According to voting record, the top 10 most progressive members of the Senate.

[pnwmom]

Can't we concede that all the Senators who score 90% and above have excellent progressive records? And that all Senators are supposed to be representing their own states, and that might be why they occasionally deviate from DU's ideas of perfection?

http://www.progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

PROGRESSIVE SCORE Progressive Score
Rank Member of Congress Party State Crucial Votes % Overall %
Updated 2017


1 Van Hollen, Chris D MD
2 Harris, Kamala D CA
3 Markey, Ed D MA
4 Warren, Elizabeth D MA
5 Booker, Cory D NJ
6 Franken, Al D MN
7 Reed, Jack D RI
8TIE Baldwin, Tammy D WI
8TIE Hirono, Mazie D HI
10 Brown, Sherrod D OH

[nycbos]

1. So Harris is more progressive than Sanders?

Of course the leftist purists aren't persuaded by annoying things like facts.


They think anyone who isn't Bernie Sanders isn't a real progressive.

[pnwmom]

2. Sanders is number 11, but #s 1-10 are just a little higher. Still, if his votes

on gun control can be forgiven, than so can whatever votes make people think Booker and Harris aren't progressive enough.

Can't we just concede that all of the Dems are far more progressive than any of the R's?

[Me.]

101. Well, WEll, Well

KR

[LonePirate]

5. That is certainly interesting. I wonder how the fringe left will explain away this ranking.

[nycbos]

12. A neoliberal conspiracy to make Sanders look bad?

Or as Monty Python put it. "The only people we hate more than the romans are the f*****g Judean People Front.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

59. Whatever they do, they won't blame it on Russian bots & planted social media. . . nt

[hueymahl]

68. The "fringe left" comment is really not necessary

They are part of us, the Democratic Party. Calling our members names is divisive and just not needed.

[LonePirate]

77. The fringe left (those who voted Stein and the JPR types) are not friends of the Democratic Party.

Maybe your definition of fringe left differs from mine, though.

I do think there are actual Democrats who will be surprised by the ranking in the OP. I suspect it may even be eye-opening for some.

[tiredtoo]

89. Those that voted for Stein.....

Were never Democrats and never will be.

[hueymahl]

128. I can agree with that. NT

[moda253]

109. Hear hear!

[guillaumeb]

15. How many of "them" do you think there are?

Given that over 90% of Sanders supporters stated that they voted for Clinton, the, leftist purists, as you call them, seem to be few in number.

[nycbos]

28. Enough to cost the election.

27,000 voted in WI 80,000 in PA

[guillaumeb]

49. What caused 45% of voters to NOT vote?

We cannot put all of the blame on any one faction or segment of voters.

[nycbos]

56. OF course.

[phleshdef]

29. Harris has a 98% and Sanders has a 95%. The differences among the top 20 in that list are trivial.

All this list says to me is we have a lot of good people in our caucus.

[nycbos]

30. I agree however the far left has been going after Harris for awhile.

[phleshdef]

33. Yea, we have our dickheads over on our side too. Thats just life.

I mostly ignore that shit. Its only important to people who deeply engage in partisan squabbling on the Internet. The average Democratic party voter or left leaning independent... that stuff isn't even in their radar.

[Blue_Adept]

45. But of those who do we hear about? Sanders more than the rest

Warren occasionally, nowhere near as much now that the election is behind us. Harris gets some attention because of the campaign against her now.

But we have day in and day out lots of posts about Bernie this, Bernie that.

Where are the Van Hollen, Booker, Markey, Hirono posts? Why aren't we seeing what they're saying and doing?

Just where are their boosters and advocates?

We know the Bernie boosters aren't all from VT, the majority likely aren't, so why aren't these progressives in their states boosting people like on this list? Or at least in addition to Bernie.

[phleshdef]

52. Bernie has built a solid following along with a strong media presence.

Plus he did just run for president and attracted a lot of huge crowds while doing so. That kind of thing leads to a lot of name recognition.

