The Presidential Candidate Ranking Game -- Who is Worse?
Ronald Bailey | January 23, 2008, 11:03am
While sharing cocktails with some delightful Reasonoids at the Happy Hour at The Big Hunt earlier this month, I initiated a little game of ranking presidential candidates. I began by saying that I would have to vote for Hillary Clinton if Mike Huckabee were the Republican presidential candidate. On further reflection, I added that I would have to vote for Mike Huckabee if John Edwards were the Democratic candidate. So my short ranking is that Edwards is worse than Huckabee who is worse than Clinton. On further consideration (and some cocktails later), I began to wonder if reason needs a foreign correspondent for the next four years or so.
I invite Hit & Run readers to play this little dispiriting ranking game among themselves.
Sulla | January 23, 2008, 1:01pm | #
Of the top of my head, from least objectionable to most:
Paul
Obama (Not that I love his policies, but maybe it will get some of the race baiters to lessen the rhetoric. Please note that I am racially mixed, so the preferred insult would be buji(sp?) sellout, not paleolib)
Clinton/Romney (I agree that Clinton is more pragmatic than people give her credit for, but I have a kneejerk reaction against dynastic politics. Romney seems like a relatively capable administrator, which would be a nice change).
McCain
Edwards/Huckabee/Guiliani: Too Populist/Fundamentalist/Authoritarian
But the point is to rank,right, so:
Edwards
Guiliani
Huckabee (As a converted Catholic who was raised in evangelical churches, I am not anti-christianity per se, but I am generally of the belief that it has nothing to tell us about politics)
Also:
If Paul is not on the ballot I'll vote for whoever will bring about a major collapse faster. . .Let's get it over with and then we can rebuild. Buy Gold.
I express no opinion on gold as an investment option, but if a collapse is coming, maybe it would be better to buy guns, canned food, medicine, gasoline, etc. That way when it arrives, you can sell the truly important things to the people who just have gold :)
kwais | January 25, 2008, 5:37am | #
This is how I rank the candidates from best to worst.
Ron Paul: He is wrong about some very important things. But he is right in wanting to end: The Drug War, The Income tax, the federal department of education, many of the pointless and unconstitutional gun laws. Those four things are of gigantic importance.
Fred Thompson: I don’t really know much about him other than that he has done less evil or retarded stuff that the other candidates
Gap
Mike Huckabee: I think he is first cousins with Bill Clinton. He is a socialist theocrat, but he has vowed to eliminate the IRS. He also has had Chuck Norris do a campaign commercial for him, which gives him some down to earthedness. His socialist programs in Arkansas have been somewhat effective. And under his dictatitorial rule we would all be thinner and nonsmokers. OK honestly the one and only thing that merits him being ranked so high, and not at the bottom of the page is that he vows to do away with the IRS.
Huge Gap
Obama: He is a gun grabbing socialist, with no experience governing. He does seem like a likable and honest guy. He actually might get points in my book for his non experience at governing thing, because of how wrong he is on so many issues. Not being effective is going to be a feature, not a bug. Also him winning will mean that he beat the unstoppable Hillary machine in the nomination process, that gets him some kudos. He has read the constitution, but does not understand it.
Huge Gap
Romney: He is a bot with no beliefs, and no integrity. If he gets elected one can hope that he makes the right decision by accident, or because it is the popular or convenient thing to do at the time.
McCain: He is an authoritarian. He voted drafted a law that is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. He probably has not respect for the 2nd. He has a hair trigger anger problem (important for a man with his finger on the button). He has generally made an ass out of himself trying to get government involved where it has no business. I do respect him as a man greatly; I disdain him as a polititian.
Gap
Hillary: She is a power hungry fascist who is wrong about just about everything. She has no experience governing, and huge amounts of political cunning. She thinks she is royalty, better than other Americans, and that it is her rightful place to govern us lesser beings. She has in her political career shown disdain for the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 10th Amendments. Everything she touched when her rapist husband was in office turned to crap, and she didn’t learn from her mistakes. Well not learning from her mistakes may be a feature not a bug. My favorite thing about her is that a Republican congress would fight her tooth and nail. Also her disdain for average Americans and her disdain for the constitution, and that the average American dislikes her with a passion most of them don’t even understand, may bring about the 2nd American Revolution.
