1
   

Presidential elections 08: Rating your enthusiasm/annoyance

 
 
nimh
 
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:04 pm
Forget any serious scrutiny you may have done of exactly how your views and opinions align with which positions the respective presidential candidates have taken, now and in the past. Forget, for the moment, strategical considerations. Forget earnest assessments of who is most likely to pursue the most important issues most successfully.

Let's talk about instincts.

Instinctive responses, visceral ones, emotional ones, but also, less strongly - the way this or that guy or his/her supporters may bring a smile to your face, or a grimace. Which ones make you feel good? At the thought of which ones do you cringe?

Nobody likes to admit they make their choice largely on instinct, on gut feelings. So let's not go there. But those feelings can be powerful enough. Even if they're sometimes pretty unreasonable.

For example, when you turn towards - or away from - a candidate just because his supporters are so adorable. Or because they're so bloody annoying. The candidate cant help it, but the reaction is there anyway.

So, satisfy my curiosity and talk purely about instant reactions - no thinking! Take this supershort two-question survey. Oh, and no attacking others for their instinctive responses - they're instinctive, they're not supposed to be rational, so there's no blaming here.

    [u][b]SURVEY[/b][/u] [b]1. Thinking of [name of candidate], is your immediate reaction annoyance or enthusiasm? Pick a position between -5 (exasperated) to +5 (exhilarated)[/b] (Answer for as many candidates as you feel like or have any particular reaction to) [b]2. Thinking of the supporters of [name candidate], is your immediate reaction annoyance or enthusiasm? Pick a position between -5 (exasperated) to +5 (exhilarated)[/b] (Answer for as many candidates as you feel like or have any particular reaction to)
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 593 • Replies: 17
No top replies

 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:18 pm
Have you seen this?

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/featuredtask.html

It does the above all scientific-like.

(My response wouldn't surprise you. Obama way on top, Richards and Edwards close together in the middle, and Hillary pretty far down. I really think my Hillary-response would have been a lot higher a decade or so ago, though.)
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:19 pm
(RichardsON, that is.)
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:24 pm
Re: Presidential elections 08: Rating your enthusiasm/annoya
SURVEY

1. Thinking of [name of candidate], is your immediate reaction annoyance or enthusiasm? Pick a position between -5 (exasperated) to +5 (exhilarated)
Obama +5
Giuliani+2
McCain +2
Hillary -2
Romney -3
Edwards -500

2. Thinking of the supporters of [name candidate], is your immediate reaction annoyance or enthusiasm? Pick a position between -5 (exasperated) to +5 (exhilarated)
Giuliani +5
Obama +4
McCain +3
Edwards 0
Hillary -1
Romney -2
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:34 pm
I took the Republican version of the IAT; Huckabee and McCain were tied near the middle, Romney was a bit further down than them, and Giuliani was on the bottom. Makes sense.

To answer the questions, though:

[SURVEY

1. Thinking of [name of candidate], is your immediate reaction annoyance or enthusiasm? Pick a position between -5 (exasperated) to +5 (exhilarated)

Obama +4
Edwards + 1
Clinton -2
Kucinich 0
Gravel -1
McCain +1
Romney -3
Giuliani -3
Thompson -2
Huckabee +2


2. Thinking of the supporters of [name candidate], is your immediate reaction annoyance or enthusiasm? Pick a position between -5 (exasperated) to +5 (exhilarated)

Obama +4
Edwards -1
Clinton -3
Kucinich +3
McCain +1
Romney -1
Giuliani -3
Huckabee 0
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:35 pm
sozobe wrote:
Have you seen this?

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/featuredtask.html

It does the above all scientific-like.

I did it.. and to my utter surprise, I had all (Dem) candidates neatly ordered next to each other in exactly the middle.

So according to the test, I had apparently no instinctive negative or positive reaction to any of the Dem candidates whatsoever.

I found that a little hard to believe...

I dunno, I did a few of their tests before, about race and gender or whatnot, so perhaps I was too well trained or something... or there might just have been an error of sorts... or they couldnt read my Vulcan disposition..
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:37 pm
Re: Presidential elections 08: Rating your enthusiasm/annoya
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Edwards -500

Laughing

Thanks for playing, both of you.. cool Smile
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:42 pm
Re: Presidential elections 08: Rating your enthusiasm/annoya
SURVEY

1. Thinking of [name of candidate], is your immediate reaction annoyance or enthusiasm? Pick a position between -5 (exasperated) to +5 (exhilarated)
Obama +4
Giuliani 0
McCain +2
Hillary -5
Romney -5
Edwards 0
Huckabee 0
Paul +1
Kucinich +2

2. Thinking of the supporters of [name candidate], is your immediate reaction annoyance or enthusiasm? Pick a position between -5 (exasperated) to +5 (exhilarated)
Giuliani -5
Obama 0
McCain 0
Edwards 0
Hillary -5
Romney -5
Huckabee -5
Paul +5
Kucinich +5
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:45 pm
Vulcan disposition... heh...!

Your questions make for an interesting comparison between reaction to the candidate vs. the candidate supporters, btw, which the IAT doesn't do.

I remember reading an anecdote from the Iowa caucuses about some influential local guy -- a principal, I think -- who was planning to caucus for Hillary. He got in the "Hillary" group and got so tired of listening to them dis Obama that he went over to the "Obama" group.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:51 pm
sozobe wrote:
Have you seen this?

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/featuredtask.html

It does the above all scientific-like.

(My response wouldn't surprise you. Obama way on top, Richards and Edwards close together in the middle, and Hillary pretty far down. I really think my Hillary-response would have been a lot higher a decade or so ago, though.)
Obama at the top, surprisingly followed by Richardson, then Hill and Edwards just below... well here:
http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/7458/demtester8.jpg
I would have thought I'd place Hill slightly over Richardson and that Edwards would be as far away as Obama. Strange.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 03:06 pm
Thanks Kickycan, everyone!

OK, I didnt want to start off with myself, but here's the numbers for me:

1. Thinking of [name candidate], is your first instinctive reaction annoyance or enthusiasm? Pick a position between -5 (exasperated) to +5 (exhilarated)

Edwards +2.5
Obama 0 (b/c of conflicting feelings)
Hillary -1.5

McCain +1.5
Huckabee +2 (but dropping)
Romney -3
Giuliani -5
Thompson -1
Ron Paul 0


2. Thinking of the supporters of [name candidate] annoy or enthuse you? Pick a position between -5 (exasperated) to +5 (exhilarated)

Edwards +2
Obama -2
Hillary: +2 (voters interviewed on the campaign trail) or -2 (posters on blogs etc)
Kucinich +3

Ron Paul 0 (the ones on the campaign trail I read about sound adorable, the ones trolling the web are super annoying)
Huckabee 0
Giuliani -2
Romney -2 (dont really have much of a mental image of Giuliani and Romney supporters yet..)
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 04:50 pm
As a person who live in Germany
I bege to submit that I am neither enthused nor expected a CHANGE.
Among the available offers my Choice is Edwards followed by other corporate loudspeakers.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 11:35 pm
SURVEY

1. Thinking of [name of candidate], is your immediate reaction annoyance or enthusiasm? Pick a position between -5 (exasperated) to +5 (exhilarated)

McCain +4
Guilianni +3
Thompson +3
Romney +2
Obama +1
Huckabee -2
Clinton -5
Edwards -5

2. Thinking of the supporters of [name candidate], is your immediate reaction annoyance or enthusiasm? Pick a position between -5 (exasperated) to +5 (exhilarated)

Thompson +5
McCain +4
Guilliani +4
Romney +2
Huckabee -1
Obama -3
Clinton -5
Edwards -5
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 08:11 am
1. Thinking of [name of candidate], is your immediate reaction annoyance or enthusiasm? Pick a position between -5 (exasperated) to +5 (exhilarated)

Clinton +3
Obama +3
Edwards+4
Guilianni -5 ½
Thompson -2
Romney-5
Huckabee-4

Not withstanding Edwards gets on my nerves the least; I'll probably vote for Hillary since I think in the end she will get the democrat vote. Plus I think she is the more qualified of the bunch but Richardson was more so as well as Biden but they didn't have a chance and they didn't get on my nerves at all.

I have no opinion on supporters either what I see on TV or on blogs.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 08:29 am
Clinton -1
Obama -1
Edwards 0
Guiliani +2
Thompson -2
Romney + 1/2 (maybe, if I am in a good mood)
Huckabee -100

As you can see, that except for my extreme annoyance at the "bible banger" Huckabee, I am not thrilled to pieces by the entire slate of candidates. Bottom line, as has been in the last couple of elections, I am probably going to end up voting for the "least worst".
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 10:02 am
Finn, Revel, Phoenix - thank you all very much! I find this fascinating stuff.
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 11:26 am
If you already know something about a candidate's campaign platform or campaign style before you take this survey, are you supposed to keep what you already know from influencing your answers?

For example: Before Iowa I could have no more recognized which candidate was Huckabee than I could have the man in the moon. But knowing that he comes from Arkansas and knowing that he is a former Baptist preacher I already had a negative opinion of him based on what I know about Arkansas and Baptist preachers. However his apparent commitment to Christianity (in that he won't say one thing to one audience and then say something different to a different audience) is a point in his favor. But his policies and campaign platform regarding illegal immigration and taxation and the Confederate Flag and law enforcement, lower my opinion of him considerably. I'm also turned off by some of his campaign "jokes", such as telling his supporters to let the air of the tires of his opponents' supporters.

I have a low opinion of McCain because of McCain-Feingold.

I have a low opinion of Romney because of his flip-flops on abortion.

I have a low opinion of Thompson because he is a lobbyist.

I have a low opinion of Giuliani because his morals are lower than a tom cat's.

I despise Ron Paul just on the principle that he is a libertarian.

I have a low opinion of Hillary, Obama and Edwards just because they are Democrats.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 07:42 pm
Revel and Phoenix

What about McCain?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Presidential elections 08: Rating your enthusiasm/annoyance
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.98 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 02:16:02