Official "Votes with Party" Scores, 110th Congress

[CT_Progressive]

Senate Votes Database
House Votes Database

Votes with Party Scores (how often the candidate voted WITH the Party in official votes)

Presidential Candidates
96.9% Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
96.4% Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE)
96.3% Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)
94.6% Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
91.3% Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)

For reference
100% Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
95.5% Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
93.5% Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
91.8% Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
90.2% Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI)
87.1% Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)


Next time someone wants to paint a picture of who is most loyal to our party, please reference this post first.

Thanks for your consideration.

[LWolf]

1. What does "loyalty to our party" mean?

Loyalty to the "base,"
Loyalty to the voters,
Loyalty to the constitution,
Loyalty to the platform,

or loyalty to the corporate sponsors and the party "leadership?"

[Emit]

2. But, what are they voting on? n/t

[Kelly Rupert]

3. Wait--Lieberman votes *with* the Dems over six times more often than against them?

And Hillary only votes with the Republicans 3.1% of the time?

And here I was thinking they were the two greatest threats to the party.

[Zodiak]

4. LOL

Now that is a really funny analysis.

But it runs counter to an analysis I have done myself using only bill passages and nominations (no procedural votes or amendment votes). Using my criteria, there were only 30 votes or so.....not 350 votes. Talk about diluting the meat with the fluff!

Here are the scores (from best to worst) of the 109th Congress.

Democratic Senator percentage

Harkin (Iowa) 82.75862069
Boxer (California) 82.75862069
Feingold (Wisconsin) 82.75862069
Kennedy (Massacheusetts) 77.5862069
Corzine (New Jersey) now Gov. 76.66666667
Lautenberg (New Jersey) 75.86206897
Durbin (Illinois) 75.86206897
Akaka (Hawaii) 75.86206897
Sarbanes (Maryland) 72.4137931
Kerry (Massacheusetts) DLC 70.68965517
Leahy (Vermont) 70.68965517
Levin (Michigan) 68.96551724
Mikulski (Maryland) 68.96551724
Reed (Rhode Island) 68.96551724
Biden (Deleware) 67.24137931
Dodd (Connecticut) 65.51724138
Wyden (Oregon) 65.51724138
Dayton (Minnesota) 65.51724138
Obama (Illinois) 63.79310345
Bayh (Indiana) DLC 60.34482759
Murray (Washington) 60.34482759
Schumer (New York) DLC 58.62068966
Inouye (Hawaii) DLC 56.89655172
Bingaman (New Mexico) 56.89655172
Dorgan (North Dakota) DLC 55.17241379
Reid (Nevada) 55.17241379
Byrd (West Virginia) 55.17241379
Clinton (New York) DLC 53.44827586
Menendez (New Jersey) DLC 50
Cantwell (Washington) DLC 48.27586207
Stabenow (Michigan) DLC 46.55172414
Kohl (Wisconsin) DLC 44.82758621
Feinstein (California) DLC 44.82758621
Leiberman (Connecticut) DLC 44.82758621
Rockefeller (West Virginia) 41.37931034
Conrad (North Dakota) DLC 41.37931034
Baucus (Montana) DLC 39.65517241
Carper (Deleware) DLC 34.48275862
Johnson (South Dakota) DLC 31.03448276
Lincoln (Arkansas) DLC 31.03448276
Salazar (Colorado) DLC 24.13793103
Pryor (Arkansas) DLC 22.4137931
Nelson (Florida) DLC 20.68965517
Landrieu (Louisianna) DLC 17.24137931
Nelson (Nebraska) DLC 3.448275862


And here are the issues:

Here are the 29 issues that I scored (and how I felt the issue should be voted on):
------------------------------------------
Condi confirm (nay)
Gonzales Confirm (nay)
class action law (nay)
bankruptcy bill (nay)
confirm negroponte (nay)
energy bill (nay)
CAFTA (nay)
CAFTA (2nd vote) (nay)
ohiovote (no to certification, 5 points for at least giving a speech)
firearm manufacturer immunity (nay)
confirmation of radical judges (gang of 14 = 5 pts, voting for one or more of these judges 0)
tax relief act of 2005 (tax cuts for rich) (nay)
deficit reconciliation act (spending cuts for poor) (nay)
Alito cloture (nay)
Alito nomination (nay)
Tax cut protection (favor the rich) (nay)
Extend Patriot Act (nay)
Raise limit on public debt (nay)
Flag burning Amendment (nay)
US-Oman FTA (nay)
Roberts Confirmation (nay)
Gates' confirmation (nay)
Atomic cooperation w/ India (nay)
Border Fence (nay)
Military Commissions act (nay)
Pension protection act (nay...not sure about this one, actually..Feingold and Boxer voted nay)
Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (nay)
Child Insterstate Abortion Notification Act (nay)
Stem Cell Enhancement Act (yeah)



Now why does my analysis look so very different from this one? Because for one, I actually define what the progressive position should be and score according to that ideological position and I don't throw so much fluff into my anqlysis as to render all of the important issues so diluted as to not have an effect.

But keep on peddling your Hillarys and your Liebermans as misunderstood stalwarts of liberalism. The rest of us actually do trust what we see no matter how many "interested" parties are wiling to toss up another skewed analysis to prove to us that the sky is down and black is white.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

8. ya, no agenda present in that analysis.

[Zodiak]

9. About as much agenda as there is substance to your criticism.

I wanted to know where the Senators stood on the big issues, and so I scored them. As far as me being an unabashed populist who wishes the party would get rid of its turncoats, then yeah, I guess I do have an agenda. But that did not influence my methodology.

[Selatius]

5. Strawman.

It's not about being most loyal to the party. It's about the bill at hand being voted upon. If the rest of the party voted in favor of something one personally finds disagreeable, should the person break his own principles and vote with the party? Or should the person decide instead to stand for his own principles?

[Zodiak]

6. Precisely

also over 90% of the scored votes were not on bills or nominations...in other words, they are internal votes that do not affect official U.S. policy directly. Do we really care how many times our Senators and congressmen nodded their heads to a unanimous consent vote?

If anything, it is an indication of how much that particular Senator comports with the party leadership.

Anyone happy with the party leaderhip in Congress? Didn't think so.

[CT_Progressive]

7. Wow, you guys totally missed the point of this post.

Its not about making Hillary or Lieberman look good.

Its about what Party we belong to and how that party votes, and how far off that party the candidates are.

In my opinion, this poll shows that Kucinich is the best candidate, because he doesn't follow the party line as often as the others.

[karynnj]

10. Votes with the party is not always good

Senators are penalized for voting For Kerry/Feingold - most of the party voted against it, voting against the confirmation of Condi Rice, Voting against renewing the Patriot Act.

This is a pretty useless statistic - Feingold and Leiberman end up pretty close - the difference is only the votes they disagree with the majority of the party.

[CT_Progressive]

11. But "Votes with the Party" shows how our PARTY votes.

Maybe people need a wake up call is to what "our party" is and what it stands for.

We rag on the Dems for bad votes, yet as you can see, they tend to vote together alot. Just not as liberal as we all want them to be.

Therefore, those with lower scores either vote more liberal (and less in lock-step with the party), or more conservative.

[karynnj]

12. Exactly, they are the people who are willing to be independent and vote their conscience

Though it is possible that someone could always agree with the leadership. (Or with some, like Hillary, they may be the ones defining what the party vote is.

The second thing is that all Democrats are different from all Republicans.