[JCanete]

91. the claim is deceptive. This is only determining how often you voted party line when most

republicans voted a different party line. That is not a measurement of how progressive the legislation was, and in-fact, bipartisan legislation that pulls some republicans will register as progressive, whereas voting against it will ding your "progressive" score.

[elleng]

97. Yes indeed.

[seta1950]

50. Progressive

But since when has senator sanders become the gold standard anyway?

[alarimer]

67. Facts? Based on voting record that started in January OF THIS YEAR?

(Also applies to Van Hollen).

[lapucelle]

113. The data is pretty comprehensive.

Here are the lifetime stats:
http://www.progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?topic=&house=senate&sort=overall-lifetime&order=down&party=

Here are the rankings for all votes this year:
http://www.progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?topic=&house=senate&sort=overall-lifetime&order=down&party=

Here is the data for crucial votes this year:
http://www.progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?topic=&house=senate&sort=crucial-current&order=down&party=

[smirkymonkey]

3. Yay Massachusetts!

Our Senators rock!

[sheshe2]

6. Yes they do, smirkymonkey!

I MA!

[smirkymonkey]

11. Hi Sheshe!

Hope all is well with you!

[sheshe2]

19. I'm good thanks.

Lol~ weird summer we are having though.

Hope all is well with you too.

[smirkymonkey]

20. Yes, it is. Today is nice though.

I am just more and more grateful that I live in this state the more I hear about what is going on in this country. We are very lucky!

[bluescribbler]

61. Yes, they do.

I'm proud of both of them.

[leftstreet]

4. Chris Van Hollen 2020!

I have no idea who he is

[NastyRiffraff]

48. He's my senator, and he's great!

Last edited Mon Aug 7, 2017, 06:04 PM - Edit history (1)

He was elected to the senate in 2016 after years in the House. I like him a lot. I doubt if he'll run for president, though!

Loving the top 10!

[StevieM]

83. I think you meant to say that he was elected to the Senate in 2016, not 2012.

I think he will succeed Chuck Schumer as Senate Democratic leader in 2028.

[NastyRiffraff]

112. Doh! Yes I did

Corrected. Thanks

[BlueMTexpat]

94. +1!

He's also mine But I believe that you meant to say 2016. Van Hollen was a MD Rep in Congress before that (not mine; mine is Elijah) and received rave reviews from his constituents then!

There are a LOT of great Dems, as those of us who have been Dems all along know. It seems to be only those who have woken up to politics recently who don't know - or who don't pay attention to - the others.

[elleng]

98. Prolly not run for Pres because

'Van Hollen was born in Karachi, Pakistan, the eldest of three children of American parents, Edith Eliza (née Farnsworth) and Christopher Van Hollen.[3][4] His father was a Foreign Service officer who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs (1969–72) and U.S. Ambassador to Sri Lanka and the Maldives (1972–76);[5] and his mother worked in the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department, where she served as chief of the intelligence bureau for South Asia.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Van_Hollen

Happy he's in the Senate, and he's my Jr. Senator too.

[mcar]

117. Why would that preclude him from running for President?

[elleng]

118. Not born in the U.S.

[mcar]

119. Neither was John McCain

If his parents are American citizens, he is eligible

[elleng]

121. With McCain, issue wasn't raised.

With Van Hollen, born in PAKISTAN, SHOCKING!, it likely will be raised, imo.

[mcar]

122. Perhaps it will by the right

It's still not an issue. They make up whatever crap they want to.

Any Dem nominee would be subject to a barrage of lies and innuendo. Why are we disqualifying potential candidates based on what the RWNJ might say?

[elleng]

123. I am not disqualifying anyone,

I said he prolly won't run for this reason (because it raises an 'issue' which candidates don't want.) I think he's too smart to allow that door to open. (He's my Senator.)

[kwassa]

127. It is no issue at all. Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

If you have an American parent, you are an American citizen no matter where you are born.

[ismnotwasm]

7. That's an Interesting list

My Senators are 28th and 32nd--still over the 90th percentile.

