Interest group ratings don't prove how 'progressive' someone is

[CTLawGuy]

I hear all the time from Lieberman supporters, and supporters of other conservative democrats, that said politicians really are liberal because of some number from a liberal interest group.

Those stastics are essentially worthless to prove how progressive or liberal someone is.

Why?

1. Most ratings are based on votes in Congress. But those votes are all given equal weight, when they deal with issues of unequal importance.

So:

a. voting yes on a bill to name a post office after Noam Chomsky is equivalent to a vote against the IWR.

b. a congressman who votes "yes" on the following 5 bills:
1. a bill to incrase funding for medicare by 1%
2. a bill to promote afterschool programs
3. a bill to decrease mercury levels in water.
4. a bill to promote a hybrid car promotion advertising campaign
5. a bill to order all black people rounded up and shipped to Africa.

would have an 80% progressive rating, but would in no one's mind be a progressive.


2. They can confuse and obscure the congressperson's position on a particular issue

Example: Joe Lieberman voted for cloture on Alito but then voted against him.

Either a group will consider that to be a 100% progressive position on Alito (only count vote on confirmation), or a 50% progressive position (counting both votes).

In reality, because of the situation, where a filibuster may have stalled the nomination, but where debate is closed, his confirmation was assured, what Joe Lieberman did was 0% progressive.


3. They don't take into account behavior outside of voting.

They don't factor Lieberman going on Fox news and bashing the anti-war position,

They don't take into account other statements (like Lieberman speaking in opposition to a state bill requiring hospitals to give emergency contraceptives to rape victims),

or activities in private life or other offices (like governor).

-----
Ratings plainly aren't dispositive of who is liberal or progressive, and I will continue to judge such progressiveness case by case.

[Neil Lisst]

1. Agreed. I completely ignore interest group ratings.

I form my opinion based upon my evaluation of the person and how they represent their constituency, and whether they help or hurt the party.

[LoZoccolo]

2. You make a bunch of blanket statements.

1. Most ratings are based on votes in Congress. But those votes are all given equal weight, when they deal with issues of unequal importance.

You have to show this for each rating.

Either a group will consider that to be a 100% progressive position on Alito (only count vote on confirmation), or a 50% progressive position (counting both votes).

You have to show this for each rating.

3. They don't take into account behavior outside of voting.

And if someone "looked" progressive but voted for the flag-burning bill, like Kucinich, it would take this into account.

You're basically saying every interest group's rating is useless and that their efforts in these areas are futile. Me? I think certain people will take every chance to look liberaler-than-thou even when presented with evidence that their efforts are counterproductive.

[CTLawGuy]

4. how else do you get a percentage rating?

excpet by totalling all the votes for a session and flagging which ones agree with your (or the progressive) position, and then dividing to get the percentage?

[LoZoccolo]

7. You could weigh some more than others.

Plus, the Chomsky post office and ship to Africa scenarios are entirely hypothetical.

[CTLawGuy]

16. you are perceptive

that those votes are hypothetical. I don't see how that furthers your argument.

but wouldn't some other kind of number rating make more sense if you are weighing issues, since a percentage measure amount of a total number?

[BillZBubb]

3. Exactly.

DINOs do disproportionate harm. They may look progressive on the wide spectrum of items, but in the critical few, they kill the Democrats every time. Many still cling to the foolish and historically discredited notion that if we keep the DINOs and gain a slim majority in congress, things will go our way on the big issues. They won't. When we had majorities, the DINOs let Clarence Thomas on the Court. The DINOs killed any chance of holding Reagan accountable for Iran/Contra. The DINOs killed any chance for national health care. The DINOs hamstrung President Clinton early in his first term and cost us control of congress. Etc. Etc.

The DINOs have to go if we want a truly progressive government, or even a modestly progressive government.

[CTLawGuy]

5. IWR was passed while we had a majority in the Senate

it matters who represents you in your party.

We have a right and responsibility to put good people in the Congress and Senate or we get nothing.

[CTLawGuy]

6. What else is funny...

I bet, if Repugs had controlled the senate in 2002 and IWR passed, the DLC apologists would have said

"if we had a majority in the senate, we could have killed IWR, therefore our only concern must be getting a majority even if not all are progressive."

[wyldwolf]

8. "Progressive" groups ratings don't show how "progressive" someone is

I see so many "progressive" means of measuring "progressiveness" on DU and all seem designed to show a preconcieved outcome. "Let's prove who the Dinos are!"

What is missing, and is completely unanswerable, is what makes any one stance on an issue progressive? Who decides?

