Hillary more liberal then Howard Dean and Al Gore?

[Odin2005]

I have posted this website before, but it seems like every time I post it I doesn't get much attention:

http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm

Hillary Clinton:




Barack Obama:




John Edwards:




Dennis Kucinich:




John Kerry:




Al Gore:




Howard Dean:

[skipos]

1. I don't really care what the charts say

I don't think Hillary is "no different than a Republican" like some folks here, but there is nothing that I see that makes her to the left of Dean overall.

[Odin2005]

4. That's what things like these charts are for.

Our prejudices color how we perceive people, impersonal statistical analysis is not affect by such subjectivity.

[depakid]

15. Charts are only as good as their input

and, as I'm sure you've seen- they can easily show you ridiculous and spurious things.

[karynnj]

18. These are not impersonal statistics

Every variable is qualitative and the value is determined by the the people who designed it. On each category there are - 4 or 5 levels - strongly favor, favor, oppose, and strongly oppose. (there might be a neutral, but in a quick look I didn't see any.) They used about 10 statements the person made and looked at select votes.

The placement of a person is subjective on every issue - as is the selection of the statements.

[William769]

22. ...

:rofl:

[BootinUp]

2. The graph is confusing me a little

[Odin2005]

5. top right to bottom left is the economic axis, bottom right to to left is social issues.

Hillary, for example is 80% to the left on economic policy and 90% to the left on social issues

[BootinUp]

8. thanks, got it now.

[cascadiance]

41. The populist label of the bottom quadrant makes no sense then...

What it says is that you tend to be very extreme opposite of right wing economic poliicies, but very nazi about social issues. Who would that be, the religious right who want to have a communist state? Confused... I've always felt myself as being a populist and a liberal. I didn't think it was on the opposite end of the social values scale to me.

[Warpy]

7. Try this, then

http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?search=selectName&member=NYI&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=46&y=10

That gives details on all her votes, as well as a progressive rating on each separate issue.

Her record in Congress is a good one.

That's what makes her health plan so puzzling.

On edit: Compare to Dennis Kucinich http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?search=selectName&member=OH10&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=18&y=12

[NYCGirl]

3. Calibrating "liberalness" is a very imprecise science. Perhaps that's why

there's not more attention paid to those charts.

[aquart]

6. Extremely confusing charts.

Shouldn't there be one dot for economic and another for social? Just see one and no idea where it applies.

But calling Hillary a liberal will get you no points in this crowd. They flat out refuse to believe it.

And not because she's the first viable woman to run for this office, either. Nuh uh.

[Odin2005]

10. See post #5 n/t

[karynnj]

21. No - they are plotting a value (x,y)

The axis are rotated from where you are used to seeing them from HS algebra. The lines defining areas are also supperimposed on the grid.

[Carrieyazel]

9. The Repukes and Indeps consider Hillary to be the most liberal candidate.

Far different than DU. I wonder why that is?

[Cameron27]

11. That's what I've been saying,

but nobody wants to listen.x(

[durrrty libby]

12. Hillary is a solid Liberal Democrat

Idiots say otherwise.....next

[Carrieyazel]

32. Which is why she will lose. Who was the last solid Liberal Democrat to win the White House?

Too many Repukes, and Repuke-leaning Indeps out there in a general election.

[fujiyama]

13. Charts measuring political ideaology are fairly useless IMO

We know by Hillary's own associations, public statements, and voting record, that on most issues she is a relatively mainstream Democrat.

However, if you take a few major issues into account like the war, it's difficult to believe she is "more liberal" than Gore or Dean. They staked out courageous convictions when the war drums were beating and when the pressure was high to get behind the president.

We also know that Dean and Gore have undergone a political transformation of sorts over the years. Dean was arguably a somewhat fiscally conservative governor. Gore was quite conservative when he represented Tennessee in the senate.

Times change, people change. Hillary has seemingly become more conservative and corporatized over the years. She has also not displayed any major acts of political courage.

[sandrakae]

14. This is just wrong. Hilary is a little right of center.

There are times I beleive she is not Democrat enough.

[Odin2005]

29. Asserting your opinion doesn't make it true.

[sandrakae]

30. That goes for you too.

[HughBeaumont]

16. Uh . . . OK.

Someone who thinks there's positives to outsourcing, gives Bewsh the option on the table regarding Iran, hobnobs with Rupert Murdoch, believed the Failure Fuhrer's cooked intel about Iraq and greenlighted his war, has a waffling, still-for-profit, STILL run by Big Insurance health care plan and encourages a population boom by further draining the middle class (because let's face it: if you think she's gonna start taxin' "the Betters" to fund this idea, you, like Rob Halford once said, "got another think coming") is a "Liberal Democrat"???

Voting record aside, NO.

[JNelson6563]

17. rofl

:rofl:

[karynnj]

19. THE TESTS DIFFER BY PERSON

Comparing the test for Clinton and Kerry:

- The scoring algorithm is different
- The issues are different - Clinton's pulls in newer bills
- There are some very strange differences - in the Clinton scoring, "absolute right to gun owner ship" and "being for school vouchers" affect the ECONOMIC VARIABLE.

