From Most Liberal To Most Conservative - Our Candidates

[DemocratSinceBirth]

IMHO, these are how are candidates rate from most liberal to most conservative:


1) Dennis Kucinich

2) Mike Gravel- Actually he's all over the place with his "Un"fair Tax

3) John Edwards

4) Barack Obama

5) Chriss Dodd

6) Hillary Clinton

7) Joe Biden

8) Bill Richardson

[RufusTFirefly]

1. Tend to agree, although...

... I'd probably put Gravel on his own personal continuum.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. He's From Alasks And Alaskans Have A Liberterian Streak

I could see how a desolate environment can create a lot of liberterians...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. I thought Richardson was further left, and Dodd further right?

Other than that it looks about right to me.

[kitty44]

4. Richardson

What makes Richardson "conservative"? That's a new one for me....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. I Am Rating Them On A Them On A Continuum

Compared to Trotsky Stalin was conservative...

[kitty44]

8. Examples? Policies?

I'm really in the dark on this one....

[lazer47]

5. you have 6 and 8 backwards, IMHO

[Yael]

10. Beat me to it

[Subdivisions]

6. I would switch Clinton and Richardson. Otherwise... n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. I Have To Respectfully Disagree With You Gentlemen

Hillary's votes , ideas, and political positions put her to the left of Richardson...

Hillary Clinton has a 95% ADA rating:




http://www.adaction.org/2006Senatevr.htm


They don't keep records for governors...


edit- my bad...I meant left...

[lazer47]

18. I think you misunderstood, if Hillary is right of Richardson then she would be last

[etherealtruth]

23. whether you love her or hate her ...

Her voting record speaks for itself ... she is far more liberal than many here give her credit for.

[BlooInBloo]

35. The truth doesn't matter to some people. It's all about what's in their gut.

[BlooInBloo]

9. As usual, voting record matters not in the least to DUers.

[MADem]

13. I keep recommending "ON THE ISSUES dot org" but not many take me up on it.

Helps to cut through the bullshit, certainly.

Richardson comes off WELL to the right of Obama and Clinton (their charts are in my post below)

[BlooInBloo]

14. They can't. To do so, they run the risk of *being wrong*. By going with their gut...

.... they're kept safe from that fear. Of course, the cost is the complete sterility of what they say, but that's better than the overarching fear of being mistaken.

[MADem]

19. I edited above to toss Richardson's chart up there.

Compare and contrast to Obama and Clinton, below.

Here's Kucinich, off the chart, as expected:




And here's surprisingly liberal BIDEN:



And here's the populist Edwards:



And hard core liberal, with most of the rest, Dodd:



Last and least, Gravel, on the same wavelength as Dennis:

[BlooInBloo]

22. Nice. For quantified info, can use this site....

http://www.progressivepunch.org/

[LittleClarkie]

30. This is my favorite site

http://www.vote-smart.org/

[MADem]

36. Now THAT's a handy link--thanks for that! nt

[BlooInBloo]

37. np. :)

[bluedog]

44. thanks for that site/been looking for it

I know I had it before.but lost the bookmark........very good site to compare the candidates....thanks again

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Here's Their Votes On Issues Deemed Important To The ADA

http://www.adaction.org/2006Senatevr.htm


I agree the differences are rather small... It's not like Gene Taylor is running for president...

[BlooInBloo]

17. Clinton has a 92%+ progressive voting record. Dodd a mere 85%....

... Those are the only 2 I looked up.

http://www.progressivepunch.org/

[MADem]

24. I posted all the charts just above--it's amazing how assumptions can be in error

Of course, more than a few of those making these mistakes in judgement are, even if they don't admit it, one or two issue voters. They'll declare that a Murtha is more liberal than a Clinton because even though Murtha is way more of a conservative/hawk than Clinton, he did do the "War is a disaster, phased redeployment" thing, giving him an "antiwar" upcheck, even though that's far from the truth--he's not antiwar, he's just "anti the wars that we LOSE" more correctly. They'll ignore his history with lobbyists (his brother lobbies the Pentagon appropriations crowd) and they'll pretend that they don't know about his anti-choice stance., because he fits the worldview--for now, anyway.

