For those who are about to vote: Project Vote Smart

[MH1]

I've just read one too many threads where some poster is opining about the relative liberalness of one candidate vs. another, or that one is 'progressive' or 'liberal' and another is a 'conservadem', where those arguments begin with something like "from what I hear ..."

Um, no. Why would anyone go on hearsay? For federal candidates (i.e. Prez, Rep, Senator) there is a nice resource to learn:

a) each candidate's voting record

and

b) how the various interest groups have rated each candidate for supporting their issues



That website is
Project Vote Smart


It's quite easy to use. Put the Rep or Senator or candidate's name in the search box, then (if necessary) choose from the list of possible pages, then read all about the candidate.

Over on the right of a candidate's page will be a few options. I highly recommend "Interest Group Ratings". You will recognize the names of many of the groups, and know right off if you want your candidate to have a 100% or a 0% from that group. Example: most democrats want a candidate with 100% from NARAL and 0% from "National Right to Life Committee".

If you aren't familiar with a group, or even if you are, you can click through to the group's page and find a link to their website, where you can get a better idea of if you want your candidate to get 100% or 0% from them, or maybe if it's not that important or cut-and-dried. (An example is the American Legion. You'd think they'd support veterans, right? But look closely at how they actually rate candidates. Hmmm.)

The REALLY nice thing about interest group ratings? Some group that has a budget to do it, has already reviewed the candidates' voting records for you and figured it out. So you don't have to slog through it on your own, unless the candidates are close on something you care about, in which case you'll probably want to drill into the actual votes.

Some organizations exist SOLELY to rate national politicians on their performance. Example: League of Conservation Voters (lcv.org). If you care most about the environment, you're pretty much home free just by going to that website*, at least until you have to choose between 2 candidates LCV rates similarly.

* I never recommend being a single-issue voter though, not when it is so easy to find the balance of the candidate's record all in one place, at votesmart.org.


I'm putting this out there for folks who really don't know. I hope I'm not coming across as patronizing or anything because I know a lot of you probably know more than I do about researching a candidate. But either some folks don't know, or they're trying to be disingenuous.


So can we stop with the hearsay about candidate's records now? At least for those who are documented on Project Vote Smart?

[MH1]

1. kick

[NCarolinawoman]

2. I don't understand how the word went around that Sestak is "not much of a progressive".

How can you consistently be graded 100% by Defenders of Wildlife and not be considered to have at least some strong progressive leanings?

:kick:

[MH1]

3. Peace Action scorecard in today's Metro highlighted agreement with Sestak

and for Specter had "N/A" - not available.

They could have highlighted their areas of disagreement with Sestak, but didn't. That speaks volumes.

[MH1]

4. Sestak also has NOW and NARAL endorsements

and lifetime excellent score from LCV, compared with Specter's low lifetime and only 64% 2009 score from LCV.

No, I don't think anyone was saying 'Specter is a progressive', they were just trying to obfuscate Sestak's actual record to weaken his appeal.

I think some were honestly just repeating hearsay, not knowing where to get the facts. That's why I posted this - for the honest folks who just didn't know.

[MH1]

5. morning kick for the fact-based

[MH1]

6. afternoon kick