Rudy Guliani: A RINO, He is pretty much the same as Hillary, but he is, if possible, even more corrupt. And worstly about the cross dressing New Yorker, a Republican congress will not likely fight him as they would Hillary. He also has the racist thing going on.
Edwards: Should not be on this list as it is clear he is not really in the running anymore, and is just running for the VP slot. He would still be last on the list though, because of his economic populism.
(Note; Ron Paul is on the list because he does have a chance though unlikely. And if he doesn’t make it on Super Tuesday, he may run 3rd party, in which case I will vote for him, knowing that I will be handing a victory to the Democrats. Fred Thompson maybe should not be on the list, because he is done, but I think that he adds to the list).
More about why Ron Paul is at the top of the list.
The drug war: How many innocent people must be killed to make it harder for you or your brother to get drugs?
The income tax: Every single working Americans 4th and 5th Amendments are violated every year to keep up this monstrosity just to ensure that the Fed has no free market competition.
The Dept of Education: Kids are graduating high school illiterate and people are denied school choice for what? Because the people in Tennessee are too ignorant to run their own education? Is the Federal Govt. really doing a good enough job to prove this true? I don’t think so.
Gun Rights: I believe that if law enforcement is allowed to own weapons and equipment not available to other citizens, then they are not a service to their neighborhood, instead they are an occupying army. Particularly when such rules come from as far away as Washington DC.
Mr. Anonymous’ Honorable Choices, I think are so awesome that they are worth mentioningagain:
Mr Anonymous | January 23, 2008, 3:33pm | #
1. Thompson write-in
2. Paul
3. McCain (hoping that he picks Thompson as VP and, in a "Maverick" moment, resigns just after taking the oath)
4. Obama
5a. The alien who keeps harassing Dennis Kucinich
5b. Dennis Kucinich's Wife
5c. Dennis Kucinich
6. "Mr. Fantastic," Mitt Romney
7. Huckabee
8. John from the Mill
9. Goldwater Village Girl
10. Ferret boy
Nick Wilson | February 1, 2008, 9:43pm | #
Including the recently departed:
13.) Clinton (0%) creepy, socialist, hawkish, populist and Machiavellian to the core.
12.) Edwards (5%) at least he came around on the war...
11.) Huckabee (7.5%) statist theocrat, who at least wants to get rid of the IRS and talks about progressivism...? Terrible record though (F on fiscal responsibility).
10.) Romney (8%) socially conservative, populist on immigration, doesn't support government restraint. Bad record as governor, although not as bad as Huckabee's, as far as fiscal conservativism (C). Why the hell does any libertarian support him???
9.) Giuliani (10%) creepy, elitist and hawkish but at least socially liberal??
8.) McCain (20%) at least he might get spending under control? And ban torture? Foreign policy is very bad.
7.) Fred Thompson (45%) - the better of the Republican baddies.
6.) Kucinich/Gravel/McKinney (50%) - well meaning, but stupid socialists who have at least the social /political libertarianism, and anti-war stance. Half-right.
5.) Obama (55%) - at least he doesn't support socializing healthcare, advocated for spending database, scores well on all the issues where liberals are libertarian and badly on 70% of the places where they aren't. Hopefully his presidency will be filled with fluff and Congress is controlled by the Republicans.
4.) Obama with Richardson as a running mate (60%) - that will keep Obama's pro-tax, anti-gun policies in check. Heard Dodd was OK, too.
3.) Richardson (65%) - good record as governor, although statist. Social liberal that's also pro-gun and cut taxes.
2.) Obama/Richardson with a Republican Congress
1.) Ron Paul (80%) - not progressive enough, too populist on immigration, needs better environmental stance but other than than, mostly good.
