"Progressive Punch" top 10 progressive Senators....

[George II]

with lifetime and the 2019-2020 session "progressive" % for crucial votes - those highlighted are potential presidential candidates (sorry for the sloppy format):

1 Harris, Kamala CA 99.63 100.00
2 Warren, Elizabeth MA 98.87 100.00
3 Markey, Ed MA 98.53 33.33
4 Booker, Cory NJ 97.00 100.00
5 Merkley, Jeff OR 96.67 100.00
6 Hirono, Mazie HI 96.61 100.00
7 Gillibrand, KirstenNY 96.54 100.00
8 Brown, Sherrod OH 96.28 100.00
9 Sanders, Bernie VT 96.13 66.67
10 Reed, Jack RI 95.11 100.00

[SidDithers]

1. DU rec...

Sid

[nycbos]

2. But but but...

... leftists have told me Harris is evil.

[JCanete]

3. wow...how many times are you guys going to sell this disingenuous metric? The same

damn study is trotted out every month or less by somebody here...a study who's designers have still not addressed its obvious biases in the weighting, which are literally designed so that a candidate most inline with the Democratic Party, NOT with progressive politics, is all but guaranteed to come out on top.

Its not the data that's the problem, and to be fair, maybe not even the ranking, IF ONLY they got rid of the specious conclusion that their ranking has anything to do with "most progressive." "Most reliably votes with party," sounds far more apt.

[honest.abe]

4. Is voting against Russia sanctions now considered progressive??

[JCanete]

7. what does that have to do with the metric of the study? The point is they don't

weigh in on any particular measure or position. They use the wrong tools.

[honest.abe]

9. Quite a bit.

As I suspect that's the reason your guy Bernie got ranked lower than others was due to his votes/non-votes on Russia sanctions and also some of his votes on gun control legislation.

Also see here for their methodology.. seems sound to me:

http://www.progressivepunch.org/whatIsProgScore.htm#crucial-votes

[JCanete]

10. I've gone over it over and over. They reward you for voting with the pack and against hte other pack

That's the whole thing in a nutshell. middle of the road legislation that picks off 8 to 10 republicans, that's the progressive position based on this math. Care to comment?

[honest.abe]

13. "The pack" is a subset of Senators, House members who are considered progressive.

That's how they determine "progressiveness".

[JCanete]

14. Hey, thanks, I actually missed that when I read through their methodology previously. And since

I missed that, when I read progressives vs republicans, I assumed they were referring to democrats as a whole as their basis for "progressive." That does improve the analysis in my eyes quite a bit. It doesn't fix it, because, as they admit, there is still a glaring issue of isolated positions being entirely discarded or even potentially losing points. They point out Barbara Lee's lone position regarding the invasion of Afganistan as an example. And there's something self-referential about using their own numbers to determine who gets into the control. That means if the progressives as a whole get more conservative over a window of time, and vote for less progressive legislation that is still denied by republicans, holdouts or nay votes from the left still lose points and could even be moved out of the grouop of core progressives that the study pivots around.

What is also ridiculously problematic is that the reference point for whether Sanders or Kamala Harris is voting progressively is simply, how did they vote, in relation to those others in their own panel. They have significant sway on what is progressive by being part of the control in the first place. Whoever is in this group makes a huge impact on how the group's parameters will or will not evolve.

And it still finds a way to make "most progressive" the value in the middle of that control(the value that the most across that progressive spectrum go for), rather than on the left most fringe(which is easy to argue as the most progressive position). It skews the results rightwards if only ever so slightly by virtue of how it functions.

That said, my irritation level is dialed way down.

[honest.abe]

15. Clearly its not a perfect way to rank them but useful nonetheless... imo.

[George II]

5. It's not a "study", it's a continuously updated rating of all members of Congress -

House
Senate
Democratic
republican
Independent

If you see it updated every month, that's because there are many votes taken in both houses each month, Congress is not static.

[JCanete]

8. with the same flaw underlying it every time it rolls out. If you are going to keep using it,

at least address why you think it says what it says it says.

[George II]

11. I think it says what it says because that's what it says.

[JCanete]

12. That is what it says it says....ugh well done there. Thanks for your sincere investment in honest

discourse. So you maybe, don't have any justification for their methodology?

[honest.abe]

6. For those who are skeptical of these rankings here is the methodology they used:

http://www.progressivepunch.org/whatIsProgScore.htm#crucial-votes

Seems reasonable to me.

[Cha]

16. Thanks George.. I see BS is #9 again.. 2nd to Last

on the list.

My Senator Mazie is #6 and Senator Harris is Numero Uno!

[MurrayDelph]

17. Don't sell Merkley short

We love our Senator Jeff.

[George II]

18. Yes he's been great, especially on the immigration issue. Does he plan to throw his hat in the ring?

[MurrayDelph]

21. I'm pretty sure

he's thinking about it.

[JHan]

19. mm the tea

[betsuni]

20. K&R

[mcar]

22. Very interesting

Not unexpected, but interesting. We should bookmark this for future discussions about who is most progressive.