Politics Wed: Campaign Money

Usually, I do not interject opinion with these posts. However, something has been on my mind regarding the presidential race and I wanted to share it with everyone and get your opinions as well.

On the occassions when I get to commute to the office in the morningtime for a meeting, I try to listen to NPR so I can familiarize myself with what is going on in the world. Recently, as I listen to the reports about the campaigns, I find myself astounded at the amount of money collected and spent by the presidential candidates. Especially when the television news stations always show Clinton asking, practically begging, for more money after each primary she wins.

Does anyone else find the amount of money spent just mind-blowing and downright wasteful?

I found a good site which breaks it all down in a nice, concise, easy to read format (crucial for someone like me with a small attention span and little tolerance for long, tediously detailed reports). It details how much money was collected by each candidate (even those not in the race any longer), how much was spent and a general pie graph of how most candidates spend that money.

Another simply baffling aspect of this campaign financing is that they have DEBT as well! Can you believe this?!

Here are some examples for each of the remaining candidates:

TOTAL RAISED
Clinton -- $214,883,437
McCain -- $96,654,783
Obama -- $265,439,277

TOTAL SPENT
Clinton -- $185,216,984
McCain -- $72,666,309
Obama -- $218,884,220

DEBTS
Clinton -- $19,480,893
McCain -- $968,301
Obama -- $2,037,801

After looking at the expenditures, it appears most of the money goes toward employees and their benefits (okay, that's fair I guess unless there's an overly paid CEO scenario happening) and broadcast media. I don't know about you, but I don't really need any candidate spending that much money on those ads. They usually disgust me and I drown them out from my senses when they come on the television.

The one area I think they get their money's worth are those signs outside of the polls, especially the local candidates running for town or county offices -- most people don't know anything about these people so those signs might actually sway someone just because the name would then be familiar.

I really wanted to go into this with more detail and if I have time, I might delve into it more next Wednesday. But I want to know, what are your thoughts on the matter?

Politics Wed: Superdelegates

As promised, I am going to try to continue the Politics Wed posts once a month. So here we go!

I thought I'd take some time out to cover the "Superdelegate" concept that has been so hot in the news lately.

Both parties have these so-called Superdelegates. So I'm going to cover how each works. First the Dems (because D comes before R).

The Democrats

These select group of people are chosen due to their status as "current or former elected officeholders and party officials". There are 784 Superdelegates and they "make up approximately one-fifth of the total number of delegates". (Both quotes are from, you guessed it, Wikipedia.) Democrats require proportional representation. Supers are not obligated, however, to vote for the candidate supported by its constituency.

For an EXCELLENT, seriously EXCELLENT, write up and discourse on the Democratic Superdelegates, visit demconwatch.blogspot.com here. It has the rules for being one, the ACTUAL Supers, and their current position. Kudos to whomever put that together. It must have taken quite some time. Time I don't have. ;)

The Republicans

These guys are little more organized in their selection of Supers, I must say. Two members of the Republican Party from each state and the state's party chairperson are automatically a Superdelegate (from Wikipedia). HOWEVER, each state can earn BONUS delegates by "having U.S. Senators and governors from the Republican Party, sending a majority-Republican delegation to the U.S. House, maintaining partial or total Republican control of the state legislature ..." (From Wikipedia). Republicans do not require proportional representation.

Why this is important

Now, the Republicans Supers aren't quite that important this election. But the Democrats Supers are CRUCIAL since the race between Clinton and Obama is so close.

This article does a good job of breaking down the different scenarios for how the Democratic Nomination may play out.

So if you are a Democrat, or if you just want to weigh in on the issue, how do YOU feel about the Superdelegate concept (below is how I feel BTW)?

Warning: SOAPBOX AREA

First, I don't like that a bunch of rich, mostly white men get to vote any which way they choose and pretty much override the public's choice. That's undemocratic, if you ask me.

Clinton's camp has openly declared that she is relying on the Supers to boost her numbers over the lead Obama has in the popular vote. This pisses me off and makes me regret voting for her. Unfortunately, for me and my vote, this story "broke" the day after my regional primary.

