reform for selfish reasons.

      • DrBrydon
        Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:44 am | Permalink

        It is fallacious to think that restricting or eliminating the right to private ownership of firearms is going to end firearms crimes. It is also abusive to imply that people who do own firearms, and who do not use them in crimes, somehow have blood on their hands.

        • Stephen Barnard
          Posted January 19, 2020 at 11:22 am | Permalink

          Of course restricting private ownership of firearms would reduce (not “end” — straw man argument) firearms crimes. Duh. High capacity magazines, bump stocks, gun-show loophole, cheap ammunition — these are crazy. Do you think restricting people from carrying loaded guns onto airline flights is a reasonable policy?

          I’m not implying that all people who own firearms have “blood on their hands”. But for Max to rank Bloomberg as his #1 preference, but rule him out because of a gun collection, struck a nerve.

          • max blancke
            Posted January 19, 2020 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

            I did not rank him as my #1 preference, the linked website did.
            I also think that people who propose common sense restrictions on beverage size are probably tyrants at heart, but that is not a major voting issue for me.

            As for the gun issue, I like to think I have a very comprehensive knowledge of firearms technology, and a reasonably nuanced understanding of both firearms laws and gun crime. It is my view that the focus of the current gun debate is on passing laws that would primarily restrict law abiding gun owners, and ban the sorts of guns rarely used in crimes. More importantly, those laws would not have any positive effect on gun homicides, nor would they particularly inconvenience the people who commit them. That is my reasoned opinion.

            • Posted January 19, 2020 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

              Being a big fan of the Double Gulp, diet of course, rules out Bloomberg for me 🙂

              • Posted January 22, 2020 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

                😛 Yeah, me too on the double gulp. I can find the nearest 7-11 with my eyes closed. I’d like to break the habit but it’s a serious weakness.

              • Posted January 23, 2020 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

                And I think that there is a genetic component to this – our three offspring are also big fans of the big drinks 🙂

              • Posted January 24, 2020 at 12:30 am | Permalink

                I got some really bad news tonight. I went into the local 7-11 to get my fix and they had reusable cups. I say reusable cups but really they were insulated containers and hold, oh my, 100 oz of addicting material. I asked price and it was about $11 and refills were at the 53oz and up price. Haven’t bought yet, but I’m betting the temptation will get the better of me eventually.

              • Posted January 24, 2020 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

                🤣

        • Posted January 19, 2020 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

          It is fallacious to think that not being able to end a bad thing altogether invalidates any attempt to reduce the bad thing.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted January 19, 2020 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

      I haven’t heard any Democratic candidate come out in favor of denying law-abiding citizens the right to collect firearms (unless maybe the collection includes automatic or semi-automatic assault rifles — in which case, I say, sure, some folks find ’em fun to shoot, but we’ve all gotta sacrifice a little somethin’ for the commonweal).

      You don’t have a problem with registering the firearms in your collection, do you, Max — you know, the way everyone has to register cars and boats and aeroplanes?

      • Stephen Barnard
        Posted January 19, 2020 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

        I think what happens is that any politician who proposes even the most reasonable gun control measures, like universal background checks, is labeled by the NRA and their ilk as “anti-gun”, and that’s all the single-issue voters hear and care about.

  8. Tim J Reichert
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    Andrew Yang is the most likely to beat Trump and also has the most educated and sensible ideas for the future. If he is nominated he will beat Trump handily. If he is not nominated we get 4 more years of Trump.

    Both Trump voters and Fox News like him. Many Trump voters say they would vote for him if the Dems are smart enough to nominate him but don’t hold your breath on the DNC being smart.

  9. Historian
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    My totals were:

    Pete, 15
    Yang, 14
    Biden, 13
    Klobuchar, 13
    Bloomberg, 12
    Steyer, 12
    Warren, 9
    Gabbard, 9
    Sanders, 8

    This questionnaire is deeply flawed. It assumes that to the respondent each question has equal weight in importance. In reality, for most people certain policy areas are much more important than others, such as health care. I noticed also there weren’t any questions on foreign policy (except for trade). Why is that? In addition, in deciding whom to vote for, policy stances are only half of the equation. The other half is whether the person can be effective as president. That is, does the person have the experience and savvy to actually accomplish anything? I think that Pete and Yang would be overwhelmed dealing with the snake pit of Washington politics. Biden, of course, has immense experience, but I think he is simply too old to president. He looks like a walking mummy. Anything can happen to him at any moment. Thus, I am left with Klobuchar as the person I support. She has experience, is smart, knows well the ways of Washington, and has sensible policies. Of course, I will vote for whomever is the nominee without a second’s thought.

    • Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:42 am | Permalink

      The third half, after policy stances and effectiveness, is whether the policy stances are for real. On the quiz, Warren was my first (no surprise) and Buttigieg was second. But I have a bad feeling that Buttigieg may turn out like Obama, where what was delivered or seriously attempted bore only a vague relationship to what was promised.

      Of course, like most commenters, I will vote for any of them over Trump in a New York nanosecond.

      • Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:49 am | Permalink

        I think Obama was severely hampered by the racism-fueled resentment from Republicans. I don’t know if he would have delivered what you wished if that had not been the case though. The same thing might happen with a Butiegeg presidency due to his sexual orientation. Even if he beat Trump, his opponent’s campaign would definitely paint him as the devil incarnate.

    • Posted January 19, 2020 at 11:49 am | Permalink

      Yes, the missing foreign policy questions is a big flaw. I wonder if it would have affected my ranking. I think most candidates have similar multilateralist views.

  10. Greg Geisler
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    Yang. Not surprising as I have been contributing $$ to his campaign. I’m not sure he has a chance at the nomination but his ideas are such a refreshing departure from the tired and narrow-minded status quo. Listen to his discussion with Sam Harris if you haven’t already.

  11. David Harper
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    I’m a left-liberal British citizen, so I’m just an observer in this contest, but for the fun of it …

    Steyer (14)
    Warren (12)
    Klobuchar (11)
    Yang (11)

    Interestingly, Sanders was next to last.

    • Simon Hayward
      Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:02 am | Permalink

      My wife managed to get Warren first with Bernie next to last (Gabbard was her worst). I was surprised that Warren and Sanders could be split by that much.

  12. Debra Coplan
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    I was Yang first, and then Klobuchar but issues that matter most to me align with Klobuchar.

  13. Robert Van Orden
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    I got Bloomberg #1 but I wont vote for him in the primary because I don’t care for his strategy of coming in late.

    Frankly, I want a Washington insider. Biden was my #2 candidate and I may well vote for him.

    I really want Amy Klobuchar because I want a qualified, center left woman candidate.

    NJ doesn’t primary until June 2, so it will likely be resolved by then. I’ll still vote though.

    In the general election, I will vote for the Democratic candidates up an down the ballot regardless.

  14. George
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    My top four – Yang (14), Biden, Bloomberg and Klobuchar (13 each),

    My prediction is that the Democratic ticket will be Biden and Klobuchar. I won the 2016 WEIT contest by predicting Clinton and Kaine.

    The one thing that no one is talking about publicly (yet) is anti-semitism. It is still out there big time. I think this makes Sanders unelectable. I don’t look at alt-right sites even out of curiosity but I bet the phrase “New York Jew” is used frequently.

      • max blancke
        Posted January 19, 2020 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

        I am still going with Bernie, but he really needs to do some housekeeping. I don’t think it was that big a deal that they found a paid Bernie staffer (Kyle Jurek) who was a Red Guards-type communist. But the fact that he is still employed after making such remarks as “The cops are going to be the ones that are getting f***ing beaten in Milwaukee.” is sort of damning.
        I think Bernie is sincere, and means well. But he needs to get rid of the crazies and Jew-haters.

    • Historian
      Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:21 am | Permalink

      Your prediction of Biden and Klobuchar may very well be correct. If a man wins the nomination, you can be certain that he will pick a woman for veep. Since Biden is very popular with African Americans, he won’t feel the pressure to choose a minority. Biden and Klobuchar both are centrists within the spectrum of Democratic politicians. Thus, they would have greater appeal to independents than a Sanders or Warren. My only question is how many Bernie supporters will take their marbles and go home since it is highly unlikely that Bernie would enthusiastically endorse this ticket? Ideologues are like that. Klobuchar is also a good pick because she is eminently qualified to assume the presidency should anything happen to Biden, which at his age is not a far fetched possibility.

  15. Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    Buttigieg and Yang 14
    Amy Klobuchar 13
    Biden, Bloomberg and Steyer 12
    Warren 8
    Sanders 3

    Amy is still my first choice, because other things equal I would like to see a woman president.

