Quiz: Which Presidential Candidate Is Right for You?

Online quiz helps voters find the candidate whose views most closely match their own.

If you are having a hard time deciding which candidate to support in the November presidential election, an online tool may provide some help.

ISideWith.com offers a short quiz to gauge participants' views on domestic and foreign policy issues. The results are then compared with the policy positions of the candidates in order to show quiz takers which candidate has the most similar views.

The quiz, which takes only a couple of minutes, indicated I side with Ron Paul and Mitt Romney on 88 percent of the issues. My views are an 85 percent match with Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

Interestingly, of the Georgians who have taken the quiz as of Aug. 22, their views match Johnson on 51 percent of the issues followed by Ron Paul (48 percent). Georgians share the same views as Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on 45 percent of the issues.

Click here to take the quiz and find out with which candidate your views most closely align. Let us know the results in the comments.

Brian Crawford August 23, 2012 at 11:09 PM
Nah, I think that's about right. I like a little more government intervention in the market than most Libertarians.
Brian Crawford August 23, 2012 at 11:10 PM
Well said!
Anna Marks August 24, 2012 at 01:01 AM
Gary Johnson is definitely the best candidate, don't you agree? http://celebrity-plugs.com/t/
R++ One of the Famous Dacula Crew August 24, 2012 at 02:41 AM
I'm really surpised only 84?
Nathan Eberly August 25, 2012 at 12:46 AM
A vote not cast is a wasted vote. All others, so long as they are based on principles and issues, are perfect votes, no matter the outcome.
Ed Varn August 25, 2012 at 01:10 AM
I"m reminded of George Carlin's observation: "They say if you don't vote, you can't complain. Well, if I don't vote, then I'm not responsible for the idiots the voters elected who are causing the problems. Therefore, I DO get to complain--it's the voters who put them there than can't complain."
Tucci78 August 26, 2012 at 07:14 PM
86% Libertarian, 78% Republican, 56% National Socialist (Since they rammed Obamacare up the national cloaca in spite of the enraged opposition of all their most loyal voting constituencies, I refuse to go along with the fiction that there's anything "democratic" about 'em.) 97% Gary Johnson, 96% Ron Paul (who is the only named candidate whom I've actually met), 78% on the Etch-A-Sketch, 52% on the Kenyan Keynesian. And my state of residence - New Jersey - would accord all 14 electoral votes to Jerry Sandusky if his were the name at the top of the National Socialist ticket in November. Sure, Sandusky is a convicted child molester. But hes better on defense than our Marxist Messiah, has done far less damage to the American people, and has a birth certificate he's willing to put physically into the hands of a judge upon demand.
Tucci78 August 26, 2012 at 07:27 PM
@Brian Crawford: "I like a little more government intervention in the market than most Libertarians." Based on what premise? Superior economic expertise among professional popularity contest winners? The presumption that government officers are capable of calculating (and therefore commanding) the optimum allocation of physical and intellectual resources in response to individual and aggregate consumer demand necessarily involves the assumption that snake-oil salesmen are experts in pharmacology and therapeutics. Hm. Mr. Crawford, are you by any chance interested in a real estate investment opportunity along the East River in bustling New York City? Classic architecture, sturdy construction, low maintenance, immediate revenue potential. Cash only, of course, and in small bills.
Brian Crawford August 27, 2012 at 12:05 AM
No at all Tucci, I just enjoy things like clean water, fresh air, a stable climate, a safe food supply, living wages, and affordable health care; things the free market are incapable of delivering without a strong guiding hand. I trust federalism much more than I do corporatism.
Tucci78 August 27, 2012 at 12:28 AM
@Brian Crawford: "I trust federalism much more than I do corporatism." Yeah, sure. Not that "corporatism" - or, to give it's time-tested appellation, mercantilism - is at all possible without government "picking winners" in the marketplace. You don't get crony corporatism without politicians and bureaucrats to crony up with. Dirigiste exponents of government "guiding" the division of labor economy always attribute failures caused by government intervention to not having had ENOUGH government intervention. Until, of course, economic activities are so thoroughly guided by the government you love so much that they cease to be productive of anything anybody wants or needs to live. Blessedly innocent of both history and political economics, aren't you?