Now, I know all that about Murtha, and while I wish he'd be less cozy with the lobbyists and a bit more laissez faire with the choice issue, I don't consider him a saint or a sinner. I see him as a guy who represents the wishes of his district, and was the perfect fellow, based on his credentials, to toss the first "let's get outta there" bomblet. The "D's" in leadership don't get credit for that brilliant piece of triangulation--it's always passed off as the lone act of a seasoned politician, when nothing could be further from the truth.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Yeah-But The Differences Are Small

We all know Dennis is the most liberal and Richardson the most conservative with the ones in between fairly close to one another...

[LittleClarkie]

33. No we don't all know that. This is why sometimes perceptions need to be challenged.

And where sometimes people find out that conventional wisdom ain't always the truth.

I would have put Hillary and Biden as more Conservative than Richardson. Hence, we do not "all" know that Richardson is the most conservative.

[BlooInBloo]

34. He's goin' with his gut! Who needs books and facts?

:rofl:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. The Conventional Wisdom Was More Or Less Confirmed

Kucinich and Gravel occupy the left side of the continuum with Richardson occupying the right side... Obama, Edwards, Clinton , Biden and Dodd are bunched up close to one another...

[BlooInBloo]

40. Um, *repeating* is not the same as *confirming*.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. What Part Of Kucinich and Gravel Occupying The Far Left Of The Continuum And Bill Richardson

Occupying the far right Was Incorrect?

And what part of saying Obama, Clinton, Biden, and Dodd being fairly close together was incorrect...


It would be not much different than saying Kobe Bryant is the best 2 or 3 in the NBA but Dwayne Wade and LeBron James are really close...

[BlooInBloo]

45. The data-free nothing-but-gut-feel of it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. How

It seems I came close^^^^

[BlooInBloo]

50. christ.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. If I Got It Wrong I Got It Wrong

eom

[LittleClarkie]

43. According to you. According to me, things are quite different

and it appears the graphs posted confirm it.

I've been reading positions papers and such. Have you?

Maybe I'll head over to http://www.vote-smart.org/ and confirm my gut.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. I'm Still Confused...

It seems that the myriad links suggest Kucinich and Gravel are on the left and Bill Richardson is on the right with the others close to one another in between the extremes of the continuum...

[LittleClarkie]

48. Looking again I see what you mean re: Richardson. His stance on the war threw me off

You are correct. He is graphing more moderate than the others.

He's more conservative, but that doesn't make him a conservative. And I'm told he's changed quite a bit since 2004 and has been moving away from the DLC.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. I Didn't Mean To Imply He's Conservative

I only meant to imply he's more conservative than the other candidates...Compared to Mao, Kruschev was conservative...

That was the purpose of my little continuum that is doesn't look all that ridiculous compared to the "facts":

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. Yeah

Bill Richardson said he wants to leave Iraq tomorrow and if it means leaving our stuff in Iraq so be it...


He also arrived at that position recently...

He is what he is, a relatively moderate Democrat...

[Madspirit]

81. Voting Records Mean Nothing to You? Evidently...n/t

[LittleClarkie]

85. Yer late. The OP and I worked it out

We cool.

[MADem]

11. Compare their stances at "ON THE ISSUES"--they take statements, voting records,

speeches, and so on and convert them to a grid where they place the candidates. Some of them are surprising" to say the least (it's good to have a pop up blocker, FWIW): http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

OBAMA ... ... ... ... ... ... ... CLINTON

... ...

[Solon]

20. And for comparison's sake, here's Dennis Kucinich...

Doesn't seem so radical now, does he?

[Exiled in America]

26. That's why these "comparison" sites and graphs are such bullshit.

Anyone with a small brain cell knows that there is a staggering difference between Clinton and Kucinich.