Now I understand the need for "tie-breakers" should that scenario ever occur. But the one thing that makes Washington so corrupt is the lobbying of the politicians. And here we are, with our FUTURE presidents, LOBBYING other politicians for the job. Just more ways to be corrupt, if you ask me. In the REAL WORLD, at least for those of us not born with a silver spoon in our mouth, you INTERVIEW for the job and are chosen based on your merits and viability (i.e. salary requirements) -- maybe we should put that into the Presidential race? Who will cost us less and produce more!

What are YOUR salary requirements, Clinton, McCain and Obama?!! Maybe that $400,000/yr should be negotiable based on what you bring to the table! Maybe Obama is the "recent college grad" in this scenario since the media and the other candidate's keep focusing on his inexperience! Or maybe Clinton and McCain are the overpaid deadwood and need to be "let go" (or the one I like hearing around the office, "asked to leave")!

Okay, I think my train just left the tracks. But you get my point through my weird metaphor, I hope. When will they stop talking about how the American people matter and truly listen to what we're saying? Starting with the popular vote!

Politics Wed: New Schedule

I'm all about schedules now although Monkey and I both can't seem to stick one and quite frankly a weekly post about the Presidential Race just isn't in the cards. I should have known better to tackle something like this and I apologize to any readers and especially my Journalism professors for the lack of quality in these posts (I'd be totally embarrassed if a prof read one!). Plus, since the primaries are almost over and since my primary is over, the "Chesapeake" Primary or whatever they're calling it, I'm going to be a little selfish and start only posting Politics Wednesdays stuff once a month. Most likely the beginning of the month or maybe if my schedule still doesn't permit, only "that time of the month" since it's been a quarterly experience since I gave birth (TMI, sorry!).

Just as final word to our original assignment, the candidate who I was supposed to vote for according to my candidate quiz results in the beginning, Bill Richardson, is obviously not a contender any longer. Just before the Chesapeake Primary, I re-quizzed myself and came up perfectly split between the two remaining Democratic contenders (yes, I'm an Independent but that's what the results were). So then I researched both of their sites on the issues I care about most: Education, Families (specifically Working Mothers and the Middle Class), and the Environment. And while they had some differences, there wasn't anything too striking (at least IMO) that separated the two of them. Therefore, RIGHT up until I actually got to the voting booth I had no idea of who I would vote for, Obama or Clinton? Obama or Clinton? Obama or Clinton? I asked lil' Monkey who he would vote for and he just stared at me blankly. "What do you want from me? I'm 8 months old, woman!" AND he felt asleep on me just as we pulled into the parking of the school where we're supposed to vote! Some help!

In the end, I went with my gut and my gut said a woman understands women and that's that. Honestly, while I'm not absolutely gushing over any candidate and while I still think the guys at South Park have it right about candidates for just about any election, I'm not completely appalled by any of the candidates on either side. So YAY America, for not leaving us with any complete assholes this time!

Politics Wed -- The Issues: Environment

Yes, I'm a little late. Sorry! First, let's take a look at the different options we have for alternative or renewable energy sources. NOTE: unless otherwise stated, all quotes are from Wikipedia.

Solar Energy
Use of this energy resource has existed since the time of the "early Greeks, Native Americans and Chinese" who positioned their housing to effectively use the sun to warm the interior.

Uses of Solar Energy

Solar Lighting
Light from the sun is collected via specific window types, sizes and orientation to provide lighting within residential or commercial buildings. This is called daylighting. Hybrid Solar Lighting (HSL) collects sunlight using mirrors "that track the sun. The collected light is transmitted via optical fibers into a building's interior to supplement conventional lighting".

Solar Thermal
"Solar thermal applications make up the most widely used category of solar energy technology. These technologies use heat from the sun for water and space heating, ventilation, industrial process heat, cooking, water distillation and disinfection, and many other applications."

Electricity
Electricity is generated in many ways but most commonly using Photovoltaics. This fancy term applies to that solar cell on your calculator as well as those solar panels used at a large plant.

Sunshine to Petrol
From Sandia.gov: "... intended to chemically reenergize carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide, which ultimately could become the building block to synthesize a liquid combustible fuel”. Is that enough to make your brain hurt? Try reading the rest of the article. :)

Wind Energy
The most common use of wind to create power are the wind turbines I'm sure everyone has seen at some point or not either in photos, on television or in movies. If not, this link has some examples. This type of energy is used widely in Europe and believe it or not the United States appears to be a large supporter of investing in this technology.