  16. Simon Hayward
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    I got Pete, Yang, Biden, Klobuchar at the top and Sanders a distant last.

    My son, who thought he’d probably be voting Bernie got Yang and Pete first. The other two members of that generation got Pete, Bloomberg, and Bloomberg, Klobuchar at the top. So Pete and Yang did well

    I’d like to see Amy Klobuchar pull through. Good experience, moderate and she has a history of over performing in a purplish state – she beat Clinton’s numbers significantly. While Warren has the opposite issue, consistently underperforming in blue MA.

  17. Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    Warren, Yang, Sanders – guess I’m a radical.

  18. FB
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    Yang 14, Bloomberg 12, Biden 11, Buttigieg 11.

  19. Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    My highest are 10 for Yang and 10 for Sanders.

    If I could vote, I’d be voting for Yang because of his views on nuclear power. It needs to be expanded as a solution to climate change, while Sanders is opposed to it.

    -Ryan

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:21 am | Permalink

      In Ontario we shut down our coal and boy did it make an air quality difference. No more smog days in the summer!

  20. Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    Yang, Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg in that order for me with Sanders last. I don’t see Yang getting very far unless something big happens in his campaign so I guess Biden it is.

    • cbranch
      Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:29 am | Permalink

      Conveniently, there is no downside to voting for him in the primary. And if everyone who says they like him best does that, he will indeed get far!

      • Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:40 am | Permalink

        Assuming your candidate is still in the race by the time of your state’s primary election.

        • cbranch
          Posted January 19, 2020 at 11:46 am | Permalink

          Of course, keeping in mind that “in the race” means that he hasn’t personally said “I’m out”. I’m afraid some people would consider a candidate out of the race if they haven’t won the early states, which to me is absolutely the wrong way for primaries to work!

  21. Kevin
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:34 am | Permalink

    Bllomberg, Biden, Klobuchar.

  22. DrBrydon
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    Bloomberg, but I only agree with him 11/20. As usual, some of these questions, like some of the policy positions, aren’t very clear. The question on college costs is a bad one. What does debt-free mean or affordable? I suspect my ideas on how to do that don’t match the candidates. Klobuchar needs to answers some questions, too. Where is she on some of these issues.

  23. vtvita
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    Klobuchar 14 (but punted on 4 questions)
    Yang 14
    Biden 13
    Buttigieg 13
    Bloomberg 12
    Steyer 12
    Warren 07
    Gabbard 07
    Sanders 04

    Color me surprised! Fighting corruption had Warren 1st for me until now.

  24. Forse
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    OP would vote for *Sanders* v Trump.
    Bernie wants to nationalise Energy, Telecoms, major industries and 100% marginal tax on high earners.
    Trump — for all his bluster and crudity— has delivered record markets, record employment, real wage growth, highest for the bottom quintile.
    Why allow TDS to make one vote for a clearly dangerous candidate?

    • Bouville
      Posted January 19, 2020 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

      Hilarious. No candidate comes even close to being more dangerous than Trump. Unemployment is low because of massive underemployment, and the inane tax cut went overwhelmingly into stock buybacks, which raise stock prises but add no real value. Wage growth in terms of median household income is below Obama and Bush, and the trade war, in addition to halting investment, has already cost the American taxpayer tens of billions.

      Trump also made a valiant effort to worsen the already disastrous U.S. healthcare system. Were it not for John MacCain, even more people would’ve died or gone bankrupt for lack of health insurance. And were it not for the officials in Trump’s administration routinely ignoring orders from their deranged superior, who knows where we’d be.

      Sanders, on the other hand, is a rather milquetoast social democrat whose policies align perfectly with the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world. I’d gladly vote for him.

  25. jwwalker
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    Yang 14, Buttigieg 12, Klobuchar 12, Warren 11… Sanders last at 5, which surprised me.

  26. GBJames
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    I wasn’t surprised by the top and bottom of my rankings, but was by Steyer/Yang near the top and Sanders near the bottom.

    Warren 13
    Steyer 12
    Yang 11
    Bloomberg 10
    Buttigieg 10
    Klobuchar 10
    Sanders 8
    Biden 7
    Gabbard 6

  27. rickflick
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    Yang 13
    Steyer 12
    Biden 11
    Bloomberg 11
    Klobuchar 11
    Buttigieg 9
    Gabbard 9
    Warren 8
    Sanders 7

  28. Jon Gallant
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    My first choice, Yang, is most unlikely to be nominated, but a Biden/Klobuchar ticket sounds fine to me. I used to have a soft spot for Bernie because he was a YPSL long, long ago; but later he was also connected with the SWP, now with Linda Sarsour & Co, and his standard Leftese soapbox manner is getting a little, shall we say, old.