[MADem]

29. If you knew how to READ the chart, you'd see the difference.

It ain't measured in INCHES.

Look at the PERCENTAGES. Kucinich is much different from Clinton--he doesn't have any plans to PAY for his ideas....

:eyes:

You should actually learn how to read the graphic and understand what it MEANS before you toss the old "small brain" insults.

[Solon]

39. Can you support that assertion, or is it just bullshit?

he doesn't have any plans to PAY for his ideas....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. I'm Confused...

We aren't discussing the merits or flaws of a candidates' policies; only where they fall on a continuum...


Yeah, DK is much further to the left than HRC as I implied in my original post:

[MADem]

55. Yeah, that's what the TEN PERCENT on the economic side has to do with the chart.

Sheesh. It's not an assertion, it's how the graphic reads.

Get over your easily-offended self, and stop shooting the messenger. It's unbecoming.

[Solon]

59. What 10 percent are you talking about?

Kucinich only scores 5% on the Economic side, and all that indicates is that he thinks social programs are good, there is NOTHING in that graph that indicates that he has no plans on how to fund such programs.

http://www.issues2002.org/VoteMatch/candidate_map.asp?a1=2&a2=1&a3=1&a4=4&a8=1&a9=5&a10=5&a5=5&a6=5&a7=5&a14=1&a15=1&a16=5&a19=1&a17=5&a18=2&a20=1&a11=1&a12=5&a13=4&i1=1&i2=1&i3=1&i4=1&p=95&e=5&t=21

For comparison, Hillary Clinton scores 23% on the Economic side.

http://www.issues2002.org/VoteMatch/candidate_map.asp?a1=1&a2=2&a3=1&a4=4&a8=2&a9=5&a10=5&a5=4&a6=4&a7=5&a14=1&a15=1&a16=2&a19=1&a17=5&a18=2&a20=1&a11=1&a12=5&a13=2&i1=1&i2=1&i3=1&i4=1&p=93&e=23&t=21

[MADem]

64. Of COURSE he thinks they are good--and he thinks the government should pay for all of them

I rest my case. The lower the score, the more the person wants Uncle Sam to be Uncle Sugar. By contrast, Clinton wants Uncle Sam to be Uncle Sugar only seventy seven percent of the time, as opposed to the Congressman's 95 percent.

They extrapolate these rankings from speeches, debates, votes. Examples from his page on the site: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Budget_+_Economy.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Free_Trade.htm

Economic Score

This measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people's economic lives. Economic issues include retirement funding, budget allocations, and taxes.

A high score (above 60%) means the candidate believes in personal responsibility for financial matters, and that free-market competition is better for people than central planning by the government.
A low score (below 40%) means the candidate believes that a good society is best achieved by the government redistributing wealth. The candidate believes that government's purpose is to decide which programs are good for society, and how much should be spent on each program.
This measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people's economic lives. Economic issues include retirement funding, budget allocations, and taxes.

[Solon]

65. And that's a bad thing? n/t

[MADem]

68. Here we go again, with the Good and Bad nonsense.

Look, I'm explaining the way the website ranks people, the mechanism they use.

You wanna get into a big argument about why Kucinich is so great.

I don't care about your arguments in that regard, I am speaking from the point of view of what OTI is registering at their site, how they get their info, and what the graphics mean.

If you think he's "good," you go knock yourself out. Enjoy!! No one is stopping you.

My only interest here is to elucidate the purpose of the site--for voters to go LOOK at the actual (not fictionalized or ASSUMED) stances held by the candidates, read their actual words, see the way they voted, see what advocacy and issue-based organizations have to say about them in terms of rankings and endorsements, and then make up one's mind based on those FACTS, not what some asshole says, and is repeated ad infinitum, on a generic political discussion board.

[Solon]

75. You're the one who started this nonsense, with a value judgement not based on fact...

Kucinich is much different from Clinton--he doesn't have any plans to PAY for his ideas....