Marvin Powell September 05, 2012 at 07:30 PM
I can not get past the problem being constitution demands checks and balances so therefore anything the federal government does is going to be inefficient and costly for what you get. Brian I very much see your point but even the regulatory part the federal government plays is innefficient. I do not believe that any company is too big to fail and I also feel the board memebers of a company should be held criminally liable for fraud. But get the governement out of everything it does not absolutely need to be in. Healthcare comeon they have medicaid (state) and medicare (federal) so screwed up why would you want them with any more responsibility?? Gun Control means "I have the right to rebel against my governement." Yes it is a painful thought but I do have that right. Now I am not a crazy wacko. Once you relinquish any right to the state or Federal Governement you never get it back!!! My Libertarian support comes into play with if you want to smoke tobacco that is up to you if you want to smoke pot that is up to you. If you want to screw up your body that is up to you what you do in your own house that does not affect me is your business. So legalize drugs.
Clay S September 10, 2012 at 04:23 PM
Speaking of democracy, there is nothing democratic about, "I will work with republicans, if they give me my way". That pretty much sums up his view of compromising.
T Collet September 14, 2012 at 03:18 PM
Responsible third party voters are often faced with the dilemma of having their vote benefit their last choice. This year I can vote my conscience in November because it is a pretty foregone conclusion that my state, Oregon, will give it's electoral votes to Obama. Voting for Gary Johnson won't really hurt Romney's chances in The Democratic People's Republic of Oregon (DPRO) because he never really had any.
Tucci78 September 14, 2012 at 06:02 PM
<b>T Collet</b> observes that: <i>"Voting for Gary Johnson won't really hurt Romney's chances in The Democratic People's Republic of Oregon (DPRO) because he never really had any."</i> Truth so pikestaff plain and simple that it provides stark background against which to place the lamestream media yammer about how this is supposed to be an eyeball-grabbing "contest" between one wing of the "bipartisan" Boot On Your Neck Party and the other, as if there were really a dime's worth of difference when it comes to the Federal Reserve Notes in your wallet and the cost of the necessities of life for you and your family. All my life, I've had to listen to the "public spirited" wailing about how so many Americans eligible and even registered to vote simply do not do so. In actuality, there's no reason for most of us to vote in most elections. As it is with you on the Left Coast, so it is for me on the Atlantic, where that hideous overburden of Mets fans in the northern counties of New Jersey (effectively a bunch of Noo Yawkuhs in language, thought, and politics) roll every statewide election to the National Socialist faction with the reliability of a dog returning to his vomit. If a constitutionalist (much less a libertarian) is going to be drowned out by the bellowings of that "three thousand tyrants one mile away," why bother even to <i><b>pretend</b></i> that there's a point to participation in this farce?
Allen September 14, 2012 at 10:32 PM
I used to be a Republican, till the religious fanatics got involved (i.e. Pat Robertson, Mike Huckabee, Pat Buchanan) with the party. I wish they would have their own party so we can really see how small they really are. I’m for a smaller government, provide they can keep out of our private lives (e.g. internet, marriage, birth control, personal privacy etc..). Another thing that bothers me about the Republicans is that they want to deregulate everything. I have yet to see that any type deregulation has ever created competition to lower prices. It just makes the rich greedier and the middle class always get screwed.
C.J. September 14, 2012 at 10:56 PM
I came out as follows: Jill Stein 90%, Barack Obama 81%, Rocky Anderson 58%, Gary Johnson 54%, Mitt Romney 7%, Virgil Goode 0%. The question I have is, with Romney taking both sides of every issue, how did they score him? (Incidentally, if we had instant runoff voting, then we could safely vote our consciences without taking the risk of helping to elect the greater of two evils.)