For the Kerry one, they impact the SOCIAL VARIABLE. For these two issues, Kerry is given 0 out of 10 points because he is strongly opposed to both issues - as are many people who are liberal. The scoring on guns was strange - taking a Kerry comment that people have a right to firearms, but it comes with responsibities as opposed. As Kerry was at or near 10 on the other issues. These two issues push him down on that axis - pushing him to the boundry of left/liberal - instead of comfortably in it.

In Clinton's case it affects the economic - moving her down on that axis. This moves her to be MORE left liberal.

My guess is they did this because the logic used when Kerry was scored produced counter intuitive results.

Word to the wise - elegant diagrams do NOT insure good analysis.

Gore and Edwards were scored on the Hillary Clinton scale. Also noticed that some of the statements for edwards are clears scored wrong - ie the comment "I was wrong to vote for the IWR" was scored as opposing the issue of the US out of Iraq. (!!)

[seasat]

20. Interesting, Richardson scores the same as Dean, Kerry, and Gore

I was thinking about this the other day. Richardson 2008 and Dean 2004 have a lot of similarities in their major positions. Both Dean and Richardson differ from a lot of liberals their support for second amendment issues and strong support for balanced budgets. However both are to the left of the other candidates on the Iraq war. Both are governors. Both have received a lot of criticism over gaffes.

I don't think that Richardson is copying Dean's approach. I think it's because both of them come from areas where Democrats are more left-libertarian. They strongly support civil liberties and fiscal responsibility. However they both embrace Democratic government programs like health care and environmental programs which keep them from being considered true libertarians.

[karynnj]

23. Kerry was not "graded" by the same test as the 2008 people

The new test should make people look more liberal.
Comparing the tests for Clinton and Kerry:

- The scoring algorithm is different
- The issues are different - Clinton's pulls in newer bills
- There are some very strange differences - in the Clinton scoring, "absolute right to gun owner ship" and "being for school vouchers" affect the ECONOMIC VARIABLE.

For the Kerry one, they impact the SOCIAL VARIABLE. For these two issues, Kerry is given 0 out of 10 points because he is strongly opposed to both issues - as are many people who are liberal. The scoring on guns was strange - taking a Kerry comment that people have a right to firearms, but it comes with responsibities as opposed. As Kerry was at or near 10 on the other issues. These two issues push him down on that axis - pushing him to the boundry of left/liberal - instead of comfortably in it.

In Clinton's case it affects the economic - moving her down on that axis. This moves her to be MORE left liberal.

My guess is they did this because the logic used when Kerry was scored produced counter intuitive results.

Word to the wise - elegant diagrams do NOT insure good analysis.

Gore and Edwards were scored on the Hillary Clinton scale. Also noticed that some of the statements for edwards are clears scored wrong - ie the comment "I was wrong to vote for the IWR" was scored as opposing the issue of the US out of Iraq. (!!)

[seasat]

25. I agree, the OnTheIssues site is very subjective.

I've also noticed many mistakes in their posts and rankings. Earlier this year, someone was arguing that Obama wanted to ban all semi-automatic weapons based on a line from that web site. It was based on the National Political Aptitude Test. This was a survey that Obama completed while still a State Senator. When I looked up the test, the actual line was on banning semi-automatic assault weapons. There's a huge difference between that and banning such items as my Grandfathers old Belgium Browning shotgun.

There's also the line about "Allow Churches to Provide Welfare Services". The way it is worded, it sounds like the candidate supports *'s faith based initiative. However, it is really referring to allowing contributions to religious based charities, like the Salvation Army, to be tax deductible. It's kind of misleading.

The only reason I pointed out the scores was that I've noticed some similarities between Dean's 2004 and Richardson's 2008 platform.

[derby378]

37. Well...

I've also noticed many mistakes in their posts and rankings. Earlier this year, someone was arguing that Obama wanted to ban all semi-automatic weapons based on a line from that web site. It was based on the National Political Aptitude Test. This was a survey that Obama completed while still a State Senator. When I looked up the test, the actual line was on banning semi-automatic assault weapons.

So can you tell me exactly what an "assault weapon" is? No one seems to be able to do that.

You might want to consider this essay while considering the answer:

http://www.a2dems.net/top10myths.htm

[MasonJar]

24. It astounds me that some DUers refuse to accept the fact that Hillary Clinton is

actually quite liberal. I have been telling you this over and over. You do not like her for whatever reason (which is after all your perogative) and so you intentionally refuse to accept that she is liberal in most of her policies and votes. Dislike her if you must, but do not rescind her votes and stands.

[goodgd_yall]

34. She IS very liberal. Her stand on domestic issues are awesome.

It's her Iraq and security stances that skew her toward being moderate.

[Kelly Rupert]

26. Gore's a moderate. Dean's a moderate. Edwards too. I'm shocked anyone doesn't think this.

Wasn't the reason Nader ran in 2000 because Gore was so moderate, "there wasn't a dime's worth of difference" between him and Bush? Didn't Howard Dean, other than his anti-war stance, run on his successful record as a moderate governor? Wasn't the big hubbub about Edwards in 2004 that he was a Clintonesque charismatic southern moderate Democrat?

