New Senator Scores for DUers: 109th Congress

[Zodiak]

This is the fourth installment of my little project to score Democratic Senators (and to a lesser degree, Republicans) according to issues that matter to me and, ostensibly, a number of other DUers. For a brief history, I grew concerned with the methodologies of ADA when I noticed that Diane Feinstein was rated higher than Barbara Boxer. To make the argument short, I did not like the idea of scoring amendments, motions, commitee votes, resolutions, or anything else but what affected the American people directly, bill passages and nominations. Also, ADA made Congress seem far more bimodal than it seemed to me.

So I made my own system, counting only bill passages and nominations that are important to we, the online activists (or how I interpret it, anyways). As of this 109th Congress, there are 21 issues that I have found that matches these criteria. It was a simple matter to score our Democratic senators on these issues, giving 10 points to voting progressive (as I defined it), 5 points for abstaining, and 0 points for voting against the progressive position.

Here are the scores:

Harkin (Iowa).................. 90
Boxer (California)............. 86
Lautenberg (New Jersey)........ 86
Durbin (Illinois).............. 81
Feingold (Wisconsin)........... 81
Kennedy (Massachusetts)........ 81
Corzine (New Jersey) now Gov... 77
Kerry (Massachusetts).........> 76 *
Akaka (Hawaii)................. 76
Levin (Michigan)............... 76
Mikulski (Maryland)............ 76
Reed (Rhode Island)............ 76
Sarbanes (Maryland)............ 76
Biden (Deleware)............... 71
Dodd (Connecticut)............. 71
Wyden (Oregon)................. 71
Leahy (Vermont)................ 69
Obama (Illinois)............... 69
Bayh (Indiana)................. 67 *
Schumer (New York)............. 67 *
Dayton (Minnesota)............. 67
Inouye (Hawaii)................ 64 *
Dorgan (North Dakota).......... 62 *
Reid (Nevada).................. 62
Clinton (New York)............. 60 *
Murray (Washington)............ 60
Byrd (West Virginia)........... 57
Stabenow (Michigan)............ 55 *
Kohl (Wisconsin)............... 52 *
Menendez (New Jersey).......... 50 *
Bingaman (New Mexico).......... 50
Rockefeller (West Virginia).... 48
Feinstein (California)......... 45 *
Cantwell (Washington).......... 43 *
Conrad (North Dakota).......... 43 *
Leiberman (Connecticut)........ 43 *
Carper (Deleware).............. 38 *
Baucus (Montana)............... 36 *
Johnson (South Dakota)......... 33 *
Lincoln (Arkansas)............. 29 *
Pryor (Arkansas)............... 26 *
Nelson (Florida)............... 24 *
Salazar (Colorado)............. 24 *
Landrieu (Louisianna).......... 19 *
Nelson (Nebraska).............. 5 * * = DLC

Here are the issues in which I scored:
----------------------------------------------------
Condi confirmation (against; liar)
Gonzales confirmation (against; torturer)
Class action lawsuit reform (against; loss of right to court trial)
Bankruptcy bill (against; bad for middle class and poor)
Negroponte confirmation (against; death squads)
Cheney energy bill (against; oil comany profits)
CAFTA (against; bad for workers)
CAFTA (2nd vote; against; bad for workers)
Ohio vote certification (against; stolen election)
Firearm manufacturer immunity (against; big business protection)
Confirmation of radical judges (against; compromise filibuster away)
Tax Relief act of 2005 (against; tax cuts for rich)
Deficit reconciliation act (against; spending cuts for poor)
Alito cloture (against; by DUer's request at the time..normally I do not score cloture)
Alito nomination (against; asshole Bushbot)
Tax cut protection (against; favors the rich...do these people ever stop?)
Extend Patriot Act (against; anti-civil liberties)
Raise limit on public debt (against; bad for our future)
Flag burning Amendment (against; not necessary and against 1st Amendment)
US-Oman FTA (against; ANOTHER "free trade" agreement?)
Roberts Confirmation (against; those blue eyes aren't fooling anyone)

For a graphical representation of Congress, I made this:



There are lots of conclusions to be made based on this analysis:

1. Congress, by and large, is overwhelmingly right-wing and full-steam forward with the Bush agenda, as evidenced by sum of all senators in Congress being greatly in the lowest quarter of the index.
2. The Democratic caucus is bimodal with the preponderance of senators in the 70 range and in the 40 range (60% for the Bush agenda). This trend is consistent with the average score of DLC (44%) and non-DLC (72%) senators.
3. Nearly half of the Democratic senators are DLC, with the most progressive being John Kerry of Massachusetts (76%) and the leaset progressive being Ben Nelson of Nebraska (5%).
4. Joe Leiberman is typical of the DLC senators in Congress, being only 3% lower in score than the average DLC score.
5. McCain (5%) is no goddamned maverick!!
6. Lincoln Chafee IS a maverick, for a Republican.
7. The general trend for the Republican line is lock-step and full-steam ahead Bush.
8. Tom Harkin has been ranked the most progressive Senator by my methodology for four consistent quarters! Why don't we talk about him more often?
9. All senators who vote less than 45% of the time with progressives are DLC...9 are from red states, and 4 are not.