Tucci78 September 15, 2012 at 12:16 AM
Allen writes: "I used to be a Republican, till the religious fanatics got involved (i.e. Pat Robertson, Mike Huckabee, Pat Buchanan) with the party." The nature of the Republican Party changed sharply with Nixon's "Southern Strategy" in 1968, and then again with Reagan's "three-legged stool" in 1980. The latter brought the religious whackjobs into Reagan's "big tent" as one-third of his tripartite constituency, along with the "national security" William F. Buckley big-government chicken hawks (we call 'em "neocons" nowadays) and us libertarian fiscal conservatives. But I haven't considered myself a Republican since they sabotaged Goldwater's campaign in 1964 I know entirely too much about their history, which is sordid and stinking in the extreme. Insofar as I'm concerned, the last good piece of legislation they'd pushed through was the 13th Amendment. Allen continues: "Another thing that bothers me about the Republicans is that they want to deregulate everything." Like hell they do. Look up the term "mercantilism" and realize that the Republican Party was FOUNDED on those principles, inheriting their policies of collusion with "big business" from the Whig Party and Henry Clay's hideous "American System" of protectionism, pork projects, and banksterism. Republicans aren't for "deregulation" any more than they're foursquare in favor of the restoration of the gold standard. Which they will NEVER allow.
MeasuredIQof144 September 15, 2012 at 10:10 AM
Obviously you don't know the facts. We ALREADY HAVE a fiscal disaster. It was caused by Bush.
pat September 17, 2012 at 03:20 PM
almost believable but then you had to throw a rock. Liberals are soo open minded lol
Tucci78 September 17, 2012 at 06:05 PM
@pat (at 11:20 AM on 17 September): "almost believable but then you had to throw a rock. Liberals are soo open minded lol" A "Liberal"? *Moi?* Tsk. Here I am stumping for the laissez-faire ("Keep Your F-cking Hands Off!") unimpaired-by-government-thuggery operation of a free and voluntary marketplace, and I'm somehow supposed to qualify as one of those milk-and-water socialists who've perverted the use of the word "Liberal"? Or are you referring to Mr. Crawford, who's made it clear that he's a sho'-nuff groveler at the Guccis of the ever-more-vicious "swarms of officers" sent hither "to harass our people, and eat out their substance"?
Joe September 20, 2012 at 11:57 PM
I didn't even take this survey but unless you're kids go to private school consider yourself a liberal.
Kimberly Gilmer Rockefeller-Reeves September 21, 2012 at 08:25 PM
I know who I am NOT voting for. This election is unlike any other election ever. This election is about fighting for our lives, literally, it is not about politics or issues, which always get changed regardless who get in anyway. Those who know, know exactly what I am talking about and those who don't, better learn really fast. Our lives depend on this.
MeasuredIQof200 September 26, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Obama GOOOOD... Bush BAAAAD... me vote O-BAAAAH-MAAAH!
Kathleen Smithninnysmith2012@aol.com October 04, 2012 at 03:04 PM
I don't think President Obama can justify his policies, so he didn't.
John in Smyrna October 04, 2012 at 11:09 PM
If Obama wins, we will be rid of him in 4 years, then the Republicans will have a chance to nominate a real conservative. If Romney wins, we will probably be stuck with him for 8 years, then with his little RINO friend Ryan for 8 more. If Johnson isn't on the ballot, I won't waste my gas driving to the polling place.
Amy L October 09, 2012 at 01:55 AM
Excellent post Tucci78 :)
Tucci78 October 09, 2012 at 02:35 AM
AmyL: Thanks. I'm not much accustomed to positive feedback when I put the political diagnosis of the Republican Party as plainly as I'd done above. It's about like telling the family that beloved old Grandpa really does have three different kinds of VD, and so do the housecat, the spaniel, and the guppies in the fish tank.
TGull October 15, 2012 at 11:47 PM
Geez. Go get a lobotomy or something.
John Mills December 04, 2012 at 05:00 PM
In retrospect, this comment becomes quite interesting. What we learned a couple of months after the post is that Romney could not win. Wonder how things had turned out if people knew that, rather than being confused by this kind of thinking?
steve sapp February 02, 2013 at 12:26 PM
you are all crazy


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something