the depth of the analysis available after your answers are correlated with the candidates positions (including source citations) is a big step ahead of most of these polls I've looked at.
While I can agree that seeing their citations is helpful, I think they have come to unrealistic conclusions based on those citations.
For example, Barack Obama is quoted as having said:
It's hard for me to find a rationale for having a 17-clip semiautomatic.
And from that they take that he "completely agrees" with "All semi-automatic weapons should be banned". (Honestly, I'm not at all sure that either Obama or the writers of the quiz know what "semi-automatic" means.) There is a similar problem with John Edwards, but he never uses that term, referring to the Assault Weapons Ban instead.
Hillary says:
She believes President Bush's singular focus on Iraq has distracted him from waging the war on terror
And, somehow, from that, they get that she "tends to agree" with "Iraq is just one front in a broader fight against Islamic terrorism", which seems to be the exact opposite of what she said. (I won't get into how what she says changes every few minutes; I'm just looking at their pull quotes.)
They have Ron Paul as "tending to disagree" with "The US should never sign international treaties on climate change that limit economic growth". While he has indicated some vague pro-environmental stances, they are all couched inside infringing on personal liberties by others, and never by governmental control. The notion that he would ever in any way agree to a treaty that limits what businesses can do is absurd.
Here's a quote to that exact point:
Q: You have voiced strong opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. Can you see supporting a different kind of international treaty to address global warming?
Ron Paul: It would all depend. I think negotiation and talk and persuasion are worthwhile, but treaties that have law enforcement agencies that force certain countries to do things, I don't think that would work.
That, to me, is the complete opposite of tending to agree with signing treaties that would limit the economy.
They also have him as neutral on two government providing health-care questions. Again, he is vehemently opposed to the government doing much of anything, so there is no way that he would be in favor of the government providing healthcare benefits.
He says:
Asked point blank whether he would propose to abolish Medicare, Paul replied, “That’s not my goal. It might be my theoretical goal and my philosophic goal.”
So his philosophical goal is to get rid of what little healthcare the US government currently provides.
I don't really want to go further down the Republican rabbit hole, though, so I'll stop there.
I will agree that it does provide quotes for me to disagree with their interpretation of, though, even if it's not the whole story. That's still one up on most of these sites.
Previous Topic
Index