Looking at the links you provided, apparently he DOES have plans to pay for his ideas, so I was right, you are a bullshitter.

[MADem]

76. Well, he doesn't. He wants Uncle Sugar to do all the paying.

And Uncle Sugar is US, and it's also THEM, them who have loads of money and aren't gonna hand it over willingly to Uncle Sugar Dennis. If you want to call that lead balloon a plan, be my guest.

But that isn't a value judgment--that's just a fact.

And you can take your "bullshitter" comment and stick it. You don't have to LIKE these facts, but that's YOUR problem--don't try to make it mine.

[Solon]

77. What the hell are you, one of those damned Libertarians?

I don't see why you think rolling back the Bush tax cuts, and even RAISING the taxes on Corporate America and the rich is such a bad idea, in fact, all the Democratic candidates support that very policy. Kucinich just wants to cut the Pentagon budget and use some of that money, in addition to the taxes collected, to pay for things like single payer health care. As far as I can tell, your entire post is opinion, an opinion not even worth the electrons its made out of.

[MADem]

79. Oh BOY!!! It didn't take you long to come at me with an "I BET YOU" comment!!

Oh boy, now I'm a Damned Libertarian!! Jesus Christ on a bicycle.

Here's what I'll 'bet'--you don't know shit about me, you don't really care either, you are looking for a fight on the internet because you are miserable and want to take your anger out on me for some odd reason, and you still don't get that I don't CARE about Kucinich because he's not a viable and electable candidate. That isn't going to change. No matter how much you get mad at me for not drinking the DK Koolaid.

I was interested in explaining the purpose of OTI, not getting into a Dennis-fest with you. So tell your story to someone who cares.

Capisce?

[Solon]

83. Excuse me? You are the one who is all over the place...

I made a basic argument that the differences between many of the candidates, including Kucinich, isn't as great as people advertise, hell, YOU made the same damned argument in post 58. And you use that as an opportunity to tear down Kucinich, for no better reason than bitterness I suppose. If you didn't care about Kucinich one way or the other, then you wouldn't use him as a focus of criticism.

[MADem]

84. Let me be clear. I don't CARE about him. I would urge people to use the OTI websites.

That is ALL.

Have a nice life.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. Now I Am Confused...

Can you please rate them from one to eight without the graphs...

I thought I got 1,2,6, 7, and 8 right...

[MADem]

58. You're being overly simplistic when you try to rate them. Rate them, on what?

Look at all of the candidates--they range from hard core liberal to hard core liberal to populist liberal, pretty much.

What's important to you? What is YOUR showstopper? If it's the WAR, and the war alone, well, you can rate on that single issue. This site doesn't say that the WAR is more important than, say, health care. Or Social Security is more important than Trade.

But if you want to know what their stances are ON THE ISSUES, all of them, you have to actually read their words, note their votes, see how they stack up on social and economic issues, and take it from there.

You can safely say, based on those graphs, that Kucinich and Gravel are to the left of everyone else. They're almost off the chart.

Richardson is the MOST conservative of the bunch, he's on the line between liberal and moderate.

The rest of them fall comfortably within the liberal bloc (even though some here don't like that as it doesn't fit with their desires for excoriation), with some differences as to their emphasis on social issues or economic issues. So what's most important in your mind? A particular social idea, or the ability to pay for it? Or both? Is someone more liberal because they SAY they want health care for all with no reasonable plan to pay for it? Or is someone more liberal because they want affordable health care for all with a concise plan to cover the costs? It's a see-saw, you see--but most of the candidates are all in the same playground, here.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. My Showstopper Is Electability

I'm a pragmatist...

[MADem]

70. It's a valid one, certainly. NT

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Dennis Is In A Class By Himself...

1 and 2 are much futher away from 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, then 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are from each other

[MADem]

27. He's off the chart. He only applies TEN percent of his reasoning to the economoics of issues.

And he's a hundred percent social programs.

