Well as for Obama.... there reasoning is

"He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals.Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders. We list these because many of Obama’s detractors absurdly portray him as either a radical liberal or a socialist, while his apologists, equally absurdly, continue to view him as a well-intentioned progressive, tragically thwarted by overwhelming pressures. 2008's yes-we-can chanters, dazzled by pigment rather than policy detail, forgot to ask can what? Between 1998 and the last election, Obama amassed $37.6million from the financial services industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While 2008 presidential candidate Obama appeared to champion universal health care, his first choice for Secretary of Health was a man who had spent years lobbying on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry against that very concept. Hey! You don't promise a successful pub, and then appoint the Salvation Army to run it. This time around, the honey-tongued President makes populist references to economic justice, while simultaneously appointing as his new Chief of Staff a former Citigroup executive concerned with hedge funds that bet on the housing market to collapse. Obama poses something of a challenge to The Political Compass, because he's a man of so few fixed principles.

As outrageous as it may appear, civil libertarians and human rights supporters would have actually fared better under a Republican administration. Had a Bush or McCain presidency continued Guantanamo and introduced the NDAA, the Democratic Party would have howled from the rooftops. Under a Democratic administration, these far-reaching developments have received scant opposition and a disgraceful absence of mainstream media coverage."

A few things. Firstly that stuff they wrote up actually shows a bias in itself, it's all very subjective (which isn't what this should be). I also wasn't really talking about Obama - I was talking about the fact that for instance they include every European country listed as being 'right wing' despite some of them practically being socialist utopias.

Economically or socialially?   Because socially I find it hard to argue that any country is anywhere near a leftwing paradise looking at the various gaps measures and studies.

Economically... a "Socialist Paradise" is still mostly capitalist despite most conservative complaints.

I mean, Greece for example, had 25% of their workforce as public employees.  That's 75% of the workers in the economy fundamentally more left wing then right wing.

I think the big problem is people fail to grasp the importance of the phrase "strongly agree with."   Which essentially means "True in pretty much all cases."

So you if you Strongly disagree that what is best for a company is best for the world, you would essentially be arguing that it's pretty much NEVER the case, big multinatioanl corporations are evil.   While even most leftwing government actually would probably err on "Somewhat agree."    Most of the time transnational corporations help the world as a whole through economic growth and free trade but need some regulations to keep them in check.  Only ones disagreeing really being the super protectionist leftwing style governments.

I mean look at this chart.

To be on the left.  You essentially have to agree with Stalin more on economic matters then Margret Thatcher.  In otherwords, something like the chinese government.

Though admittindly yes, the PC does seem to have a pretty liberal bias.

So they judged Obama based on what ultimately happened under his watch as opposed to what he would have wanted to happen?

That leads to so many other factors effecting their description of the man's politics.

They did, and why not? To say that Obama isn't responsible for something like having ordered the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki without even trying to obtain a court order, or that it's not reflective of his politics because he ideally wouldn't have wanted to have to make such a decision, would be ludicrous. All his outrage over Bush wiretapping and pouring water up people's noses may have been sincere or it may have been mere partisan posturing, but it matters not, because when presented with that choice, Obama outdid Bush a million times over.

That said, the reason why almost everyone ends up in the upper right quadrant may have something to do with the fact that Political Compass is run by One World Action, which is a rather far left group.

Rereading kasz's post, I agree with you.

I was in a rush and didn't read it thoroughly at first, and got the impression they were claiming just about everything that got through Congress during his term represented his political ideals, but instead they pinpointed specific actions taken in regards to civil liberties and cabinet appointments that certainly do show Obama's more authoritarian and hypocritical nature.

Pretty much.  

Essentially the Democrats are Republicans too, they just aren't honest about it.  That and economically the Poltiical compass seems to be a bit anti-corporitist so Wallstreet bailouts are seen more as a rightwing pro buisness thing then a leftwing government intervention thing.

A lot of Republicans do it too, like say, Mitt Romney which is why i'm not going to vote for him either.

I'm not voting for Obama though because i voted for him for 3 reasons.

1) He promised to repeal most if not all of the Patriot Act and close Guantanomo and in general dial down the american war machine.  He didn't really do ANY of that.  He got us out of Iraq sure... but he got us out of Iraq on the EXACT same time table Bush and McCain had.  He's done nothing but maintain or acellerate the american war machine.

2) Hope that maybe there would be a little bit of movement on some soically liberal areas.  There was I think... one fair pay type act to help women way early in his campaign?  That was about it.  Don't ask Don't tell was repealed, but largely only because it was going to be defeated in court by a pro gay republican group, and essentially Obama put the DoJ to defend the law to stall and get enough time to convicne enough senators that this shit was going to happen anyway so they have to do it so they could put a Democrat spin on it.

3)  He's black.  Yeah I know, people say that it shouldn't matter... and yeah it shouldn't matter.... but it does.

Anyone who was with a black person when the election results were announced or watched a black person react on tv could tell you that.

I don't think it can be understated, the effect of when someone tells a black child they can't do something because they are black, that a black child can respond "A black person has held the highest position in this entire country, i can do whatever the hell I want."

So essentially, I really only have number 3.  Which is something he literally could NOT of dissapointed me on.

Economic Left/Right: -6.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.26

Should be about where I ended up the last time.

I thought Sweden would be further to the right in the EU Leaders chart considering we have been ruled by the right since 2006, but I guess our "right" is closer to the center when compared to other nations.

Guess my views are similar to Gandhi.. sweet!

Yup, that is very true. The left in the US would still be considered right here in Sweden, for instance.