Below are some excerpts from the best candidate comparision site I have yet to see. This is just a little bit of what you can find on the site, I encourage everbody to check it out. Thank you LaterSkater for sending this site to me.
Who is winning
The presidential election is decided by a majority of electoral votes. Below left is a plot over time of the estimated number of electoral votes for Obama if the election were held today. Below right is a plot of the popular vote (but note that as demonstrated in 1876, 1888 and 2000, winning the popular vote does not mean winning the election). You might also want to consult electoral-vote.com, Real Clear Politics, 538, pollster.com, or my own election dashboard.
How honest or dishonest are they
Probably the best referee in this game is Factcheck.org, from UPenn’s Annenberg Political Policy Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit consumer advocate for voters. They don’t give out easily classified scores so I can’t summarize briefly, but you can read a comrehensive article from Sept. 25 listing the major whoppers so far.
Other players in this game include CNN’s Fact Check and the St. Petersburg (FL) Times, an independent non-profit paper, which runs PolitiFact. They too check on candidates statements and rate them on a scale from “True” to “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire.” Here is the scorecard so far. My column “True Pct” means the percentage of statements that were rated True, Mostly True, or Half True; “Lie Pct” means the percentage that were False or Pants on Fire:
Here’s the list of statements that were rated as Pants On Fire:
What do special interest groups think
About what you’d expect: conservative groups like McCain, liberal groups like Obama.
One surprise: more veterans groups like Obama better. It seems that when it comes to issues of veteran care, McCain prefers to cut government spending and Obama prefers to support the veterans even if it means increased spending.
Caveat: they’re called special interest groups. That’s because they have special interests. Don’t assume that a group represents your interests because it has the word Family in its title and you belong to a family, or because it has the word Retired and you’re retired. Be sure to check out each group.
|American Conservative Union||82||8||2007|
|Americans for Democratic Action (Liberal group)||10||75||2007|
|National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy||35||87||2007|
|National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy||40||85||2007|
|National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy||53||77||2007|
|Disabled American Veterans||20||80||2006|
|Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America||D||B+||2006|
|NARAL Pro-Choice America||0||100||2007|
|National Right to Life Committee||75||0||2007|
|Americans for Tax Reform||80||15||2006|
|Citizens for Tax Justice||50||100||2005-2006|
|American Civil Liberties Union||50||80||2007|
|Human Rights Campaign||33||89||2005-2006|
|League of Women Voters||17||100||2007|
|American Association of University Women||0||66||2007|
|National Education Association||F||A||2007|
|Campaign for America’s Future (Energy Policy)||17||100||2005-2006|
|League of Conservation Voters||0||67||2007|
|League of Conservation Voters||26||96||Lifetime|
|American Wilderness Coalition||16||100||2006|
|Children’s Defense Fund||10||70||2007|
|Family Research Council (Tony Perkins)||42||0||2007|
|Citizens for Global Solutions||F||A||2008|
|The Genocide Intervention Network–Darfur Scores||C||A||2007|
|Center for Security Policy||59||21||2005-2006|
|U.S. Public Interest Research Group||41||86||2006|
|Citizens Against Government Waste||91||13||2005-2006|
|National Rifle Association||C+||F||Lifetime to 2004|
|American Academy of Family Physicians||0||100||2007|
|United Auto Workers||0||62||2007|
|Alliance for Retired Americans||0||100||2007|