General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAccording to voting record, the top 10 most progressive members of the Senate.
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
(6,034 posts)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
(108,980 posts)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.
(35,454 posts)KR
LonePirate
(13,426 posts)nycbos
(6,034 posts)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
(49,007 posts)hueymahl
(2,497 posts)They are part of us, the Democratic Party. Calling our members names is divisive and just not needed.
LonePirate
(13,426 posts)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
(2,949 posts)Were never Democrats and never will be.
hueymahl
(2,497 posts)moda253
(615 posts)Response to hueymahl (Reply #68)
Post removed
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)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
(6,034 posts)27,000 voted in WI 80,000 in PA
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)We cannot put all of the blame on any one faction or segment of voters.
nycbos
(6,034 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)All this list says to me is we have a lot of good people in our caucus.
nycbos
(6,034 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)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
(6,399 posts)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
(11,936 posts)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
(5,272 posts)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
(130,974 posts)But since when has senator sanders become the gold standard anyway?
alarimer
(16,245 posts)(Also applies to Van Hollen).
lapucelle
(18,275 posts)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
(63,221 posts)Our Senators rock!
sheshe2
(83,791 posts)I MA!
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Hope all is well with you!
sheshe2
(83,791 posts)Lol~ weird summer we are having though.
Hope all is well with you too.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)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
(2,117 posts)I'm proud of both of them.
leftstreet
(36,109 posts)I have no idea who he is
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)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
(10,500 posts)I think he will succeed Chuck Schumer as Senate Democratic leader in 2028.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Corrected. Thanks
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)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
(130,974 posts)'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 (196972) and U.S. Ambassador to Sri Lanka and the Maldives (197276);[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
(42,334 posts)elleng
(130,974 posts)mcar
(42,334 posts)If his parents are American citizens, he is eligible
elleng
(130,974 posts)With Van Hollen, born in PAKISTAN, SHOCKING!, it likely will be raised, imo.
mcar
(42,334 posts)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
(130,974 posts)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
(23,340 posts)If you have an American parent, you are an American citizen no matter where you are born.
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)My Senators are 28th and 32nd--still over the 90th percentile.
I'm really liking Kamala Harris.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)There's quite a gap.
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)Salviati
(6,008 posts)joshdawg
(2,648 posts)people call a truism.
cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)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
(65,076 posts)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.
Both my Senators are on that list!
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)"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. Weve 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
(108,980 posts)aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)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
(7,143 posts)"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
(42,641 posts)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
(10,721 posts)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
(12,344 posts)Not a fair comparison. Would make more sense to see what she did as California AG.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)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
(10,500 posts)Merkley and Wyden of Oregon, who had the good sense to vote against confirming Chris Wray as FBI director.
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)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
(18,275 posts)Ms. Toad
(34,075 posts)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.)
Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #25)
Johnyawl This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ms. Toad
(34,075 posts)Filter on family planning, then on abortion.
Johnyawl
(3,205 posts)I figured that out and deleted my post, but I must have been deleting as you were answering!
Ms. Toad
(34,075 posts)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
(18,275 posts)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
(67,782 posts)Ms. Toad
(34,075 posts)lunasun
(21,646 posts)in regards to abortion
? ???
Ms. Toad
(34,075 posts)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
(31,112 posts)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
(42,862 posts)HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)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
(18,275 posts)mcar
(42,334 posts)Thought they were corporatist, turd way warmongers.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)mcar
(42,334 posts)Deep suspicion!!11
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)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
(42,862 posts)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
(397 posts)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
(18,275 posts)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
(51,574 posts)That takes guts and principle to vote that way, unlike a Senator from a deep blie state like, say, Vermont.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)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
(24,461 posts)Brown as VP would have been a slam-dunk. He would have destroyed Pence in a debate without an effort.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)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
(67,782 posts)Quixote1818
(28,946 posts)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
(108,980 posts)And that's a concern to many progressives.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)None include any votes from the current Congress in 2017.
Quixote1818
(28,946 posts)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
(108,980 posts)so their process is transparent.
lapucelle
(18,275 posts)betsuni
(25,538 posts)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
(6,699 posts)Just curious where Ron Wyden falls? Living in Washington State, I'd like to also know how Cantwell and Murray rate.
retread
(3,762 posts)Docreed2003
(16,863 posts)A guy I know and like and was my former Senator, is that liberal!!!!! Yay for Little Rhody!
elleng
(130,974 posts)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
(12,697 posts)Bladewire
(381 posts)Yes!
alarimer
(16,245 posts)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
(18,275 posts)TryLogic
(1,723 posts)is anything other than Repub ops.
elleng
(130,974 posts)riversedge
(70,242 posts)Heartstrings
(7,349 posts)I donate to her every month!
lillypaddle
(9,580 posts)ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)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
(108,980 posts)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
(3,321 posts)Klobuchar is at 36. Still progressive, just not quite as much as Al.
MrPurple
(985 posts)If he runs for Pres. and is the most charismatic/electable candidate, you're fools not to consider him.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)been exposed to!
Great link.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)votes party line. That is a dishonest way of defining progressive.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)"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
(5,272 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)"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
(108,980 posts)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
(5,272 posts)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
(108,980 posts)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
(5,272 posts)put some time in later to show you examples.
Caliman73
(11,738 posts)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
(5,901 posts)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.