That's nice, but ya gotta pay for those programs. Ya can't pull money outta your ass.

He's OFF THE CHART. So's Gravel.

[Exiled in America]

51. LOL a chart is supposed to tell me how much % of someone's "reasoning" they use?

Give me a break.

[MADem]

61. Look, I can't help you at all. It's clear as day if you'd just go have a look.

The rankings are based on the candidate's WORDS and VOTES over the course of their political careers. It also takes into account how a variety of advocacy groups, like NARAL, the AFL-CIO, the ACLU and others, rank the candidates.

But, hey, it's way more fun to stay smugly ignorant, I suppose.

You go for it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Here's My Test Results...

http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/results2006.asp?quiz=Pres2008&state=TOP&q1=2&q2=2&q3=1&q4=5&q5=5&q6=5&q7=5&q8=1&q9=5&q10=4&q11=4&q12=5&q13=2&q14=5&q15=1&q16=2&q17=3&q18=1&q19=2&q20=2&Submit=Score+the+quiz%21


It says I'm to the left of all the candidates including Kucinich but I am close to him, Obama , and Hillary Clinton..

[rjones2818]

25. Kucinich won for me, again! 73% then Mike at 60%

The most surprising thing was that Bill Richardson and Ron Paul both scored 33% on how I was voting.

[TwilightGardener]

16. I would have to agree with your rankings, although I would switch

Obama and Dodd--just my impression that Obama is directly behind Hillary.

[TahitiNut]

31. Here's how they map on the Political Compass ...

YMMV, of course. (The vast majority - 80%? - of DU is to the 'lower-left' of Kucinich.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. It Seems I Got The Big Picture Right

DK and MG on the left, BR on the right, and the others bunched close together...

I don't really care about being right...It was just an effort at taxonomy for me...

[LeftishBrit]

57. What puzzles me ...

is why Mike Gravel is regarded as on the economic left, when I understand that he supports a flat tax, which I have always regarded as very regressive.

I am not really involved here, as I am in a different country; but I'm just a bit confused - are there things I'm missing here?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. Probably Because He's Left On Everything Else Like Expanding The Welfare State

eom

[MADem]

62. If you go far enough to the left you end up on the right!!! NT

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. I Just Know He Yells At And Disrespects His Primary Opponents

eom

[MADem]

67. Well, if people could stop being excessively PC, they'd call him what he is--a crank.

Cranks have some good ideas, but they have a lot of batshit crazy ones, too. The guy has no traction, outside of a few windmill tilters here and there--people who LIKE the superior purity of being No-Doubt-About-It hopeless underdogs.

He's also probably at the Early Onset stage of Altzheimer's. That's what it looks like to me. Which is a pity. And it might have something to do with his excessively obstreperous personality. His "social governor" is on the fritz...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. You Would Think His In Your Face Demeanor Would Make Him A Hero Here Among Some

eom

[MADem]

71. There are a few in the Adoration of Mike Fan Club

But not many.

The guy is just too 'cranky.' He's not, as they say, "easy to love."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. I Remember When He Started Yelling At Obama

I forgot what it was for...

It was something like "When I was in the Senate..."

[MADem]

73. All he needed was an "Amos McCoy" limp and cane, and the phrase

"Young whippersnapper" tossed in there, and he'd be a larger-than-life, instead of regular-sized, caricature...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. As I Said Up Thread...

I tend to be a pragmatist and incrementalist... I want to see the candidate with the best chance of winning emerge from the primaries... I think that's John Edwards though Barack Obama is my visceral choice...

I think Edwards, Obama, and Clinton have the best chance to beat the Republicans, and in that order...

[ecstatic]

78. John "Co-sponsor of IWR" Edwards, third? nt

[rjones2818]

82. He moved up 'cause he apologized.

Politeness gets a higher score, apparently.

[B Calm]

80. I would have put Hillary at 7 and Gravel at 8