[BootinUp]

27. You might be too smart

for the rest of us. ;)

[karynnj]

28. I agree 100% with your assesment

Dean actually had a Republican and a progressive opponent in most of his VT races.

I think many here assume the more liberal the better, when in fact, by there candidate choices - they are really a left meaning moderate. I clicked on their 2004 stuff and it's accurcy was awful on both Kerry and Edwards.

[Union Yes]

31. Help!! I fell off the left corner of the graph!!!

[CK_John]

33. You need a disclaimer, past performance is no guarantee of future results. n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

35. Wow, this is some powerfull BS (check out the info inside)

You can look at the scoring criteria they used.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Al_Gore_VoteMatch.htm


http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton_VoteMatch.htm


For example, they considered Hilary MORE LIBERAL than Al Gore on Abortion (Gore got a +2 and Hilary got a +5), despite the fact that their current stances are identical.

You see the same thing on the Gay Marriage topic.

They gave Al a CONSERVATIVE rating on Social issues because he once said, "Voluntary school prayer is ok, if teachers aren’t involved"

Then on the dealth penalty they consider Al Gore a CONSERVATIVE -3 on Social Scale and Hilary Clinton a LIBERAL +2 on the social scale, but all they used to rate Clinton was this statement, "Require DNA testing for all federal executions"

On the 3 Strikes law, they gave Al a CONSERVATIVE -3 rating and Hilary a LIBERAL +2 rating, despite the fact that they BOTH STATED SUPPORT OF THE THREE STRIKES LAW.

They give Hilary the EXACT SAME RATING AS GORE ON THE IRAQ WAR... HUH? Last time I checked she voted FOR IT and continues to vote to fund it.

And here is the doosey... They give Clinton a MORE LIBERAL RATING ON THE ENVIRONMENT?!?! A -5 as opposed to Al's -3

There is even more... Check out the links to see the criteria they used to determine where on the chart they fall.

It's pretty funny stuff.

[Seabiscuit]

36. Those are the most ridiculous charts I've ever seen. n/t

[derby378]

38. One major problem with that graph...

I object to the polarization of "libertarian/populist." A populist is someone who advocates the rights of the people, who believes in giving the people what they want. Liberal and conservative populists are ultimately rather pragmatic. Libertarians are, in their own way, rather populist as well.

A better polarization would be "libertarian/authoritarian." That way, you could plot people such as Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Pol Pot on the graph. You might not be able to do that so easily with the issues2000 graph.

[LWolf]

39. I think "liberal" has lost a clear, agreed upon definition.

HRC is a neoliberal. Al Gore was once in that camp; I'm not sure where he stands today. Howard Dean? I'm not sure.

I've posted this before, too:



Of course, this doesn't label anyone "liberal" or not. The far right represents neoliberalism, and the top represents fascism, according to the makers:



That puts HRC, and most of the rest of her competition, in the neoliberal/fascist quadrant, although not so far into that quadrant as the republican contenders, of course.

[Odin2005]

40. I've always disagreed with Political Compass's positions for both the Dem and Puke Candidates.

Most DUers are on far bottom left the Polical Compass chart and thus that is where I interpret where Kucinich and Gavel are, and so all the candidates should be shifted downwards and leftwards so that Biden and Edwards are at the center.

[cascadiance]

42. I think Gravel with his flat tax proposals is a LOT farther to the right of where he is too...

I don't see him being the furthest left person of anyone on this list (even left of Kucinich?).

I think Hillary should be a bit higher and up to probably just to the right of where Dodd is listed on this chart.

[LWolf]

43. The U.S. is a law unto herself.

That's a pretty common perception from the U.S., but not from the rest of the world.

That's why I LIKE the political compass; it tells me where I stand, and the U.S. stands, not just in relation to candidates, but to the rest of the world.

It's U.S. propaganda that constantly hammers away at anything even close to center as "far left," and "extreme liberal," etc.. in order to make the extreme positions of our powerholders, both Dem and Repub, seem more "centrist."

Democrats are, of course, not as extreme as the Rs, even on the compass.

Still, they don't exactly fit the common perception, either.

Dennis Kucinich is not nearly as extreme as people would have us believe; I've always known that he was more moderate than I.

Gravel is another story. Since the compass is based on their actions, their votes, rather than their rhetoric, maybe Gravel appears where he does because he hasn't actually acted on the flat tax thing, or because he hasn't held office since 1980.

Edwards is the closest to center of all the more mainstream candidates, and if he has a chance to act, in office, on his current proposals, that may move him closer.

For those of us in the corner of the lower left quadrant, the decision is this: Do we go with the candidate who is demonstrably closest to us, not only in rhetoric, but in record? Or do we take the one who is not so close, and hope his actions in office live up to his campaign rhetoric?

I'll take dk in the primary, because I know I can count on him to work for the changes I want to see. I might be convinced to give Edwards a chance in the general, to see if his new positions are genuine.