Uses of Wind Energy
Wind power can be used to "crush grain or to pump water" or be "connected to electrical grids, as well as in individual turbines for providing electricity to isolated locations."

Negative Effects
Those who are against using Wind Energy cite the other negative environmental effects it causes. To install a wind farm, you must have a large piece of land due the size of them and the required spacing between them. Apparently, there is some argument as to the number of birds and bats killed by the turbines that lie within their migratory path. In Ireland, the pollution caused construction of a wind farm is attributed to the massive amounts of fish dying in a nearby river. The noise caused by offshore turbines might cause harm to sea mammals especially larger creatures such as whales.

Water Power (Hydropower)
This type of energy resource has also been used for a very long time. Think of one of those old mills where the big wheel outside of the building that used the river next to it. Effective, clean power.

Uses of Hydropower

Hydroelectric
Hydroelectric power is generated from dams, think Hoover Dam. This type of power source is widely used across the globe.

Tidal Power
Using water harnessed from tides, this type of power uses turbines sort of like the wind turbines do to generate energy.

Wave Power
Wave Power is more theory right now than actuality. This theory is being put to test in Australia at Port Kembla. This type of power uses generators to harness energy from surface ocean waves.

BioFuel
I’m simply going to put a link to Wikipedia for this one. There’s a lot for it and I’m running short on time.

Nuclear
I’m simply going to put a link to Wikipedia for this one. There’s a lot for it and I’m running short on time.

CANDIDATES’ VIEW ON THIS TOPIC

This has all been paraphrased from the individual candidate's web site. To find out more, click on their name and it will take you to their Environment or Energy page.

Hillary Clinton
Agenda includes reducing carbon emissions, enacting standards which will reduce electricity consumption by businesses, invest in green industries, and increase appliance efficiency standards. Improve emissions standards for federal buildings. Introduce “Connie Mae” program so low to middle income families can invest and purchase “green” housing.

Barack Obama
Agenda includes reducing carbon emissions, rewarding forest owners/farmers, invest in clean energy industry, and support next generation biofuel such as Ethanol and increase fuel economy standards. Make U.S. at the forefront of clean energy investment and technology and of course, reduce dependence on foreign oil.

John McCain
Agenda includes limiting carbon emissions, investing in nuclear energy, reduce dependence on foreign oil. He didn’t really have that much on his site. There seems to be more for him within the site I mention below (The League of Conservation Voters) that they’ve gathered from speeches and press releases and such.

Mike Huckabee
Agenda includes energy independence, pursuing all venues of alternative energy.

Ron Paul
Agenda includes no subsidizing logging in National Forests, encourage development of sustainable energy sources such as solar and wind power, ending government funded projects that harm the environment.

I didn’t get to read through all of the candidate’s material on this and tried to pick out the highlights of their positions on this issue. However, you can go to each of their sites by clicking on their name or use this really good link which sums up each candidate’s Environmental position: http://www.lcv.org/voterguide/

No soapbox on this one people. I’m still exhausted. Take care!

Politics Wed -- Postponed

Due to work obligations and lil' Monkey coming down with a cold (Where is this kid getting all of these germs?! At least, it's just a head cold and no diarrhea this time!), Politics Wednesday will be postponed until next week.

In the meantime, I said last week that I was going to cover Education this week. However, from our poll, it looks like I'm the only one that voted for it. So should I cover the Environment or Tax Reform next week, or keep on with the Education?

Politics Wed -- The Issues: Iraq

There's so much information on this topic so I'm going to present the history of Iraq and then the Iraqi War numbers.

HISTORY

PARAPHRASED AND QUOTED FROM WIKIPEDIA

You may remember something about Mesopotamia (3000 B.C.) and the Tigris and Euphrates rivers from your high school history class or perhaps earth sciences. This is the area that Iraq exists within today. It was inhabited by the Sumerians, then the Babylonians (no, not the people from Babylon 5), then the Assyrians, then the Persians, so forth and so on. Alexander the Great and the Greeks took over at one point in time as well. In other words, lots of cultures and peoples have called this land their own over the centuries.