I'm really liking Kamala Harris.

[pnwmom]

9. Right. And look at the difference between the lowest scoring Dems and the highest scoring R.

There's quite a gap.

[ismnotwasm]

16. Yeah it is

[Salviati]

21. Giving proof to the statement that any Democrat is better than any republican.

[joshdawg]

60. Your statement is what sane and rational

people call a truism.

[cannabis_flower]

64. I wish my Senators were different..

55 Ted Cruz and 89 John Cornyn. I was somewhat surprised to see that Cruz ranks as more progressive than Cornyn. Though they are both terrible.

[ProfessorGAC]

71. I See 14 and 20 For Illinois

Durbin a pinch more than Duckworth. But, she's only been there for a few months, so not sure the list isn't a bit premature. I have a feeling she might move upward as time goes by.

[sheshe2]

8. KnR

Both my Senators are on that list!

[Lucinda]

10. KNR Thank you!

[aikoaiko]

13. Kind of. It's really a measure of cohort voting where the cohort is defined by a webapage

Using publicly published data from Congressional Quarterly, we averaged a couple of different types of scores that they published, looking at all votes going back to January 1, 1991. After going through a number of steps and gyrations, we came up with a list of eleven hard-core progressive United States Senators (11% of that body) and 37 hard-core progressive United States Representatives (about 9% of that body). The algorithm that we've used to come up with these progressive scores is as follows: We take ANY VOTE in which a majority of the progressives we've identified--so in the House say, if there were no absences, it would be 19 of 37--voted in opposition to a majority of the Republican caucus and have that vote qualify for the database. The same process is used in the Senate. So, non-ideological votes such as National Groundhog Day: 429-0 with 6 absences, do not qualify for the database. ANY vote in which a majority of progressives in the progressive cohort listed just below here votes against a majority of Republicans qualifies for the database and is included in the Overall % scores.

"The Progressive Position" by definition, is the position of the majority of the Progressives. The “Conservative Position” is the position of the majority of the Republicans. We’ve tested this algorithm in the real world and it works extremely well. In the case of members of Congress elected before November 1990, the “Progressive Lifetime Scores” include only votes cast in Congress since January 1, 1991 (1991-92 was the first full Congress where vote records were computerized). In the case of members of Congress elected on or after November 1990, the scores include all votes that have ever been cast while that member has been in Congress. The column labeled “Progressive ‘17-‘18 Scores” is for the current Congress and shows scores for votes since January 2017, which allows for an apples-to-apples comparison for the same time period of all current members of Congress. For example, the total number of qualifying votes according to this criteria in 2007 was 747 in the House and 269 in the Senate. After we catch up with a programming backlog, we will post the specific roll call vote numbers of the votes that qualified for inclusion on Progressive Punch scores. The composite scores include ALL votes qualified by our algorithm, whether we've written the narrative vote descriptions that allow us to put them into categories or not. So the category scores can look different from the composite scores.

Which is to say that someone on the leftier end of the distribution of this cohort might score a little lower.

[pnwmom]

18. You can look at the votes that they used in the ranking. They're being transparent. nt

[aikoaiko]

24. Yes their algorithm and the votes are transparent.

But someone who took a leftier or more progressive position than the majority of the "progressive cohort" would be penalized for not voting with the "progressive cohort".

Thanks for posting it.

[OilemFirchen]

31. And it makes sense.

"Leftier" is not necessarily more progressive. If, for example, a Senator voted to ban the consumption of meat, while the progressive position maintained that meat consumption is a choice and that meat producers are vital to our economy, then that Senator would be "penalized".

[guillaumeb]

14. One hopes that we all agree that there can be no perfect office holder.

And as the ranking shows, if one accepts this ranking it is obvious that Democrats are preferable to Republicans. Even the least perfect, again, accepting this as the reference point, even the least perfect Democrat is preferable.

But as the debate over specific issues shows, there are specific "make or break" issues for some DU posters.