In addition, these "methods" never take into account a fundamental truth - elected officials' first priority is to their consituents. A Democrat in Montana does not need to answer to voters in Massachusetts, nor should they give a rat's ass what "progressives" in blue states want.

[LoZoccolo]

9. I also think your post underscores...

...that if someone wants more "progressive" politics, they'll just have to make people more "progressive". That is the way democracy works, and why their primary candidates (if there is one to begin with) don't make it to the general election. And I question if anyone who spends as much time complaining on a message board as some people do here are willing to actually go and do that. I rarely see any DUers doing actual stuff like the kind of things we promote with Illinois Dem Net - walking precincts, getting out the vote, handing out pamphlets, etcetera.

[BillZBubb]

10. You accuse someone of making blanket statements, then

You make a weak anecdotal comment like: "...rarely see any DUers doing actual stuff..."

You haven't got a clue what DUers are doing.

[LoZoccolo]

11. I also post threads periodically asking people what they're doing.

They generally don't get too far.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2469324

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2536170

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2446205

I can't find the one I did a few days before the 2004 election, but it was similarly pathetic. You would think people this concerned about politics would be able to post something. If you know you're fine in this area, you're fine, but a lot of people don't do much from what I can gather. I posted my observation, yeah? I didn't draw some huge conclusion purporting to invalidate potentially useful data.

[CTLawGuy]

15. each Democrat decides for himself or herself

and then in primary season we vote for those who are most progressive, or centrist or conservative, or whoever you want.

What is a Democrat is defined by the reasonable conformity to what we as democrats believe.

[emulatorloo]

12. "Votes are all given equal weight" - That is RIDICULOUS, you are wrong

Darboy rights:

<snip>

Why?

1. Most ratings are based on votes in Congress. But those votes are all given equal weight, when they deal with issues of unequal importance.

<snip>

The interest groups rate based on VOTES THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO THEM, not all votes.

So a "liberal interest groups" rates on votes on "liberal issues" like social issues, choice, workers issues, etc etc

For example, from Americans for Democratic Action

http://www.adaction.org/news.htm

<snip>

Voting Records
Each year, ADA's Legislative Committee selects 20 votes it considers the most important during that session. ADA's National Board and/or National Executive Committee approves those votes. Each member recieves 5 points if he/she voted with ADA, and does not receive 5 points if he/she voted against us or was absent. The total possible is 100.

<snip>

[CTLawGuy]

14. I'm going to "right" in response

There is a difference between selecting votes that are important and weighing votes by importance.

Even if the universe of votes is the 20 most "important" they are still treated as equally important when they are not.

What if there are 2 REALLY important votes in a session and then the other 18 are only moderately important, and the rest are less important? The relative importance of the two votes are not calculated.

You run into the same problem with treating votes equally, it's just lesser in scope using ADA's method than in calculating ALL votes.

[Zodiak]

13. I have my own system

After I read the methdology and the issues used in ADA ratings (coupled with the fact that ADa rated Boxer below Feinstein), I developed my own method. I post it here every three months, and it is only for Democratic senators. It is all I really have time to do.

I recently looked at Progressive Punch's system, and I must admit that I am not happy with it. They subdivide the issues into a zillion categories and count bills under multiple categories. They also count resolutions and amendment votes, which I find pointless since they do not bear much political weight. All in all, I found the system confusing and not easy to follow. There were more issues, as well, pointed out by another DUer.

All I count are BushCo supported bills and BushCo supported nominations. When I went through all of the votes and tallied the scores, I got numbers that pretty much reflect how I envision the continuum. There were some pleasant and unpleasant suprises, however.

But I am the ultimate special interest group. I am one person. A DUer, so my pathetic little system works best for, unsurprisingly, me. However, I am willing to bet that a few more would like to see the results of an analysis such as mine to "cut to the chase".

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Zodiak%20Ironfist

More than anything, I encourage everyone to do the hard work for themselves and NEVER rely on another's opinion of the "progressiveness" of a candidate, including me. Having done the exercise yourself, it will cut through a LOT of BS you see on DU from both sides of the loyalist/DINO-haterator debate.

[Orangepeel]

17. Interest groups rate politicians to reward those that agree with them

and punish those that don't.

Ratings are far from perfect information, but interest groups have no motivation to put out misleading ratings.

A voter who is deciding who to support may very well find interest group info extremely usful, particularly if they consider the ratings of multiple groups. For example, if an official voted yes on both the "advertise hybrid cars" bill and the "ship Black people back to Africa" bill, the Sierra Club might give him/her a good rating, but the NAACP certainly wouldn't.