The longest period of rule was by the Ottoman Empire, from roughly the 16th century until World War I. At that time, the Ottomans sided with the Germans and the Central Powers in the war. The British captured Baghdad in 1917 and an armistice was signed in 1918. “On 11 November 1920 it became a League of Nations mandate under British control with the name ‘State of Iraq’.” The British turned it into a monarchy and did not take into account the different ethnic groups when dividing it up into territories (especially the Kurds and Assyrians to the north, meaning they supported the Sunni population mainly). During the Brits occupation, the Shi’ites and the Kurds fought for independence. British occupation came to an end in 1932 when the mandate officially ended.

In 1948, Iraq was a part of the war against the newly formed State of Israel. Iraq never signed the cease-fire agreement. They did however sign the Baghdad Pact in 1956 which allied them with Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and the United Kingdom. The Pact “committed the nations to mutual cooperation and protection, as well as non-intervention in each other's affairs.”

The monarchy established by the British was overthrown by the “Free Officers”, a military group inspired by the words of an Egyptian leader named Nassar who criticized the legitimacy of the monarchy. At that time, the Baghdad Pact ceased and a republic was formed.

At one point in the 60’s, Iraq tried to challenge the sovereignty of Kuwait when it gained independence from the British but was forced to back down by the British. They would continue to have border disputes with Kuwait and Iran well into the 70’s. “In retrospect, the 1970s can be seen as a high point in Iraq's modern history. A new, young, technocratic elite was governing the country and the fast-growing economy brought prosperity and stability.”

In 1979, the president at that time resigned and this was the point that Saddam Hussein took over the country. Territorial disputes with Iran resulted in an eight year war with Iran that in the end was won by neither side. The invasion of Kuwait in 1990 would result in the Gulf War. After the Gulf War, the United Nations would impose economic sanctions on the country “providing for a full trade embargo, excluding medical supplies, food and other items of humanitarian necessity”. These sanctions “were linked to removal of weapons of mass destruction by Resolution 687”.

And think we all remember what happened starting in May 2003. If not, Wikipedia has more information on it here.

THE NUMBERS

According to Friends Committee on National Legislation (as of 6/2006):

CASUALTIES

ARMED FORCES

U.S. Killed -- 2,500
U.S. Wounded -- 18,356
U.S. MIA -- 1

U.K. Killed -- 113
U.K. Wounded -- 83
U.K. MIA -- 0

IRAQI Killed -- 6,400
IRAQI Wounded -- Unknown

CIVILIANS

IRAQI
Killed -- 5000
Wounded -- 8000

COALITION CIVILIANS & CONTRACTORS Killed -- 337 (from 36 different countries)

JOURNALISTS -- 99

UNITED NATIONS -- 16

COST OF WAR

Original estimate: 25 billion to fight; $4 billion/month
Cost as of 6/2006: $480 billion

Post-war Reconstruction donations (in millions)

U.S. -- $550
UK -- $330
Australia -- $100
Japan -- $100
Spain -- $56
Norway -- $21
Netherlands -- $21

---

According to WIKIPEDIA:

CASUALTIES

ARMED FORCES

U.S. Killed -- 3,921
U.S. Wounded 8,691 (medical air transport required)
U.S. Wounded 19,970 (no medical air transport required)

NOTE: Of all the wounded 12,912 were unable to return to duty within 72 hours.

IRAQI Security forces and police: 6,327 police and 3,463 soldiers killed

CIVILIANS

JOURNALISTS: 114 (plus 40 media support workers)

CONTRACTORS: 933 (both U.S. and other countries)

AID WORKERS: 95

COST OF WAR

$474 billion has been spent as of 12/2007

SOAPBOX AREA!!

After reading the history of Iraq and understanding it a little more clearly, I'm thinking to myself, why are WE cleaning this mess up? The British started it, it's THEIR BLOODY mess! Okay, okay, that's probably unreasonable. I really like British people, British music, Monty Python and London was fabulous. :) So please, no hate mail.

But more seriously, I never did agree with this war. The link of Saddam Hussein to 911 was disproven by the September 11 commission so that reason is out the window (unlike so many people tout) and no WMDs were found. So why do I think we're in this war? War is big money, for the consulting companies and all of the people who have their hands in the pockets of the President, Vice President (hello, Halliburton) and the rest of the politicians in Washington.

As for the whole concept "if you don't support the war, you don't support our troops" -- please, stop for a minute and really give that some thought. How is putting them in harm's way in a war which didn't really need to be started SUPPORTING THEM? Wouldn't it make more sense that supporting them would mean returning them to their family and friends in ONE piece with all of their senses in tact?