[Garrett78]

17. I'm reminded of another list that had Schumer listed as the most progressive. LOL

Merkley is only 12th and just a hair ahead of Gillibrand, who had to be persuaded not to co-sponsor the absurd Israel Anti-Boycott Act?

M'kay.

[marylandblue]

22. Harris has only been there six months

Not a fair comparison. Would make more sense to see what she did as California AG.

[pnwmom]

23. Apples and oranges. There is no way to compare a record as state prosecutor and US Senator. n/t

[George II]

40. Attorneys General don't vote on legislation.

[NewJeffCT]

70. Kristen Gillebrand

was rather moderate in Congress representing a moderate to conservative district in upstate NY. However, since she has moved to the senate, she has become one of the more reliably liberal senators and (I believe) has voted against more Trump cabinet nominees than anybody else in the senate.

[StevieM]

84. Gillibrand was one of 5 senators, along with Markey and Warren of Massachusetts and

Merkley and Wyden of Oregon, who had the good sense to vote against confirming Chris Wray as FBI director.

[NewJeffCT]

86. Gillebrand first impressed me

when she first became senator, she was one of the few senators that voted against defunding ACORN after the doctored James O'Keefe video came out. (Burris, Durbin, Casey, Gillebrand, Sanders, Leahy and Whitehouse were the NO votes)

Part of the reason Dem fortunes have gone down the past 8-10 years has been that ACORN is gone and nobody has really replaced them in getting people in the cities registered.

[lapucelle]

114. Here's the comparison for votes this year only.

Overall votes:
http://www.progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?topic=&house=senate&sort=overall-current&order=down&party=

Crucial votes:
http://www.progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?topic=&house=senate&sort=crucial-current&order=down&party=

[Ms. Toad]

25. Interesting to note the imperfect record on abortion for a number of A-, and B-rated progressives,

Democrats with a rating on abortion (not all have one) that is less than perfect: (Overall progressive rating in parentheses)

Durbin (A)
Casey (A)
Schumer (B)
Murray (B)
Leahy (B)
Nelson (B)
Wyden (C)
Cantwell (C)
Feinstein (F)
Carper (F)

I ceartainly would not toss any A- or B-rated senator to the curb merely because their record on abortion is less than perfect. (That doesn't mean I wouldn't criticize them, and ask them to do better.)

[Ms. Toad]

34. Same site.

Filter on family planning, then on abortion.

[Johnyawl]

36. Thanks Ms Toad!

I figured that out and deleted my post, but I must have been deleting as you were answering!

[Ms. Toad]

58. Welcome.

If you didn't figure it out while exploring the site, they appear to base it on around 29 votes that impact abortion rights. (Click on the name of the senator).

[lapucelle]

115. Here are the stats on the OP's link.

It gives Feinstein a lifetime 96.88 rating.

http://www.progressivepunch.org/topic-scores.htm?x=38&y=7&house=senate&party=&topic=F1&sort=crucial-lifetime&order=down

[George II]

41. No one is perfect on every issue.

[Ms. Toad]

44. That's precisely my point. n/t

[lunasun]

55. Durbin's, Feinstein's long term rating is 96.88 yet someone like Warren, OR Ted Cruz is N/A.

in regards to abortion
? ???

[Ms. Toad]

57. I didn't check those two - but if they are N/A, they didn't vote on the bills being tracked.

If you click on the name of the senator, it shows how they voted on the ~29 abortion votes the entity was tracking.

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. Kamala Harris more liberal than EVERYBODY but one person?

A. I dont want to hear one more fucking NEGATIVE word about her on this GOD DAMN pro democratic party site, but I value my breath so I wont hold it

B. I wonder where Hillary would fit in that list if you took her tenure into account, pretty high up I betcha!

[NurseJackie]

38. I wonder if the site owners are aware of this ranking.

[HarmonyRockets]

111. Wait, really?

Because one website on the internet ranked her 6 month long voting record that included very little major legislation high on a list that means nobody can say one negative thing about her, ever? Jesus Christ some people are taking this too seriously. We will be critical and say negative things about people when we see fit. If you don't want to do it, you don't have to. But don't tell the rest of us what to do or say please. If Senator Harris does something good, I will praise it. If she does something, but I was have a "negative word" to say. And there's nothing anyone can do about that.

