Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump Quiz
How the Scales are Structured
Who Usually Takes This Test?
See How You Compare
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.
Example Questions From the Test
- Reaffirm the alliance immediately, then address burden-sharing through established diplomatic channels.
- Provide support while setting a firm timetable for the ally to increase its contribution.
- Make some additional support conditional on rapid, measurable commitments from the ally.
- Publicly question automatic support until the ally meets its obligations.
- Delay the decision, examine the evidence, and seek a documented interagency recommendation.
- Hear the competing views fully, then choose a policy and explain why some advice was rejected.
- Consult selected experts but give greater weight to the elected agenda and political judgment.
- Move ahead if the president believes entrenched officials are blocking the mandate voters chose.
- Major temporary public spending, expanded benefits, and direct support for affected communities.
- Targeted aid and infrastructure spending with clear expiration dates.
- Temporary tax relief and limited assistance focused on the hardest-hit sectors.
- Broad tax and regulatory relief, with private investment driving most of the recovery.
Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump Quiz - Description and methodology of the test
People who want to compare policy instincts across major presidential issues can use the Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump Quiz as a structured reflection on candidate-associated approaches. It is intended for readers who want a candidate policy quiz with more detail than a party label provides, while keeping the focus on concrete choices. This assessment examines governing, leadership, and civic policy rather than personality alone.
What This Assessment Explores
The scenarios ask for the response closest to your judgment on federal power, economic policy, social questions, diplomacy, expertise, and public communication. Across the scenarios, this Hillary or Trump quiz describes selected issue alignments rather than your complete ideology or party identity.
These are the three dimensions reported:
- Government and the Economy (0-15) shows preferences for federal action, taxes, regulation, healthcare, economic intervention, and public assistance; Clinton-leaning 0-5, Blended 6-10, Trump-leaning 11-15.
- Leadership and Global Engagement (0-15) shows preferences for expertise, diplomacy, alliances, international commitments, and leader-centered leverage; Clinton-leaning 0-5, Blended approach 6-10, Trump-leaning 11-15.
- Social and Civic Policy (0-15) shows alignment on immigration, firearms, reproductive policy, LGBTQ protections, and unequal treatment; Clinton-leaning 0-5, Blended approach 6-10, Trump-leaning 11-15.
A mixed profile can show agreement in one area alongside a different alignment elsewhere.
Methodology and Evidence Base
Each item presents a policy scenario with four response options. The options express differing emphases, including federal action, state discretion, market reliance, enforcement, or presidential latitude, depending on the issue. Only three topic scores are reported; individual response weighting is not specified, so the profile should be read as a comparison across topics rather than a calculation to reconstruct.
The framework is conceptually consistent with Gibson and Shaw (2019), which examines how issue considerations relate to the 2016 presidential vote, and with Graefe (2013), which distinguishes issue voting from leader voting. The 2016 Democratic and Republican platforms supply period-specific context for the candidate-associated policy poles. This questionnaire is not presented as an adaptation or validation of those published studies.
As a presidential alignment quiz, it is a comparative self-report of issue preferences. The displayed bands are descriptive labels for this questionnaire; responses may reflect current events, personal context, self-awareness, or a tendency to present oneself favorably. Read an unexpected or mixed result as a prompt to examine individual issues, not as a definitive account of political identity.
- Nadine S. Gibson and Daron R. Shaw. 2019. “Politics as Unusual? Exploring Issues and the 2016 Presidential Vote.” Social Science Quarterly 100(2): 447-465. 10.1111/ssqu.12595
- Andreas Graefe. 2013. “Issue and Leader Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections.” Electoral Studies 32(4): 644-657. 10.1016/j.electstud.2013.04.003
- Democratic National Committee. 2016. 2016 Democratic Party Platform. July 21, 2016.
- Republican National Committee. 2016. 2016 Republican Party Platform. July 18, 2016.