Now that being said, I do think our troops are doing an excellent job with what they've been given. They just need leaders that can come up with a better resolution than throw more bodies at it. And truth be told, they NEED to finish that job because if not, we'll end up with another unstable area like Afghanistan (see section named "Soviet invasion and civil war" within this page) which has been determined as a "terrorist breeding ground". Then we'd be no better than those darned Brits! Again, Brits, just kidding! Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more!

The thing that makes me most angry about this is the money being spent on it. We could use that money for really important things HERE in AMERICA. Education for one (which I will be covering next week). How about that immigration problem? Or Homeland Security? Bring the troops home and secure the borders?

Wow, okay I think I've gone far enough. I'm guessing this post isn't very "flame retardant". I expect I'll be getting a few comments on this one. :)

Politics Wed -- The Issues: Healthcare

HEALTH CARE IN THE U.S (FROM WIKIPEDIA)

The U.S. is one of the few industrialized nations that do not offer access to healthcare.

84% of Americans have health insurance.

59% receive that insurance through their employer.

9% purchase health insurance directly.

27% are covered by government resources.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, since 2001, premiums have risen 78% while wages have risen 19% and inflation has risen 17%.

Certain publicly-funded health care programs help to provide for the elderly, disabled, children, veterans, and the poor, and federal law ensures public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. U.S. government programs accounted for over 45% of health care expenditures, making the U.S. government the largest insurer in the nation.

HEALTH CARE POLICY TYPES (FROM WIKIPEDIA)

Health care can be financed in combinations of four basic ways. Provision can be public or private. Finance can be public or private.

A. Public Provision / Private Finance -- example: Private insurers can buy services from publicly owned hospitals
B. Public Provision / Public Finance -- example: health can be provided by publicly financed staff in publicly financed hospitals
C. Private Provision / Private Finance – example: A private hospital which is financed by private health insurance schemes is an example of private finance and provision
D. Private Provision / Public Finance -- example: A self-employed doctor working for the National Health Service is an example of private provision with public finance

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Definition (FROM WIKIPEDIA): Universal health care refers to government programs intended to ensure that all citizens, and sometimes permanent residents, of a governmental region have access to most types of health care. Patients may pay for some portion of their care directly, but most care is subsidized by taxpayers and/or by compulsory health insurance.

The major argument surrounding this issue: The level of health care provided will suffer if we have a Universal Health Care system.

“The United States is famously the world leader in medical innovation--in part, it would seem, because we spend like a drunken sailor when it comes to medical care. Today, we devote 16 percent of our gross domestic product to health care, by far the largest proportion of any country in the world. (The highest spending country in Europe, Switzerland, devotes just 12 percent.) That huge, largely uncontrolled spending translates into large profits for health care companies, offering an incentive for them to do research and development ... While the United States is a world leader in cancer care, other countries, such as France, Sweden, and Switzerland, boast overall survival rates that are nearly comparable. For some variants--such as cervical cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and two common forms of leukemia--the U.S. survival rate, although good, lags behind at least some other countries. You may also have heard critics complain that universal health care inevitably leads to long lines for treatments, as it sometimes has in Britain and Canada. Again, the facts just don't back that up. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, France and Germany don't have chronic waiting lines. … None of which is to say a universal coverage system couldn't have a chilling effect on innovation while severely pinching access to medical care … All it would take was a system that had both a rigid budget and very low funding. The British have such a system, or something approximating it. Even after some recent spending increases, they still devote just 9 percent of the gross domestic product to health care, less than many European nations and a little more than half of what the United States spends. And that shows up in the availability of cutting-edge care. Relative to other highly developed countries, Britain is one of the last to get the latest cancer drugs to its patients. And that probably helps explain why British cancer survival rates generally lag, too.” (FROM The New Republic – PERSONAL NOTE: This article is very good at presenting both side of the issue if you want to read on about it.)

U.S. ranks 23rd in infant mortality, 20th in life expectancy for women, 21st for life expectancy for men, 67th in immunizations (behind Botswana). (FROM Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care – PERSONAL NOTE: This site is obviously slanted and I didn’t double check these figures)

This is all I had time to come up with but it’s good to digest at least the figures at the beginning and make your own assessment. I really wanted to break it down further and explore Medicaid/Medicare, perscription drugs and cost to employers. Perhaps I will revisit this one after the primaries once we've covered more of the other issues. I highly recommend the article from the The New Republic site as I didn't find it very biased (even though the entire site is deemed biased by some).

