Senator ADA ratings are useless...here why (new method researched)

[Zodiak]

OK...I got really, really tired of seeing DUers defend the turncoat Democrats by quoting this thing called an ADA rating without knowledge of the methodology. I was curious as to what this rating is, so I went to their website (http://www.adaction.org/votingrecords.htm ) to read up on this rating system.

The first claim I noticed was that this methodology is the "standard" by which public liberalism has been measured since 1947. Sounds good to me. Apparently, the ADA takes 20 choice issues and assigns +5% for each vote for the liberal cause (senators are rated by %). However, when I read the issues from last year (the most up-to-date info they have), they all seemed to be an amendment for this bill or that, but not the actual passage of the bill.

Looking a little further, I checked the voting on a couple of these amendments, which were practically all rated straight down party lines. By this methodology, a partisan conservative Democrat could safely vote for a useless amendment but then vote against the bill later to appease his base. That hardly seemed fair since the only thing that matters is whether the bill goes into effect or not.

To show how bad the ADA ratings are, Senator Feinstein (100%) is considered more liberal than Barbara Boxer (95%). WTF?

So I got to thinking, and I thought that DUers need a new system that reflects the prevailing opinion here. I think we can all agree that stopping the neo-con agenda and keeping Americans safe from our corrupt government and corporate abuses would be top of the list as a definition for "public liberalism" in DU-speak, so that is the principle I apply here.

I have created my own ADA rating for every Democratic senator according to their behavior THIS year. I did NOT include only votes, but also public opposition to Bush in my criteria. The following are the results of this new rating system. I only used 11 issues because there were only 11 issues that were voted on for passage or confirmation this year. I suppose I could add last years info, but I think what I found was telling enough.

If the Democrat votes against Bush, they get 10 points for that issue. If they vote with Bush and the neocons, they get zero points. If they "no vote" on the issue, they get 5 points (probably don't deserve it, but I had to make the distinction). I have a couple of exceptions, but those will be noted with the issue at hand.

Here are the issues I used (party unity index also indicated..higher index makes for more agreement between DUers and the Democratic senators as a whole):
1. Rice confirmation (inept) 2.7
2. Gonzales confirmation (torturer) 8.3
3. Class action lawsuit bill 5.91
4. Bankruptcy bill 5.7
5. Negroponte confirmation (criminal and murderer) (0.5)
6. Cheney's Energy Bill (1.6)
7. CAFTA I (7.8)
8. CAFTA II (two votes for it (votes changed), + important issue) (7.5)
9. Election Reform (object to Ohio vote, 5 pts for speaking out, 10 for voting with a conscious) (0.6)
10. Confirmation of radical RW judges (0 pts for voting for one of the three judges, 5 pts for being one of the 7 senators in the compromise, -10 pts for voting for TWO of these judges ) (8.5)
11. Firearm manufacturer immunity from legal liability (6.7)


Here is the list of Senators starting with the most DU-like. We can call it an anti-Bush index or a DU rating. Whatever...just pay attention to who falls out where. Note that I allowed a senator to go with Bush on ONE issue without penalty (b/c of a total of 110 pts possible). This is to not make the rating so harsh as to DEMAND ideological purity.

Harkin (Iowa) 95
Boxer (CA) 90
Lautenberg (NJ) 90
Akaka (Hawaii) 80
Corzine (NJ) 80
Dayton (MN) 80
Durbin (IL) 80
Feingold (WI) 80
Kennedy (MA) 80
Kerry (MA) 80 - DLC
Levin (MI) 80
Dodd (CN) 70 - DLC
Leahy (VT) 70
Mikulski (MD) 70
Reed (RI) 70
Sarbanes (MD) 70
Shumer (NY) 70
Wyden (OR) 70
Clinton (NY) 65 - DLC
Obama (IL) 65
Bayh (IN) 60 - DLC
Biden (DE) 60
Dorgan (ND) 60 - DLC
Stabenow (MI) 60 - DLC
Byrd (WV) 50
Inouye (Hawaii) 50
Murray (WA) 50
Reid (NV) 50
Rockefeller (WV) 50
Baucus (MN) 45 - DLC
Bingaman (NM) 40
Cantwell (WA) 40 - DLC
Johnson (SD) 40 - DLC
Kohl (WI) 40 - DLC
Conrad (ND) 35 - DLC
Feinstein (CA) 35
Carper (DE) 30 - DLC
Leiberman (CT) 30 - DLC
Landrieu (LA) 20 - DLC
Lincoln(ARK) 20 - DLC
Nelson (FL) 20 - DLC
Salazar (CO) 20 - DLC
Pryor (ARK) 15 - DLC
Nelson (NE) 0 - DLC

So there you have it.

I will take the senators that are rated above 50, although I would like to point out that going along with Bush 50% of the time still hurts Americans immensely. Harkin rates the absolute best, and I think that we should all give him a round of applause for it.

I wonder if he wishes to run for President, because as far as this index goes, Harkin is practically a DUer. All those Kerry supporters are right...Kerry scores very well on our side. Not bad for a DLCer, if you ask me.

Using this system, 13 DLC senators are rated below 50% and 6 are rated above. Of the 13 worst senators in DUers eyes, 12 are "New Democrats".

If you would like to critique my methodology or have further suggestions, please feel free to suggest them. This is one Saturday morning's worth of research.

[Mythsaje]

1. This should go into a database...

Nice work.

[longship]

2. Nice work.

And I would say, very much worth the effort.

[Zodiak]

3. Kick n/t