Rankings

The conclusion reached by our sister publication National Journal that Barack Obama is the most liberal Senator yesterday is sure to get a lot of play down the road if Obama wins the nomination:

I've always been skeptical, though, of these sort of subjective assessments. An interest group ranking can be interesting because it tells you what's important to the interest group. But for a global assessment, I like the Poole/Rosenthal optimal classification method that uses math to look at all votes and sort the members of congress. They say that Obama is the eleventh most liberal member
of the 110th Senate whereas Clinton is the 20th most liberal. In the 109th Senate, Obama was 21st and Clinton was 25th. Obama's inexperienced, so he wasn't in the 108th Senate but Clinton was tied for 21.5th place, and in the 107th Senate she was 22nd. Basically, Clinton has a very typical voting record for a Democrat, and Obama seems to be a bit more liberal, but not as far left as a Russ Feingold or a Barbara Boxer.

Comments

No way he's more liberal than Feingold.

Posted by Freddie | February 1, 2008 12:48 PM

I'm a fan of Progressive Punch and its ranking. Rather different results there, though.

Posted by Elio M. García, Jr. | February 1, 2008 1:14 PM

Ann Coulter stated on Fox News that she would VOTE FOR and CAMPAIGN for Hillary over John McCain because Hillary is more conservative.

I'm not kidding --see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc

So there --you have it from the horse's mouth. Or one end of the horse, at any rate.

Posted by Don Williams | February 1, 2008 1:15 PM

Even though some new Democratic Senators aren't that far left (Casey, Tester, Webb) the institution did make a leftward shift over the last couple Congresses (Sanders, Whitehouse, Obama himself) so climbing in the rankings does show some progress for both Clinton and Obama.

Posted by lutton | February 1, 2008 1:25 PM

You sister publication? How embarrassing for you.

Look, it's been pretty much proven at this point that this study is as phony as a three-dollar bill, with the votes specifically cherry-picked to give the result they wanted. My personal favorites:

- Establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity to handle ethics complaints against senators. (Voting for the bill is the "liberal" option.)

- Agree to final passage of a bill implementing the 9/11 commission's homeland-security recommendations, including a provision extending collective bargaining rights to federal security screeners. (Voting for the bill is the "liberal" option.)

- Prevent Mexican trucks from operating on most U.S. roads. (Voting *for* the bill - not against - is the "liberal" option.)

Posted by DaveWoo | February 1, 2008 1:27 PM

Even though some new Democratic Senators aren't that far left (Casey, Tester, Webb) the institution did make a leftward shift over the last couple Congresses (Sanders, Whitehouse, Obama himself) so climbing in the rankings does show some progress for both Clinton and Obama.

Posted by lutton | February 1, 2008 1:33 PM

like the Poole/Rosenthal optimal classification method that uses math to look at all votes and sort the members of congress. They say that Obama is the eleventh most liberal member

As I said downstairs, the problem with these classifications is that they still only look at votes. Legislators don't just vote on bills that sprung forth full blown from the head of Zeus, they have to make a lot of sausage in order to get a bill out.

A legislator can have a very liberal voting record in terms of the roll call votes, but could be doing quite a bit of damage with some "we all gotta compromise" pseudo-centrist schtick which can do quite a bit to inhibit a liberal agenda from even making it to a vote.

Remember, e.g., back in the day, Holy Joe Lieberman had a fairly liberal voting record. But even back then he was (depending on who you asked) quite effective at negotiations due to his "good cop" schtick or quite inhibitory to the liberal agenda due to that schtick. Similarly, one can make the case, based on overall legislative record, that Joe Biden was one of the more liberal possible candidates this round, but would anyone here, based on his amazing ability to mis-articulate and generally to inhibit in many fora the liberal agenda, think of him as someone who would make a good, progressive President who uses the bully pulpit effectively?

Posted by DAS | February 1, 2008 1:33 PM

You're certainly correct about being suspicious of the subjectivity of these types of surveys. The National Journal, if you read their report, does a fairly good job of identifying the key votes of the session. But where the National Journal falls down is in assigning "conservative" or "liberal" value to the "yes" or "no" votes.

Why is, for example, requiring 100% inspections of shipping containers for national security threats a "liberal" position? How is establishing English as the official language a "conservative" position? Is a position "conservative" or "liberal" for cutting subsidies to private business to offer student loans? This study says it is "liberal" to do so, although that position is practically of no difference from Ron Paul's!