[lapucelle]

116. So let's just look at votes from this year.

Overall votes:
http://www.progressivepunch.org/topic-scores.htm?x=38&y=7&house=senate&party=&topic=F1&sort=crucial-lifetime&order=down

Crucial votes:
http://www.progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?topic=&house=senate&sort=crucial-current&order=down&party=

[mcar]

27. Harris and Booker right in there

Thought they were corporatist, turd way warmongers.

[NurseJackie]

37. So... tell me again... why do the haters hate her so much? (What's to hate?)

[mcar]

46. Must be something but I haven't seen an actual reason

Deep suspicion!!11

[NewJeffCT]

72. I've heard both Booker and Harris

have been declared the "establishment" and/or DNC nominee for 2020 already by various Bernie supporters. Of course, Booker is Satan and in the pocket of Big Pharma because he voted against the NON BINDING Sanders resolution about drug re-importation from Canada. Never mind that Booker voted for a very similar resolution, also non-binding. He voted against Bernie, so he's obviously a corporate Democrat and a tool of the establishment.

[NurseJackie]

75. There are some very bitter and petty people out there. It's sad that...

It's sad that some put a greater emphasis on pride and vanity (and holding grudges, and getting revenge) than they do on actually making PROGRESS.

Oh the irony... these people dare to call themselves "progressive," yet they forget the actual meaning of the root word. Yet, in the end, actions like that cause more damage than good. Our causes are set back. Innocent and vulnerable people suffer needlessly. Our world grows warmer. International relations grow hotter. War looms. Yet, there they are... strutting around like peacocks... so proud that they "stood-their-ground" and refused to find common ground.

The whole thing is very Sarandonesque... she's another one who subscribes to the no-compromise and burn-it-down philosophies.

[HarmonyRockets]

110. Refusing to prosecute Steve Mnuchin, being anti-trans

among other things. Seriously, why would anyone pay attention to her voting record when she's been in the Senate for about 6 months and has barely voted on any major legislation? Not that that is her fault, but still. It's silly and you know it. The only thing we really have to judge her on is her record as AG of California. And there are some areas of concern, if you're a liberal. (I realize you are probably a centrist).

[lapucelle]

120. Of course people are "concerned".

The question is why?

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-urges-federal-courts-protect-transgender

http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-0326-anti-gay-initiative-20150326-story.html

http://www.emilyslist.org/news/entry/lgbt-weekly-equality-california-endorses-kamala-harris-for-u.s.-senate

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/06/california-attorney-general-moves-to-dismiss-kill-the-gays-ballot-measure/

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/tag/kamala-harris/page/2/

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/05/california-ag-tells-court-that-prop-8-supporters-do-not-have-standing-to-appeal/

https://www.advocate.com/search/site/kamala%20harris

https://www.advocate.com/politics/2017/6/08/kamala-harris-emerges-dem-star-during-senate-hearings

[SunSeeker]

35. And Sherrod Brown is the only one from a GOP LEANING state.

That takes guts and principle to vote that way, unlike a Senator from a deep blie state like, say, Vermont.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

92. I like him a lot. I think we could have been in WH if he had

been VP choice. He's very articulate and has a progressive soul. I also think he has a great deal of political savvy,sophistication and intelligence.

P.S. Used to think his gravelly voice was off-putting but heard him recently and he sounds so much better

[HughBeaumont]

129. +1,000.

Brown as VP would have been a slam-dunk. He would have destroyed Pence in a debate without an effort.

[HughBeaumont]

95. What helps is that the person running against him is disliked even by Ohio's Repubs.

This article on Josh Mandel is by Plain Dealer columnist Brent Larkin, himself not exactly left of center.

