Senator ADA ratings are useless...here why (new method researched)

[Zodiak]

OK...I got really, really tired of seeing DUers defend the turncoat Democrats by quoting this thing called an ADA rating without knowledge of the methodology. I was curious as to what this rating is, so I went to their website (http://www.adaction.org/votingrecords.htm) to read up on this rating system.

The first claim I noticed was that this methodology is the "standard" by which public liberalism has been measured since 1947. Sounds good to me. Apparently, the ADA takes 20 choice issues and assigns +5% for each vote for the liberal cause (senators are rated by %). However, when I read the issues from last year (the most up-to-date info they have), they all seemed to be an amendment for this bill or that, but not the actual passage of the bill.

Looking a little further, I checked the voting on a couple of these amendments, which were practically all rated straight down party lines. By this methodology, a partisan conservative Democrat could safely vote for a useless amendment but then vote against the bill later to appease his base. That hardly seemed fair since the only thing that matters is whether the bill goes into effect or not.

To show how bad the ADA ratings are, Senator Feinstein (100%) is considered more liberal than Barbara Boxer (95%). WTF?

So I got to thinking, and I thought that DUers need a new system that reflects the prevailing opinion here. I think we can all agree that stopping the neo-con agenda and keeping Americans safe from our corrupt government and corporate abuses would be top of the list as a definition for "public liberalism" in DU-speak, so that is the principle I apply here.

I have created my own ADA rating for every Democratic senator according to their behavior THIS year. I did NOT include only votes, but also public opposition to Bush in my criteria. The following are the results of this new rating system. I only used 11 issues because there were only 11 issues that were voted on for passage or confirmation this year. I suppose I could add last years info, but I think what I found was telling enough.

If the Democrat votes against Bush, they get 10 points for that issue. If they vote with Bush and the neocons, they get zero points. If they "no vote" on the issue, they get 5 points (probably don't deserve it, but I had to make the distinction). I have a couple of exceptions, but those will be noted with the issue at hand.

Here are the issues I used (party unity index also indicated..higher index makes for more agreement between DUers and the Democratic senators as a whole):
1. Rice confirmation (inept) 2.7
2. Gonzales confirmation (torturer) 8.3
3. Class action lawsuit bill 5.91
4. Bankruptcy bill 5.7
5. Negroponte confirmation (criminal and murderer) (0.5)
6. Cheney's Energy Bill (1.6)
7. CAFTA I (7.8)
8. CAFTA II (two votes for it (votes changed), + important issue) (7.5)
9. Election Reform (object to Ohio vote, 5 pts for speaking out, 10 for voting with a conscious) (0.6)
10. Confirmation of radical RW judges (0 pts for voting for one of the three judges, 5 pts for being one of the 7 senators in the compromise, -10 pts for voting for TWO of these judges ) (8.5)
11. Firearm manufacturer immunity from legal liability (6.7)


Here is the list of Senators starting with the most DU-like. We can call it an anti-Bush index or a DU rating. Whatever...just pay attention to who falls out where. Note that I allowed a senator to go with Bush on ONE issue without penalty (b/c of a total of 110 pts possible). This is to not make the rating so harsh as to DEMAND ideological purity.

Harkin (Iowa) 95
Boxer (CA) 90
Lautenberg (NJ) 90
Akaka (Hawaii) 80
Corzine (NJ) 80
Dayton (MN) 80
Durbin (IL) 80
Feingold (WI) 80
Kennedy (MA) 80
Kerry (MA) 80 - DLC
Levin (MI) 80
Dodd (CN) 70 - DLC
Leahy (VT) 70
Mikulski (MD) 70
Reed (RI) 70
Sarbanes (MD) 70
Shumer (NY) 70
Wyden (OR) 70
Clinton (NY) 65 - DLC
Obama (IL) 65
Bayh (IN) 60 - DLC
Biden (DE) 60
Dorgan (ND) 60 - DLC
Stabenow (MI) 60 - DLC
Byrd (WV) 50
Inouye (Hawaii) 50
Murray (WA) 50
Reid (NV) 50
Rockefeller (WV) 50
Baucus (MN) 45 - DLC
Bingaman (NM) 40
Cantwell (WA) 40 - DLC
Johnson (SD) 40 - DLC
Kohl (WI) 40 - DLC
Conrad (ND) 35 - DLC
Feinstein (CA) 35
Carper (DE) 30 - DLC
Leiberman (CT) 30 - DLC
Landrieu (LA) 20 - DLC
Lincoln(ARK) 20 - DLC
Nelson (FL) 20 - DLC
Salazar (CO) 20 - DLC
Pryor (ARK) 15 - DLC
Nelson (NE) 0 - DLC

So there you have it.

I will take the senators that are rated above 50, although I would like to point out that going along with Bush 50% of the time still hurts Americans immensely. Harkin rates the absolute best, and I think that we should all give him a round of applause for it.

I wonder if he wishes to run for President, because as far as this index goes, Harkin is practically a DUer. All those Kerry supporters are right...Kerry scores very well on our side. Not bad for a DLCer, if you ask me.

Using this system, 13 DLC senators are rated below 50% and 6 are rated above. Of the 13 worst senators in DUers eyes, 12 are "New Democrats".

If you would like to critique my methodology or have further suggestions, please feel free to suggest them. This is one Saturday morning's worth of research.

[blm]

1. You should give an extra credit to the 10 senators who want DSM inquiry.

And an added 100 points to the first senator who brings up impeachment.

You actually did a solid, methodical job here. Nice morning effort on your part.

[Zodiak]

2. sure...I would be willing to

All I used was the voting record and what I know about some of the politics behind the voting record (like the judge copromise, for example). Requesting an inquiry into the DSM would qualify as an "issue" this year, definitely.

Tell you what.....after this thread expires (and it will probably sink like a stone b/c of today's news, and ADA ratings are boring statistics), I can readjust the numbers.

But I'm tired of the DLC battle here going nowhere because nobody seems to have a clear idea of the voting record other than what I would call "flawed" ADA ratings.

I think this analysis shows that those that have gripes against the DLC have a good point, at least in the Senate. There are exceptions, but 12 of the bottom 13 all being DLCers is really telling.

Kerry and Dodd should be above "DLC-types" criticism, though. They are clearly DLCINO (DLC in name only).

[blm]

5. I appreciate further left voices pulling against the centrists in the DLC.

Centrists CAN move left.....Dean is a great example of that, and I expect more to follow.

[DaveinMD]

3. so you don't like the results

so you create your own. ADA has worked well for a very long time.

[Zodiak]

4. then explain why

Feinstein is considered more liberal than Boxer according to the ADA?

Any DUer would laugh at that notion. My method is designed for Democrats and it doesn't waste scoring on votes that do not directly affect the American people. I handled it as fairly as I could, but yes, I do NOT like the idea that someone like Feinstein who voted only 35% with important progressive issues has a higher liberal rating than Boxer who voted with them 90% of the time. ADA needs to get with the times.

That is what told me that the method may not truly reflect "liberal" public politics. Token votes don't mean crap.

Opposing the hijacking of this country does.

[DaveinMD]

8. because in one year

Boxer may take a more moderate line on the issues they score. This could be because she's up for re-election in a particular year.

But what this exercise is really about is aiming fire at fellow Democrats. We need to aim at Republicans. After we beat them, then we can afford to fight with each other. Right now we can't.

[Zodiak]

12. no, this post is NOT intended for that

If I picked out certain Democrats and picked on them without reason, then yes, it would simply be bashing. This is an across-the-board comparison performed with no preconceived notions...you can take what you want from these numbers. If you disagree with some stances..then perhaps you are not 100% yourself. That is fine...think of it as a political compass.

As far as election year behavior is concerned, I really do not care about the reasons for votes, just the votes themselves (because otherwise we are left with speculation). The point is to measure Democrats as they have done for us progressives lately, not during the last election year. This is also measured against the neo-con wish list, so it IS a measure of how hard these Democrats fight to beat Republicans. It is also a measure of which Democrats are not doing their jobs fighting Republicans. We can identify these and put pressure on them or encourage them to do so.

Also, DU is not CNN. If any criticism of Dems can occur...it should be here. Would you prefer us hashing out these differences in public? I really think some of us treat this place like everyone in the world is hanging on our every word...they are not...it is an insular board.

I also think that before we put resources towards candidates during the primary, it is good to know these numbers because, as I have asserted before, the ADA ratings are a useless measurement for lefty blogger types like many DU members.

[Zodiak]

6. ADA says 14 Democrats in the Senate are perfect

14 of them get a perfect score, according to the ADA. Here they are:

Feingold
Kohl
Leahey
Reed
Wyden
Schumer
Lautenberg
Corzine
Stabenow
Levin
Kennedy
Saurbanes
Mikulski
Harkin
Inouye
Dodd
Feinstein

The ADA has no numbers from this year, of course. But tell me, how can all of these Senators be "perfect" liberals?

Feingold voted to confirm Rice and Negroponte and didn't stand up for voting rights on the floor when he was needed. He is a fine Democrat, but perfectly liberal?

Kohl voted against the Democrats on six issues this year, including confirmation of Rice and Negroponte, He voted for limiting class action suits, he voted for the bankruptcy bill, and Cheney's energy bill. He also voted for one of the three RW radical judges recently put on the bench during the compromise. Now how is that 100% liberal?

We could go down the list, but the point is this:

ADA's methodology, because the votes in question are practically all down party lines, only serves to distinguish Republicans from Democrats. Not liberals from non-liberals or Appeasing Dems from Anti-Bushie Dems (many want this distinction spelled out for them in numbers). There is no defense for giving a 100% liberal rating to someone whose record is like Kohl's, and that is only one example.

My method (as hastily conceied as it was) shows that no one Senator is 100% with DU prevailing opinion, which is a better reflection of reality.

[SaveElmer]

9. No one is perfect...

They simply have a perfect score on the ADA test of "liberalness". This list of 100 scores is a pretty good representation of the liberal wing of the Senate.

As to why some well known liberals do not get 100 ratings...it is often because they take a contrary position on one or two issues..

Senator Reid is pro-choice for example. Some well known liberals are supportive of the flag burning amendment.

The ADA has been a pretty good marker of where a given member stands on the spectrum of mainstream Democratic thought over the years. You may not like the results because of personal animosity toward this or that member, but it does not invalidate the ratings.

[Zodiak]

13. This is not a good explanation

If you wish to defend ADA, then look at the issues they pick and find specific examples. I am saying that ADA's methodology dooes not distinguish Deocrats from each other. What it does do is distinguish Republicans from Democrats. They use an arbitrary amount of issues (20, not 100 as you seem to think), whether 10 bills are passed or 10,000. That is just plain silly. And they do not distinguish between a "yes" vote and a "not voted", which I do.

And I did NOT go into this with pre-conceived notions, so please take your swammi hat off when it comes to my motivations. I flagged the DLC members after the fact just because there has been a lot of talk about the DLC on this board lately. I even gave credit where credit is due.

What is with the paranoia about progressives finding out where Democrats stand on issues?

I would also argue that "manstream Democratic thought" is a very different thing from progressive or liberal thought, which is what the ADA claims.

[Zodiak]

7. Shameless bump

It WAS 4 hours of research, after all

[Renew Deal]

10. Nelson of NE was bad on every single issue?

Are you serious? :wow:

[Zodiak]

11. no

he voted with progressives on one issue, giving him a total of 10 points. Unfortunately, he also voted for TWO right-wing judges, giving him -10 pts, which is why he is at zero. He was the only Democrat to vote for two of those RW judges, so he is the only Senator who got a negative score on an issue.

[Zodiak]

14. One more thing to add...

Here are the Republican scores. If any Republican is not listed, the score is 0.

Chafee.....30 pts
DeWine....20 pts
Snowe.....20 pts
Voinovich, Gregg, McCain, Kyl, Martinez, Gregg, Sununu, Collins..10 pts

Yup, that is right, Chafee scores better than 6 of our Democratic senators when only the passage of bills and senate confirmations are considered. Remember, if the vote didn't directly affect the American people, then it doesn't count because it is too easily politicized to please the base.

These are also the Republicans who are most likely to go against Bush since these ratings are based on Bush's positions. I've written to both DeWine and Voinovich about holding Bush responsible for Katrine. I'm glad from these numbers to see that I have a slight chance of being heard.

[greendog]

15. On lifetime averages...

...one of the things that bothers me about the ADA ratings is that really horrible votes are "averaged" away over the years. We live with the effects of NAFTA and right wing judges forever and they just get a little one time hit for it.

[Zodiak]

16. good point n/t

I didn;t do lifetime or even long-term averages because, frankly, I'm one person ho had a few hours to try to sort through all the BS. I wanted to know exactly how our Democratic senators stand because the ADA ratings were misleading.

Also, Kerry (25) is 1/3 as liberal as Lieberman (75), according to the ADA. This is because of missed votes during the election year. In my opinion, not voting is not as bad as voting along with Bush.