How Progressive is Obama: He has the best rating of all candidates from the National Journal and ADA

[maximusveritas]

And unlike the misleading Drum Major score which was for just the first half of 2005 alone and based on just 8 votes, the National Journal score is a lifetime average based on the most important 82 votes each year and ranked such that the most liberal Senator gets the highest score.

The National Journal is the most respected ratings system out there.
But you can also look at the ADA and Progressive Punch ratings, which also take into account the most important votes over many years. If you're wondering, the reason Clinton overperforms according to Progressive Punch is because they take into account missed votes and she hasn't missed as many as the others this year. I should give credit to eriposte over at Left Coaster who got most of the numbers; I just had to add in Biden's. I'm also just looking at systems that track all votes, not just a handful of votes that matter to an interest group.

For the purposes of this comparison, I'm only looking at candidates who served in the Senate, so I'm leaving off candidates like Kucinich who is admittedly more progressive. It's just impossible to compare his record in the House with the record of these Senators, as the National Journal itself states.


National Journal
PDF link: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/pdf/06democrats.pdf
Obama 84.3
Dodd 79.2
Clinton 78.8
Biden 76.8
Edwards 75.7

Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) (from 2001-2006)
http://www.adaction.org/votingrecords.htm
Obama 97.5
Clinton 95.8
Dodd 94.1
Biden 91.6
Edwards 82.5

Progressive Punch (lifetime)
http://www.progressivepunch.org/
Clinton 92%
Obama 90%
Dodd 87%
Biden 84%

[sundancekid]

1. thanks for posting - it REALLY matters to look at a longevity record -

it will be a reasonable prologue to the future behavior of candidates

[maddiejoan]

2. I guess they only track

actual votes recorded.

Wonder how he would have done if he voted more often.

[Windy]

3. thank you. Others were posting misleading information yesterday.

[Progress And Change]

10. The OP is a copy and paste of a post I made except the AFL and SEIU ratings were omitted

How misleading was it if it was copied and pasted? The OP is simply cherry picking ratings that he likes and using sleights of hands to dismiss ratings he disagrees with because it does not hold to his personal beliefs.

[cuke]

4. Cherry picking

There are plenty of orgs that rate Clinton higher. You picked what must be the only two that Obama comes out on top on

[maximusveritas]

5. These are the only ones I know of that track all votes over many years

If you know of any others, let me know and I'll add them above.

There may be other interest group ratings that take into account a handful of votes on a single topic (war, labor), but no others that actually tell us how progressive/liberal a person is overall.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

6. You know what's funny about all these ratings and

graphs and charts purporting to tell us how liberal the candidates are or aren't? That they're all so close to one another. These things are really pretty meaningless to me. Some votes and some issues are more important to me than others, and I'm sure I'm not alone. The best thing people can do is check the voting records of the various candidates, listen to them carefully and read their various proposals and other literature.

[BeyondGeography]

21. You're not alone, and this is not how people choose a Presidential nominee

nor should they. Presidents are chief executives, not legislators. They set priorities and seek to lead the country accordingly. Absent a stunning contrast in the record, trying to figure out what kind of President Candidate A will make based on their voting response to someone else's priorities is an intellectual road to nowhere. Massive amounts of time being wasted here.

[maximusveritas]

22. The reason I posted this was to counter the other misleading post

That postm which is on the Greatest page with 15 recs, claimed Obama's not a progressive because some group gave him a "C" rating based on 8 votes for the first half of 2005.

This diary counters that providing ratings from groups that don't just look at a handful of votes on a single issue.

These ratings may not make your choice for you, but it's helpful in sorting out the rhetoric about who's progressive and who's not.

[BeyondGeography]

23. MV, this is not at ALL directed at you

and I'm glad you're setting this part of the record straight. Those who would use cherry-picked ratings and isolated votes (always without fully explaining a bill's provisions) to position Obama as something he is demonstrably not are my target.

[Progress And Change]

25. that is exactly what the OP did by excluding ratings that didn't fit the Obama narrative!

:rofl:

[Czolgosz]

7. Your National Journal link reflects only two years of Obama's votes, and Kucinich was MUCH MORE

progressive during those two years. Also, your link doesn't appear to have the information you post about Edwards.

[maximusveritas]

8. Sorry, I used an additional link as well

to get the Edwards rating.
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2004/0830nj_liberalratings.htm

You're right about Kucinch, I'll make an edit to make it clear I'm only looking at Senate candidates.

[cuke]

16. You cherry picked and then told an untruth about the stats

You said you couldn't find any orgs that do ratings like this, even though you participated in a thread that listed other orgs that do this.

You left them out because Clinton got a better rating from those orgs, and you pretended to be ignorant of those ratings. The proof is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3815138#3815242

[maximusveritas]

17. Stop trolling and read the OP for once. I made clear why I included the ones I did n/t

[Progress And Change]

18. you did it via a sleight of hand to exclude the labor group votes

There is a larger pattern of Obama supporters first hiding Obama's record and then using sleights of hands to mislead about his record. Why don't Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich supporters feel a need to do the same?

[cuke]

19. He designed the criteria to cut out ratings Obama didn't lead on

Oldest trick in the book. That's how Halliburton gets its contracts. It's cronies in govt write the RFP in a way that only Halliburton can fit the criteria.

MV just did the same thing.

[Progress And Change]

20. precisely. this is the "new politics" obama is vowing?

[Progress And Change]

9. The OP is a repost of numbers I posted except the AFL and SEIU ratings were omitted

Why was that? You guess it...Barackstar had low AFL and SEIU ratings...

[cuke]

12. The OP is claiming that it knows nothing about that thread

Do you have a link to that thread. ISTR the OP participating in that thread

[Progress And Change]

13. the numbers come straight from that thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3815138

[cuke]

14. I just KNEW the OP couldn't be trusted

Pretending to be ignorant of these facts when the OP was motivated by your thread which had ALL of the #'s

[Progress And Change]

15. this may be how they practice politics in chicago but this isn't the "new politics" America wants!

[rinsd]

24. Obama is the most progressive candidate! (when he bothers to vote)

"If you're wondering, the reason Clinton overperforms according to Progressive Punch is because they take into account missed votes and she hasn't missed as many as the others"

[maximusveritas]

26. Fair enough

I don't know how Clinton makes it to all these votes while campaigning. She has a significantly better attendence record than anyone who's run for President in recent history. She must be racking up the frequent flier miles.