No, while there is a vague liberal vs. conservative element to this study, what it really tells us is how partisan the officeholder was (partisan being equal to voting with one's Party). All that I can conclude from this study is that Obama is a "blue state" Democrat who hasn't altered his votes to appear more "conservative" in anticipation of a national election. (Who knew?)

As such, Obama isn't the most liberal Senator, merely the most Democratic (much like a review of George Bush's positions would show him clearly to be a Republican but exceedingly anti-conservative).

Posted by Jamesaust | February 1, 2008 1:46 PM

Michael Scherer at Time knocks this down:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/02/what_the_national_journal_libe.html

On Thursday afternoon, political reporters across the country received a gushing email from the Republican National Committee, with a big picture of Barack Obama next to the words “Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007.” It was a reference to the National Journal, Washington’s big-deal political trade magazine, which released its annual bipolar rankings of the Senate. The results: Hillary Clinton was the 16th most liberal member of the Senate. Barack Obama was #1.

For those Democrats who still have nightmares from the 2004 election, the importance of this fact is unmistakable. Back then, Republicans repeatedly tarred nominee John Kerry with the fact that he had been ranked as the #1 most liberal member of Senate in 2003. Could it all be happening again? If Obama is the nominee, you can bet on it. In point of fact, both Obama and Clinton are relatively liberal members of the Senate. But “most liberal”? That sounds a bit like being the drunkest guy at a Superbowl party—not something to be proud of in a general election.

The more interesting question, though, is, Does this “most liberal” ranking actually mean anything? And the answer, once you look at the National Journal’s methodology, is not really. I say this only because I got an email from Dave Meyer, a researcher here in DC, who is one of the many usually-unnamed people who toil behind the scenes in Washington brokering in information. Here is what Meyer wrote:

I actually browsed through the scorecard National Journal used to determine the ranking. There are precisely two scored votes where Obama took the liberal position and Clinton took the conservative. The first was Joe Lieberman's S.Amdt. 30 to S.Amdt. 3 to S.1 The Amendment was "To establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity." Here's the roll call of the 27-71 vote. Joining Obama on the "liberal" side -- meaning the side in support of Joe Lieberman's amendment -- were Republicans Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe Chuck Grassley, and John McCain.

The second was Jeff Bingaman's S.Amdt. 1267 to S.Amdt.1150 to S.1348, the Immigration Reform bill. The Amendment was "To remove the requirement that Y-1 nonimmigrant visa holders leave the United States before they are able to renew their visa." Here's the roll call of the 41-57 vote (60 votes needed to pass, so it failed by 19). Joining Obama on the "liberal' side were Richard Shelby, Chuck Hagel, and Tom Coburn.

So there you have it. Obama is more liberal than Clinton because he voted with John McCain, the most likely Republican nominee, and Tom Coburn, one of the Senate's most conservative members. Ain’t political rankings a wonderful thing.

Posted by evie | February 1, 2008 1:49 PM

DAS at 1:33 PM:
Point taken, but then you are back to the very, very subjective. In the end, the only thing that I can KNOW about my senator is how they voted, so the votes, all of them, matter.

The same Poole treatment shows the McCain is consistently among the most conservative senators: far more conservative than Clinton or Obama is liberal. If I were running against St. John, I'd try to get that fact out.

The fact that McCain has a reputation as a moderate is unreal.

Posted by PDX Pete | February 1, 2008 1:54 PM

I remember last election Kerry and Edwards were the most liberal senators. Turns out they stayed on the campaign trail when bills' votes were going to be one-sided, and returned to the senate to cast votes on close calls. The close call votes were generally liberal. The bipartisan bills they supported were one-sided, so they stayed away.

Posted by Njorl | February 1, 2008 2:06 PM

How can he be more liberal than Bernie Sanders, who is a goddamn (and I mean that in the best way possible) socialist?

Curious, too, that in their 2003 rankings, suddenly John Kerry became the most liberal member.

This seems.... worthless.

Posted by dadanarchist | February 1, 2008 2:29 PM

Curious, too, that in their 2003 rankings, suddenly John Kerry became the most liberal member.

Yup. That's a heckuva coincidence.

Posted by DaveWoo | February 1, 2008 2:46 PM

As Njorl points out, it's due to missed votes while campaigning.

But it's terrible that National Journal didn't bother to rank McCain, because he missed so many votes. Do it right or don't do it at all.

Posted by Matt Weiner | February 1, 2008 5:52 PM