Brown has always been a strong voice for union and public workers and an opponent of offshore outsourcing, or Thomas Friedman-promoted "Free Trade".

[George II]

39. I see three potential Presidential candidates in the top five.

[Quixote1818]

42. Here are some other sites that have it completely different

That site with Sanders at 11th sounds fishy. He is considered the most progressive senator or almost always ranks in the top 2 or 3.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2016/senate/ideology


https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/3/31/1374629/-Hillary-Clinton-Was-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate

https://graphiq-stories.graphiq.com/stories/11569/most-liberal-members-of-congress

[pnwmom]

53. Sanders has a less than perfect record on gun issues, for one thing.

And that's a concern to many progressives.

[pnwmom]

54. Those rankings come from 2015 and from March 2016 and January 20, 2017.

None include any votes from the current Congress in 2017.

[Quixote1818]

88. True but someone posted from that site last year and it had Booker near the top

when the other site had him toward the bottom and both were 2016. Not saying either is correct but I would take them with a grain of salt if they come up with such vastly different outcomes.

[pnwmom]

90. Progressive Punch lists all the votes that they used to come up with their numbers,

so their process is transparent.

[lapucelle]

124. Here's his full report card.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357/report-card/2016

[betsuni]

43. Excellent! Thank you.

Useful for the next time one of those names is mentioned and the "reasoned concerns" and "critiques" start up, vague worries of non-progressive pasts and centrist futures. Concerns followed by tantrums about the establishment/big donors lining up behind them (what is the Diabolical Secret Corporatist Plan?), getting in line, shoving them down our throats, anointing & coronating. The usual.

[Hulk]

47. They all have my vote. Merkley of Oregon??

Just curious where Ron Wyden falls? Living in Washington State, I'd like to also know how Cantwell and Murray rate.

[retread]

62. Click on the provided link. n/t

[Docreed2003]

51. I'm actually shocked that Jack Reed..no relation...

A guy I know and like and was my former Senator, is that liberal!!!!! Yay for Little Rhody!

[elleng]

99. He HAS been,

and has been kind of ignored by many, imo.

'Little Rhody's a pretty good place (imo; Do want to spend some time there.)

[stonecutter357]

63. K&R

[Bladewire]

65. Kamala Harris #2

Yes!

[alarimer]

66. Harris and Van Hollen have been Senators for less than a year

In a highly dysfunctional Senate in which nothing much actually happens. So what are they basing this on? Voting percentages mean nothing. What about the actual votes? On what issues? Or is it based solely on voting against Trump nominees, which is good but hardly sufficient?

[lapucelle]

125. This page details the methodology.

http://www.progressivepunch.org/whatIsProgScore.htm

[TryLogic]

69. I have difficulty believing the divisivness regarding so-called liberal fringe, etc. is...

is anything other than Repub ops.

[elleng]

100. I suspect it too.

[riversedge]

73. I knew My Sen, -Tammy Baldwing would be on that list. My other one is a vile Tea bagger-Ron Johnson

[Heartstrings]

74. Tammy Baldwin's also my senator

I donate to her every month!

[lillypaddle]

76. Thanks for this. nt

[ciaobaby]

79. Thanks for sharing.....

I found it interesting that so many go straight to Bernie Sanders "A" rating and somehow find that a bad thing.
What I found most disturbing was Diane Feinstein scored and "F" as did Tim Kaine! Debbie Wasserman Schultz also scored only a "D".
And these are the ones supposedly leading the party.

[pnwmom]

80. And yet someone like Tim Kaine with his "F' is still 50 points more progressive

than the most progressive Republican, Susan Collins.

And as I said, some of those we disparage as not being progressive enough come from swing or red states. Virginia is a swing state and we're far better off with Tim Kaine than with an R.

[warmfeet]

81. Good to see Al Franken at number 6.

Klobuchar is at 36. Still progressive, just not quite as much as Al.

[MrPurple]

82. Take note all the people here who hate on Corey Booker as being too much of a sellout

If he runs for Pres. and is the most charismatic/electable candidate, you're fools not to consider him.

[R B Garr]

85. Well, this certainly shatters a lot of the misleading myths we've

been exposed to!

Great link.

[JCanete]

93. it's a bullshit claim based on metrics that don't prove this at all. They show how often somebody

votes party line. That is a dishonest way of defining progressive.

[pnwmom]

103. Of the major parties, Democratic party IS the progressive party. I hesitate to even use the word

"more" because among Republicans being progressive is basically non-existent.

In the 2016 election, the Democrats supported a $15 minimum wage, free tuition at state colleges, strong Medicare, expanded Medicaid, universal healthcare, strong protections for the environment, civil rights, women's rights, and on and on and on. It is ludicrous to pretend that the Democratic party is not progressive.

[JCanete]

104. refer to my other post about why this is problematic. nt

[pnwmom]

105. I have. And it's wrong, as I explained. n/t

[JCanete]

87. Not again. The problem with this, as I mentioned before when this was posted, is the way

"progressive" is being measured. This is simply a test of how often you vote on party lines. That does not dissect specific legislation and where it sits on the spectrum of progressive. If you object to legislation because you have a more progressive take on what should be done, and the legislation passes with a handful of republicans joining on but most of them voting against, well that was legislation that I'm already wary of because republicans signed onto it, but the people who voted for it get counted as voting progressively while the progressives who voted nay get counted as not doing so.

That makes the framing of this breakdown very akin to pro establishment propaganda in my opinion. Had they just called it what it was, that would be fine, but by defining progressive this way, I have a problem with it.

[pnwmom]

102. The problem with your point of view is that terms like "progressive" are always relative.

And comparing ALL the Democrats to ALL the Republicans shows how much more progressive ALL the Dems are.

If you want to "dissect" specific legislation, then have at it. Progressive Punch lists the bills they used in the rankings. They're being transparent.

[JCanete]

106. none of what you said justifies the methodology for determining a "progressive" record. I have

looked at it before. If you ding somebody for abstaining or voting against legislation when that person is to the left of it, and then make that person less progressive on your list as a result, that is skewing the result. If you give other congress-people a higher progressive score for voting on bi-partisan legislation simply because most republicans voted against it and most democrats voted for it, you are skewing the result.

It is perfectly fine to justify those votes. It is perfectly fine to say that these politicians were making sausage or whatever when they were working across the aisle, but it is not perfectly fine to pad their progressive bonafides for what may not amount to particularly progressive legislation while undercutting those same bonafides of liberals who might have found such legislation troubling from a progressive perspective.

[pnwmom]

107. If you have particular votes to complain about, then do so.

I don't see anyone who was dinged because of being too progressive, but if you're going to make that claim, then tell me what vote(s) you're referring to.

[JCanete]

108. fine, you want me to painstakingly do that so that you don't take this at face-value. I'm happy to

put some time in later to show you examples.

[Caliman73]

96. NO darn it pnwmom!!!

It has to be EXACTLY what I think on the issue that is most important to me! Something that I got off a some website somewhere totally is enough to disqualify any one of those people from consideration.



Kidding aside, we should be having a discussion, as a party, about what we really stand for. What are the CORE values and what are the specific policies that reflect those core values. Then we need to discuss all of the members of our party who have aspirations for office within those contexts to see who the best representatives are (at least for national office). I do not mind the discussion or even the vigorous debate at all. What is irritating is when people try to pronounce a candidate "dead on arrival" based on conjecture or inaccurate information.

I do understand the passion about fundamental issues like Civil Rights and Women's Reproductive Rights and Autonomy, that makes people not want to vote for people within our party who would move to restrict those. That is part of the discussion/debate.

[Zen Democrat]

126. Well, hell then, let's run Chris Van Hollen. I've always liked him.

I think John McCain actually did set the precedent for natural born citizens born on military bases overseas. If McCain had won the election in November 2008, he would have been inaugurated in January 2009.