  29. Posted January 19, 2020 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    My scores: Biden and Bloomberg were high with 11 each and Warren was lowest with 3. Gabbard, whom I would have picked as my favorite candidate, garnered only 8. Most telling, perhaps, is that there were at least 4 questions on which none of the candidates agreed with me. Hmm. . . .

    • Posted January 19, 2020 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

      I did the survey again, this time attempting to maximize the number of positions on which no candidate agrees with me. The best I could do is seven issues. I did this by taking what I thought was the most extreme position, right or left. Sanders ended up the winner with 10 and Klobuchar the loser with just 1.

  30. walkingmap
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    Mine were Yang (14) Biden (14) Bloomberg (13). Andrew Yang is my candidate of choice before taking the quiz and I was not surprised that he and I are both on board with increasing nuclear power as the most realistic way to reduce CO2 emissions. I wish Joe Biden was younger as he seems diminished by age and, in my opinion, could not take the savagery that Trump brings to this campaign without getting flustered or coming off as something he is not, mean.

  31. Denise
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    I got different results today than yesterday, because I don’t have strong feelings about a number of questions or am on the fence. Today it was Yang, Buttigieg, Steyer. I never would have guessed it would be any of these.

    I have always believed I made my choices based primarily on policy, but this test has made me realize that isn’t true. I don’t support anyone yet, but I think when I do choose how they answered these questions will not be a big factor.

    • rickflick
      Posted January 19, 2020 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

      …believed I made my choices based primarily on policy –

      I normally consider electability when thinking about who to support, which produces a very different order of preference. Here, though, we are supposed to go strictly on policy, so you’ll definitely get a difference.

      • Posted January 19, 2020 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

        Yes, and if you add “nominatability” to electability you get a different spread yet. I don’t think either Bernie or Tulsi is nominatable but I think either is electable. Warren, on the other hand, is nominatable but not, IMO, electable.

        • rickflick
          Posted January 19, 2020 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

          I probably would worry most if Warren was nominated. She’d walk all over tRump on substance, by style might lose her the election.

          • Posted January 19, 2020 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

            If by “substance” you mean policies, I think Warren would have both substance and style working against her, though she’d clearly walk all over Trump on integrity and character (but then, who wouldn’t?).

            Incidentally, one reason I think Bernie is electable and Warren is not is that Bernie is beloved even by many people who disagree with him, while Warren is disliked even by many people who agree with her.

            • rickflick
              Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

              I suppose that’s true. I wish she was a more rounded personality.

  32. Dragon
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    I had the following:
    Bloomberg 14
    Biden 12
    Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar 11
    Yang, Steyer 10
    Sanders 8
    Gabbard 6

    That won’t affect my primary vote.

  33. Ken Kukec
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    Three-way tie at 14 for Boy Pete, Biden, and Bloomberg, two ahead of the 12 for Klobs and Yang.

  34. Posted January 19, 2020 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    Steyer, Yang, Klobucher….and I don’t even know anything about Steyer or Klobucher. I’ve heard of Yang; though his take on AI is wrong.

    I am gravely depressed that only Yang likes nuclear energy. We are all headed for hardship if the world does not embrace nuclear energy.

    • Alexander
      Posted January 19, 2020 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

      Yes, Yang is right about nuclear energy because he stresses the use of thorium as a fission material (Yang’s father is a physicist). Thorium reactions can be controlled by an external proton beam, which allows the operation of the reactor in a sub-critical mode. When needed the reactor can be switched off by stopping the proton beam in the case of run-away reactions.

      Thorium is also much more abundant than uranium, and much cheaper than uranium. And the nuclear waste is much less nasty and easier to store away. Further, a thorium reactor does not produce plutonium, and can even be used to “burn” plutonium in order to reduce the present amount of this weapons material in the world.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted January 19, 2020 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

        Pssst, wanna buy some Canadian CANDU reactors? Safe and can use thorium! https://cna.ca/technology/energy/candu-technology/

        • rickflick
          Posted January 19, 2020 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

          That’s pretty remarkable. Thorium as a fuel, CANDU technology. What are we waiting for. There are currently 18 CANDU reactors in operation in Canada, which use unenriched Uranium as fuel. I wonder how many CANDUs it would take to replace all the coal and gas plants in North America.