Here are some other good links:

http://www.familiesusa.org/issues/uninsured/coverage/ (has articles on local legislation in regard to health care)

http://www.nchc.org/ (has survey on health care issues – doesn’t show results or how you compare to others, it just informational for them)

http://www.kff.org/ (has a lot of information the multiple health care topics)


SOAPBOX AREA!

It seems to me that the Universal Health Care option isn't really the "end-all-be-all" solution. But what IS the solution!! I like the idea that the TNR article presents -- "Ultimately, whether innovation would continue to thrive under universal health care depends entirely on what kind of system we create and how well we run it." Can our bureaucratic, red-tape laden government run such a system?

Politics Wed -- The Candidates

This is only the second installment of my "Politics Wednesday" posts and it's going to be a disappointment. At least, it is for me.

Straight out of the gate, I was going to take on one of the major issues the media covers constantly. But after some consideration, I figured it might be a good idea to get a run down of each of the candidates' platform. Then as I was trying to put the list together of all of them I realized it was just too much information (probably why most of us just use what little the news sound bytes give us). Then I was going to do only the front-runners.

But due to the kind of week I've had, I'm only going to point you in the direction of WashingtonPost.com's candidate breakdown which seems more in depth than most of the other news sites I used while researching. I do apologize. I had great hopes for this week's post but lil' Monkey's virus just isn't getting better. Also, if you go to the home page of my web site, I have a nifty little widget on there from WashingtonPost.com that does a brief run down of each of them with the latest news headlines on each.

Will try to do more next week.

Politics Wednesday -- The Beginning

Growing up I was always told "Never talk about Politics, Religion, Sex or Money". Now I've never been shy in talking about Sex or Farts (most think that should be added to the "polite" list as well) and though I have yet to post something on either one of these, I'm sure they'll come up eventually. However, I've always tried to avoid the topic of Politics unless I'm with close friends whom I know either agree with my point of view or are kind enough to take it with a grain of salt should they disagree.

Recently talking amongst these select few, I realized that most of us are judging candidates on the sound bytes we happen to catch quickly via television or radio. Or sometimes it's just a feeling we get from the candidate. But with the 2008 election nearing, I feel compelled to DO something.

What IS that something? Educate myself and others about the election process, the issues and the candidates. Now I'm no expert by any means and I've forgotten quite a bit about the whole thing since my college years and my high school Political History class (sorry, Mr. Rudolph). And since I know my blog isn't read by many people, this will probably be more of an exercise to re-educate and inform myself.

However, I do hope some of you find the information I'll be posting each Wednesday a worth while read (if I do not have enough time or enough material, this might turn into a monthly thing). I realize this is testing fate and may incite flaming on this blog but I also know that the people who are currently reading this blog are decent folk with open minds.

Here are some general guidelines I'd like everyone to keep in mind while reading:

Try to read thoroughly with an open mind (and I will do my best to boil down the topics to a nice, digestible read without losing the flavor or meaning)

Think about your comments before you respond in anger (should that emotion arise within you)

Understand that I am NOT an expert and will most likely be gathering the information from multiple sources (I will try to cite those sources as often as I can)

I will always begin the post with "just the facts" and then reflect on their meaning for me (this section will be flagged with a "My Soapbox" graphic or title or something -- not quite sure yet).

Sometimes I will "give assignments" to see what others came up with which will offer an opportunity to shed light on things I may not have considered or missed (although feel free to share any valuable information you think is truly a contribution to the discussion at any time).

Speaking of which .... YOUR FIRST ASSIGNMENT:

Go to one or more of the "candidate quizzes" linked below to see where you stand right now. I say "or more" because I took a couple and came up with a few different answers, plus they're not all built the same. It is crucial that we start here since the primaries are about a month away for most people (sorry folks in Iowa, New Hampshire, Republicans in Wyoming ...).

USA Today Candidate Quiz
Glassbooth Candidate Quiz
Politalk Candidate Quiz

There's no need to comment about who your candidate turned out to be, however, just keep it in mind for the future. It will be fun to take this quiz again in a month to see if your candidate selections are still the same for the primaries. Then we'll do it all again for the November 4th election!