Here is a previous thread from the last time I posted these numbers. The methodology is described in more detail, as well as lots of juicy arguments back and forth.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Zodiak%20Ironfist/1

As a pre-emptive strike, I would like to say:

1. I did not have an "agenda" in doing this exercise other than to see how well my own method agrees with ADA and later, Progressive Punch. The opinions I have gathered over the last year derive from this exercise; they were not pre-conceived because DU can be a misama of unsupported assertions and uncriticized sources. I wanted to know where Democrats stood when it REALLY mattered to me.
2. I do not claim to be more legitimate than any othe scoring system, including ADA or progressive punch or special interest ratings. This is my methodology...for me. I only post this for others who may measure "loyalty" similarly.
3. Forgive the focus on the DLC. It was the "DLC wars" here in DU that got me started down this road in the first place. Both sides accuse each other of fabrication and spin, and both sides are right (at least by my analysis).
4. I make mistakes, so if anyone sees on or disagrees with me, feel free to sound-off. The point of this exercise is not to lecture, but to learn.


Feel free to use these numbers or this graph, ignore these numbers and this graph, congratulate me, or jump up and down yelling at me for posting this. I'll even send the Excel file to those who want it and you can tweak it to your own tastes.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I always thought my Senators were DINOS

that Blanche Lincoln scored 29 and Mark Pryor 26 confirms it for me. One question: what do the * mean after the scores?

[Zodiak]

4. DLC n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. thanks! n/t

[LiberalArkie]

6. I have made up my mind (with the present people running)

in Arkansas, to vote independent, socialist, green, progressive. Anything but Republican or the Neo-Republican(Democrats). Just about every Democratic organization has called me about why I stopped contributing. I told everyone, "When there are some liberal democrats to vote for." Never again with I contribute or vote for the Lester Mattox, Orval Faubus wing of the conservative republicans. Never again.

[Zodiak]

11. That is your right to do so (or not do so).

I have my own ideas where I draw the line on party loyalty, and everyone else should, as well. The purpose of this was to see which ones have crossed it, if any.

[ClassWarrior]

12. Hey, but the (D) behind the name alone has value... Think four words:

Judiciary. Chairman. John. Conyers.

If the Dems take a majority, there are many, many TRUE Progressives that would ascend positions of power. Are you ready to toss that away because you're frustrated?

NGU.

[cry baby]

13. Hope the status quo suits you.

Baby steps, my friend, baby steps.

[w4rma]

17. Fight them in the primaries. Very bad idea to take it to the general.

It's right out of Rove's playbook to split Dems in the general election.

[Warpy]

15. I know my Senator is a DINO

and he blew it with the votes on Alito. You don't cross that choice line with me and those votes did just that.

I'll be voting Green.

Oh, don't worry, he's going to be reelected. The GOP has put up a perennial loser, an old hack who has run for office every 2 years since I've been here and lost every time, just token opposition.

I want my vote to tell him that women and progressives are not pleased with his caving to this regime.

All political careers will come to an end eventually. I want him to know his is as vulnerable as anyone else's.

[w4rma]

19. Fight them in the primaries. Very bad idea to take it to the general.

It's right out of Rove's playbook to split Dems in the general election.

[Zodiak]

23. true that n/t

[Warpy]

32. Tough.

When somebody is so far against your basic principles, perhaps you'll understand.

In the meantime, he's going to be reelected.

My vote is my own, not yours, and it's a protest.

[w4rma]

34. Jeeze, you act like you're the only person in the US

with bad politicians representing you.

Act constuctively not destructively. Use your vote constuctively not destructively. Quit trying to tear down someone or something while knowing darn well you aren't helping to replace it with something better.

[Warpy]

35. No, I act like I own my own vote

and my only way of acting constructively when faced with a "choice" between two men with few redeeming characteristics is to vote for a third option who does have redeeming characteristics.

The lesson of history with third parties will show two things: first, they come up with all the good ideas; second, when they start to hurt one of the big parties, that party co opts those good ideas to bring rebellious voters back into the fold.

My vote is my own.

[NJ Democrats]

2. Wow!

This is very intresting. Thanks for posting. How many did you get for Menendez btw? He wasn't there for most of the votes you listed. And he is way more liberal than this ranking. Otherwise it is very good, and I know Harkin was up there, I just didn't think he was number 1.

[Zodiak]

7. I had to split the total score for that seat

and divide by the number each was present to vote. These numbers reflect the percentage of the time they voted for progressive issue while they were in office.

I agree that Menendez's votes are a rather small sample.

[cry baby]

3. eye-opening analysis, thank you.

kicked, rec'd., and bookmarked

[AlinPA]

5. Thank you for taking the time to do this. I appreciate it.

[Zodiak]

10. No problem. I do it every three months.

I put it off this time because I lost the Excel file when my computer crashed. I re-performed the entire analysis this morning and now have the file again. Procrastination is not one of my better qualities.

[kaygore]

8. Very informative. Thank you!

[Triana]

14. Regardless of my opinion...

...THANK YOU for your amazing effort on this!

:applause:

[NMDemDist2]

16. well at least my new Senator Bingamin got 50

now to work on Domenici :bounce:

[Zodiak]

27. 50% is my "imaginary line"

Above it and the Senator is okay. Below it, and they need to come under some sort of pressure and criticism. I prefer primary challenges, sit-downs, protests, deluging with emails, etc. But they deserve the pressure...without it, how can they see the error of their ways?

That is my opinion.

[cali]

18. like most rating systems

this really doesn't help in assessing a Senator's progressiveness. It's a snapshot, and a blurry one at that. As I understand it, you gave equal weight to each of the issues above.

[w4rma]

20. Maybe, but it's the best I've seen so far.

And it pretty much ranks the Senators about as what I expected in my gut.

[Zodiak]

24. Yes, I did equally weigh votes

and if you call two years worth of votes a "snapshot", then it is duly noted.

If you would do it differently, then be my guest. I can send you the file and save you some initial work.

All I ask is that everyone knows where Senators stand (not just rhetorically)...whatever metric you use, but the best metric is doing the research for yourself according to what motivates you.

[ndcohn]

21. I have a small problem...

in EVERY case the 'correct' position is 'against'!

this seems like a better indicator of how consistant they are opposing bush - not necessarily indicative of how progressive they are.
I have a problem with that because it limits our evaluation only to positions that bush brings up to vote, which would exclude where they would stand on any number of other issues which bush doesn't care about energy, etc., are TOTALLY devoid from this list?]
We shouldn't judge how progressive someone is off of how much they oppose bush's nominations , and how much they oppose big buisness <43% of the ranking>. Those are important, and i'm not downplaying them - i'm just saying that it seems very limiting, and probably isn't very fair.

I think that progressive punch's ratings are maybe something else that should be considered, since it covers ammendments and a broader scope of issues. I think ammendments are important because they are the only places where progressives get the opportunity to show if they support progressive policies or not, rather then just how often they oppose conservative ones.

progressivepunch.com

Sarbanes ..........96
Reed ..............96
Kennedy ...........95
Boxer .............95
Durbin ............94
Levin .............93
Obama .............93
Lautenburg ........92
Menendez ..........92
Clinton ...........91
Harkin ............91
Akaka .............91
Leahy .............90
Stabenow ..........90
Schumer ...........90
Murray ............90
Dayton ............89
Mikulski ..........89
Feingold ..........89
Cantwell ..........88
Wyden .............88
Dodd ..............87
Kerry .............86
Rockefeller .......86
Biden .............84
Feinstein .........84
Dorgan ............83
TJohnson ..........82
Salazar ...........82
Nelson ............82
Kohl ..............81
Inouye ............81
Bingham ...........81
Reid ..............81
Bayh ..............80
Conrad ............79
Byrd ..............78
Pryor .............77
Lieberman .........76
Carper ............74
Lincoln ...........74
Landreiu ..........74
Baucus ............72
Nelson ............48

[ndcohn]

22. btw

some of the ratings are off because they rate each of the 15 catagories equally - and for some, like feingold, he gets weighed down by a 66 rating in 'Corporate Subsidies', but it clearly lays out where they are in each catagory and gives a solid idea overall

[Zodiak]

25. Iam glad you mention Progressive punch

Their methodology counts many issues more than once, which confuses the matter quite a bit. Also, if amendments were so important, then the numbers I come up with would largely reflect the numbers from Progressive Punch and ADA. If anything, this analysis shows that methodology matters....and so does whether or not the vote is an amendment or a bill passage/nomination.

I chose not to use amendments because it is easy to vote for some amendment you know is doomed. It is when votes come to the floor to be passed upon the American people that loyalty can really be measured. This is, at least, how I interpret it.

You obviously interpret it differently. Just remember that someone doing the analsysis for you leaves you completely separated from the data set. You have to take their conclusions, and conditions, on faith.

By doing this exercise, I can name the voting history of each Senator as well as post the descriptive statistics you see here. This would be good for everyone to do for themselves, and it would cut out a lot of BS arguments I have seen on both sides.

[Zodiak]

26. One more thing

notice that Iraq is not on the list. Not everything has come up for vote in this last congress, other than appropriating money to it, which is an issue that Dems and Republicans always vote together.

When a withdrawal timetable comes up for passage and the Dems take a position, I will be watching, and scoring. Until then, I really do not care. I consider it so much posturing that can be bargained with easily.

Lastly...hasn't the last Congress been all about Bush? I cannot help it if all contentious votes reflect that....this is how the numbers came out (and sadly, how politics is, nowadays).

[nealmhughes]

28. Great work!

I am glad you used Lincoln Chaffee. Did you do any analyses of Collins and Snow? They are the kind of Republicans whom I don't just ignore when they speak...
Ben Nelson ought to be ashamed.

[Zodiak]

29. Collins is 4.8, Snowe is 19 n/t

[Vidar]

30. Seems to be a better system . Good job.

[pacalo]

31. Thanks for all the effort you put into this. Good work!

I'm going to copy this for my own file so that when Landrieu runs again, I'll have it handy when her telemarketers call & I have to tell them why I'm supporting another Democrat. I hope others whose senators don't stand on principle will do the same.

[Nothing Without Hope]

33. Thank you for this! K & R

Now Barbara Boxer is campaigning for Lieberman, saying he's good for womens' rights. Arghhhh!!! What is she thinking?

[Catchawave]

36. Bookmarked !

Very well done, you should send it to the DNC :hi:

[chill_wind]

37. Very impressive and informative effort. Thank you. K&R&B! n/t

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

38. I compared your ranking to Progressive Punch's...

... the differences are interesting. I have highlighted people that you ranked significantly higher in orange and significantly lower in blue. By the way, thanks for doing this work!

Hosted by www.imageshack.us

[Zodiak]

39. Wow...that's great!!!

This really shows me the differences. I appreciate you taking the time with my little exercise, and have saved the picture.

The fact that my scores are significantly lower for many senators than Progressive punch (and ADA) shows the differences between voting on amendments and actual bills, which I think is the most interesting result of all.

Hopefully this exercise will show everyone here on DU that simply spouting a rating as an argument for a Senator's voting history is not on as solid ground as one might expect. One rating system can make the Democrats looks like a monolitic group with a few stragglers, and another shows two groups within the same party that differ in their support of Bush policies by 30% (which is fairly large).

Refering to my graph in the OP:

When the graph looks like \/, you have a partisan Congress.

When it looks like /\, you have a bipartisan Congress.

What does it say when your congress looks like this (as in my graph)? \-

One-party rule.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

42. Glad to help. I think it illustrates some key differences in...

...the methodologies, although my analysis was a crude comparison of rankings. I'd be interested to see you compare your ranks (or weighted scores) against PP and ADA.

Despite the crudeness of my analysis, I find it interesting that your methodology ranks the following Senators much higher than PP:
Feingold
Kerry
Biden
Byrd

with the following much lower:
Bayh
Clinton
Murray
Stabenow
Menendez
Cantwell
Johnson
Nelson
Salazar

I find some of those surprising, given their positive word-count on DU and others not surprising, given their negative word-count. It's very interesting that Kerry stands apart from the other DLCers in your rankings.

EDIT: regarding your graph looking like \__-_--__ yep, that should be a big concern... but unfortunately, that seems to be the system you are currently saddled with in the U.S. Speaking as just one person outside the U.S., good luck with changing that. Hopefully, 2006 will be a step towards that change.

[Zodiak]

45. The next time I may add that comparison

I plan on doing this again in three months, but the posibility exists that there will be little or no activity to score (Summer), so a meta-analyis might be in order.

A one-look chart with all scores from all methods would tell the voters a lot more than one analysis alone, that is certain.

[emmadoggy]

40. Yay! My guy is Number ONE! Go, Harkin!

Thanks for this interesting analysis. I also like to use http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm to see where politicians fall on the political spectrum based on their voting records. It also has a quiz to see where you fall on the spectrum as well which I found interesting.

Thanks again for this! :thumbsup:

[Zodiak]

44. You are welcome.

and I am very glad that your guy came out on top. I honestly think we do not say enough good things about Harkin on this board. I suppose we all are influenced by media saturation to one degree or another.

[Clarkie1]

41. Nice work. I only disagree with you on one criteria...Negroponte.

And no, I am not pro-death squads.

Other than that, this is a very useful analysis for me. Glad to see my senator Boxer scoring so high.

Edit: Is anyone else here surprised that Biden scored as high as he did?

[Zodiak]

43. Yes, I am surprised

but since I am the one doing the analysis, I am forced to believe it. For me, this exercise really cuts through a lot of rhetoric I see here every day.

The exercise has always made me warmer to Kerry...in fact, it is only in this quarter that Kerry wasn't in the top five senators. He has always been a cut-above-the-rest DLCer. His only sin is that he hasn't met a free trade agreement he doesn't like.