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted January 19, 2020 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

            It’s why I was highly suspicious of that stupid incorrect mistake warning that went Canadian cell phones, radio & TV in Ontario last week. The first thing I thought was “but those are CANDUs”.

  35. tjeales
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    I’m Australian so it doesn’t matter what I think but I did it for fun. Yang #1 with 14 then Warren, Buttegeig and Saunders I agreed with about half the time. I wonder if there had been more foreign policy questions who I would have agreed with more.

  36. Andrea Kenner
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    1) Buttigieg
    2) Bloomberg
    3) A 4-way tie between Klobuchar, Warren, Yang, and Steyer

  37. drosophilist
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

    This is fascinating! My order of preference was *identical* to Prof. Ceiling Cat’s. Yang first, Sanders last. Honestly, I am surprised that Warren did not score higher. I do like Andrew Yang, although a) I don’t think he has a chance and b) I see a lot of potential problems with the UBI (what about inflation?). I hope he’ll have a cabinet position in the future Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and/or Klobuchar administration.

    I am detecting a pattern, most likely caused by many WEIT posters being pragmatic, thoughtful centrists. If only WEIT posters (and our esteemed host) were more representative of the U.S. electorate as a whole… sigh.

    Vote Blue No Matter Who 2020!

  38. W.Benson
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

    Got 11 matches w/ Warren, 10 w/ Sanders and 9 w/ Bloomberg! Guess that makes me a conservative progressive.

  39. russellblackford
    Posted January 19, 2020 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

    Not a voter -since I’m not American – but FWIW I had most agreements with Yang. From what I know of him, I’d be happy if you guys elected him as your president.

    • Alexander
      Posted January 20, 2020 at 1:30 am | Permalink

      “Not a voter -since I’m not American – but FWIW I had most agreements with Yang. From what I know of him, I’d be happy if you guys elected him as your president.”

      Idem. I listened to his interviews, and his non-partisan attitude, rationality, compassion and common sense gives hope.

  40. Charles Sawicki
    Posted January 20, 2020 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    My answers: Klobuchar (16), Steyer (16), Buttigieg (15), Bloomberg (14), Biden (13) and Yang (12). Not the most comprehensive list of questions, but Klobuchar is my first choice because she is a practical, moderate leftist.She’s also tough and has a good sense of humor which many candidates lack.She would kick Trumps’ ass in the Midwest. Steyer isn’t on my list and Bloomberg is far down. I don’t think Warren could handle a rough campaign after the Native American silliness and the petty treatment of Bernie. I don’t think that she could handle Trumps’ nastiness without looking weak. Bernie is too damn old, and chooses peculiar surrogates for what I would call a liberal.

  41. sugould
    Posted January 20, 2020 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

    Got Warren (15) then Steyer (14).

  42. Gary Fletcher
    Posted January 20, 2020 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

    Is it just me, or does anyone else have trouble getting past the “subscribe if you want to see anything” window. I can never read the Washington Post online. Very frustrating.

    • rickflick
      Posted January 20, 2020 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

      I payed for a subscription when it was on sale. Something pretty cheap, like $20. I don’t get a blocking window.

      Curiously though, I checked the box for delivery into my email, but it never comes, so I kind of forget about it and don’t read it regularly. Go figure.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted January 20, 2020 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

        Checking the box for a delivery that never comes *has* to be a sad metaphor for something!

        • rickflick
          Posted January 21, 2020 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

          That’s what I thought. 😟

    • Alexander
      Posted January 21, 2020 at 4:06 am | Permalink

      Yes, this annoys me too. I look a a large number of publications, but the problem is that if you agree to a month access, they keep taking money out of your account indefinitely. They expect (or rather don’t expect) you to cancel these accounts, which one of course forgets. I have now a charge card on which I maintain a minimal amount, just for one typical payment.

  43. Posted January 22, 2020 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

    Gee willikers, I came out as a Biden fan. 15 points followed by Bloomberg, Yang and Klobuchar at 14. Warren at 7 and Sanders at 6. I think at one time I would have been favoring Warren but since she went full progressive, she lost me.


%d bloggers like this: