Democratic Senate defeats in 2010 will not make for a more left-wing group of Democratic Senators

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:15


In the past I have argued that Democratic losses in 2010 will move the Congressional Democratic caucuses to the left.  This is because, according to my argument, most of the Democrats who will lose in 2010 will be in the right-wing of the party.  Thus, the remaining group of Democrats will be, on average, more left-wing than the current group of Democrats.

However, at least as far as the Senate is concerned, it turns out that isn't the case.  Despite prominent center-right Senators such as Blanche Lincoln, Arlen Specter, and Evan Bayh set to leave the Senate by either retirement or the ballot, the Democratic Senate caucus will not see any significant ideological shift in 2011.

For this analysis, I measured the current 59 members of the Senate Democratic caucus according to three oft-cited ideological voting scorecards: Progressive Punch (crucial votes), and DW-Nominate and National Journal.  I recalibrated all of those scored along a 0.0 to 100.0 scale, with 0.0 being the most conservative and 100.0 being voting the most progressive.  Only scores for 2009-2010 were used.

According to this analysis, the current 59 members of the Senate Democratic caucus have a mean progressive score of 74.7.  Debbie Stabenow stands at the median of the caucus, with a score of 78.1.

Removing the Senators who are retiring (Bayh, Burris, Dodd, Dorgan, Kaufman) and the Senators who are currently trailing in their bid for re-election (Bennet, Lincoln, Reid, Specter), the caucus mean would become 75.5.  Patty Murray would become the median, at 78.3.

Here is the chart I used, with departing members in red:


The slaughter of the moderates would thus move the Democratic Senate caucus less than 1% to the left.  The size of the shift would be the equivalent of the difference between Debbie Stabenow and Patty Murray, whatever that is.

Further, if Barbara Boxer were to lose re-election, which is entirely possible, the Democratic Senate caucus would actually shift slightly to the right on the mean, and remain with Debbie Stabenow on the median.

So, if you are hoping that a Democratic wipeout in 2010 will move the party to the left, think again, at least when it comes to the Senate.  Setting fire to the forest will just result in having the exact same forest, only with fewer trees.  The Democrats who remain in the Senate will be, on average, virtual ideological twins to the ones who left.

I will try to whip up an equivalent analysis of the Democratic House caucus, post-2010, tomorrow.

Chris Bowers :: Democratic Senate defeats in 2010 will not make for a more left-wing group of Democratic Senators

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Democratic Senate defeats in 2010 will not make for a more left-wing group of Democratic Senators | 31 comments
What about 2012? 2014? 2016? (4.00 / 2)
Oddly enough, the problems facing our fair republic and the world itself will continue to exist after the elections this fall.  It's called a long term strategy - you know, like the one we built under the Bush years to have a blowout DEM election in 2008 and then let Rahm piss away the last 2 years.  

Sometimes when you realize you are sick, the medicine can make you feel worse before you feel better.  Damn Chris, can you focus on anything but the numbers in the next election?

The Senate will not get any better until 2016 (0.00 / 0)
due to the overwhelming disparity in seats up in 2012(21 Dems to 10 Republicans with 2 Dem leaning independents), 2014(20 Dems to 13 Republicans).  In 2016, if Republicans do gain seven seats in 2010, they will have 25 seats up to just eight for Democrats, giving Democrats a chance to finally start making gains.  

This means that healthcare better be passed this year or Democrats will have to wait another six years to even have a chance to consider passing any kind of healthcare bill again.  

[ Parent ]
Let the Republicans deal with the health care crisis (4.00 / 1)
They created it; let them fix it.
[ Parent ]
They wont do a thing (0.00 / 0)
Just like the last time they had Congress.  If anything, they will tax employer plans at a 100% and then give everyone a completely inaudaqete subsidy to purchase their own insurance like car insurance.  That is a disaster and the kind of bill that Democrats will need that Democrats would need to make good use of the filibuster of to defeat.  
[ Parent ]
re: 6 (0.00 / 0)
This means that healthcare better be passed this year or Democrats will have to wait another six years to even have a chance to consider passing any kind of healthcare bill again.

6 years?

what happened to your generation talk?

[ Parent ]
Well let's actually look at the seats in question (0.00 / 0)
Assuming no willing retirements, which I can't predict.

For these analyses I basically treat ConservaDems as de facto Republicans.

2012: Two ConservaDems are in serious jeopardy: Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman.  We will likely lose Nelson's seat to a Republican (which in my analysis counts as a wash) but we will make a progressive gain by defeating Lieberman.  That's a +1 progressive pickup right there.

We can also try to primary Tom Carper. +1 progressive pickup.

The following non-ConservaDems may be in danger: Bill Nelson (especially if he has to face the loser of this year's Republican primary), Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester, and Jim Webb.  We could lose all four, but losing these 4 seats while picking up Lieberman's and Carper's seats means a -2 seat loss overall.

Also, we can make a real play for Jon Kyl's seat (with Janet Napolitano), Scott Brown and John Ensign.  If we take out all three plus Lieberman and Carper, while losing the four above, we get +1 seat gain overall.  If we don't lose any, +5.

So, worst case scenario is -4 seats, but best case scenario is +5.  My point being, it's not as bad as you think.

2014: 2014 could be a lot worse because there are a bunch of vulnerable freshmen Dems in what could be President Obama's sixth year in office. (Or a Republican President's second year)

Mark Begich, Mark Pryor, Mark Udall, Al Franken, and Kay Hagan will all likely be in trouble.

Mary Landrieu will likely be defeated by a Republican (wash).  I don't see any primaryable ConservaDems, except maybe Max Baucus (but not really).

I don't see any good Republican pickup opportunities, as they're almost all in solidly red states.  The only potential I see is DE, where likely Senator Mike Castle will probably retire or could be vulnerable.

So, potentially - 5 or - 4 (if we take back DE) loss.  Not good.

2016: Of course, it depends on who's there after this year.  I can tell you that if things hold to current predictions there will likely be no vulnerable Democratic incumbents.

On the other hand, we'll have pickup opportunities in PA, OH, MO, and FL, as I predict Pat Toomey, Rob Portman, Roy Blunt and Marco Rubio will be vulnerable targets.  So at least +4.

In conclusion: 2012 will probably be a wash year; 2014 will be a bad year; and 2016 will be a good year.  So in 2016 we may very well be in the same or better place as we are now.

This isn't even accounting for intangibles/unknowns like the state of the economy and who's running the country at any given moment.  For exmaple, if the economy is still bad in 2012 it could lead to more losses and a Republican President, which would lead to less losses for us in the 2014 midterms.

Moreover, the good news is that the worst ConservaDems - Bayh, Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu and Lincoln - are all likely to be out of the Senate by 2016.  Except for Lieberman, their replacements will probably be all Republicans, but at least we won't have to deal with these ConservaDems threatening our agenda from within our party anymore.

[ Parent ]
Those National Journal data is WHACK!!!! (4.00 / 4)
Blanche Lincoln more liberal than Russ Feingold? Omit the National Journal and see what the data looks like then.  
This also assumes that primary challengers would lose. (4.00 / 2)
Suppose Andrew Romanoff beats Michael Bennet in the Colorado Senate primary, for example.  Romanoff stands an even chance of beating any of the Republican match-ups right now.  Additionally I'm sure he's farther left than Bennet, so what would that do to the chart.

How does Bill Halter match up to the Republicans and how left is he?

I'm just saying that in all these races maybe we'll get one or two where the primary challenger would push the whole caucus farther than a point leftward.

Is Open Left neutral about primaries?  Not to hijack the comments too much here, but I would love to see which challengers are most likely to do the most liberal good and which were the most likely to win. Sort of like how Open Left chose a few good candidates in close races back in 2008 (Begich, Burner, etc.) and there was an ActBlue page/project. I mean if we really want to push the party left we should be working extra hard on the primary season and uniting in the general election, right?

You can't run numbers for people who have never voted (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
There are other ways to evaluate politicians (0.00 / 0)
besides averaging a bunch of silly numbers in an Excel spreadsheet, or running a linear regression analysis ala Nate Silver.
[ Parent ]
re: primaries (4.00 / 2)
I would love to see which challengers are most likely to do the most liberal good and which were the most likely to win.

sure: jennifer brunner

I think she's down like 4-5 to a DLC no-principle empty suit for the primary and 4-5 down to a bush economic guy for the general. both shouldn't be difficult to define and take down

not sure: paul hodes, kirsten gillibrand, bill halter, alexi giannoulias

can I get some help with the 'not sure' candidates?

[ Parent ]
I'm guessing that all four of your "not sure" candidates (0.00 / 0)
are "regular" Democrats (or New Democrats) that support government taking care of business through regulating market forces rather than by taking direct action itself. (New Democrats may support some direct action but not to the extent that real liberals do.)

Example: "Regular" Democrats (or New Democrats) support a public option, whereas "real liberals" support Medicare for All.

Another way of looking at it is that regular Democrats all have pretty decent voting records and generally do/say good things, but they're not totally reliable, outspoken, liberal champions like Bernie Sanders.

I think most Democrats in the Senate are "regular" Democrats.

[ Parent ]
Thanks Chris (4.00 / 1)
This kind of analysis is what keeps me coming back to Open Left.  Keep up the good work!
Well it obviously depends... (4.00 / 1)
...on who replaces the retirees and/or the losers.  If the Republicans take every one of the seats in question, then this analysis is relevant.  How likely is that outcome?  If we hold IL, CT, and DE while dumping Lincoln and Specter, it's a different story.

This post seems like propagandistic noise.  What am I missing?

Great table and analysis (0.00 / 0)
I differ slightly with the conclusion. If the median rises from the current 74.7 to the 75.5 score you calculated, it would be like we dropped Ben Nelson altogether and added another Al Franken.

That would be a big step in the right direction for us.

Retirement versus Losses (4.00 / 1)
All the more liberal Senators in your chart are retiring.  Most the ones expected to lose are the more conservative Senators.  If the liberal Senators do retire and the conservative Senators mange to make a comeback, it appears the caucus moves to the right.

On the other hand, as a poster above points out, it depends upon who takes the seat.  I assume some of the retiring folks will be replaced by Democrats and potentially progressives, depending upon the state, etc.

I think you're underestimating the effect (4.00 / 1)
First, Dodd will be replaced by another reliable Dem, so you shouldn't count him as "lost". Second, Reid's score is raised by being Majority Leader, which requires him to vote the generally liberal party line more often than he would on his own.  There's no way to know what the effect is, but I estimated about 10 points (Reid used to be pretty conservative for a Democratic Senator). I'd drop it if the new leader is Schumer, because he'd shift too, although Durbin's voting probably wouldn't change much. With those changes, the average score of the "lost" Senators changes from 70.4 to 67.4 That's almost twice as far from the current average, so the change would be about twice as much. That moves the average from near Carper to near Rockefeller, which is a meaningful improvement.

I think we can also expect an improvement from the leadership moving from Conservadem-leading nonconfrontational Reid to tough moderate Schumer or progressive Durbin.

Also, I have to agree than the NJ score looks pretty psycho.

Surprising infos in that list. (0.00 / 0)
While everybody had been picking on poor ole Burris, the second most progressive Senator (!), simply because of the sneaky way he got into the body, everybody's darling Feingold gets no flak at all fo his totally unimpressive vtooing behaviour!

Hmm, it seems to me, we progressives are seriously confused about who "our" Senators are...

Btw, any bets that Chicago banker Giannoulias... (4.00 / 1)
..will turn out to be LESS progressive than the alleged Blago crony Burris? Hmm?
[ Parent ]
that's a big possibility (4.00 / 1)
not easy to find someone with a more liberal voting record than roland burris
[ Parent ]
maybe (0.00 / 0)
but Gio will be one of the more progressive senators out there.

Rasmussen has him up 3 in their latest poll.

[ Parent ]
Still, it saddens me when a politician (4.00 / 1)
is replaced by someone less liberal.
[ Parent ]
but (4.00 / 1)
nothing point to Gio being much less "liberal" over the long haul.

Sure, if Open Left had it's way with their quasi-endorsement of Hoffman, we'd definitely end up with a much more conservative Democrat (assuming Hoffman had a chance in the general, which polling did not support).

let's just hope we hold on to the seat.  

[ Parent ]
He can easily shoq to be more progessive than Feingold! (0.00 / 0)
At least when judged by these scorecards. However, my point is more that Roland Burris deserves more credit for his Senate term. Yes, he sneaked in in a crooky manner, but his voting record is above any criticism, and more than makes up fo the contoversy. And if progresives don't acknoledge such good work, how do they expect to ever get more progresive Senators into Congress? Why should anyone try to please the left wing baase, when that is so unrewarding?
[ Parent ]
I thought those scores were misleading and didn't take into account the watering factor? (0.00 / 0)
take for example blanche on hcr:

she's counted as a yes vote, but the left to right watering that the hcr bill had to gone through in order to get that 'yes' vote is not counted

no?

This raises an interesting question on HCR (4.00 / 1)
if it's a mandate with no public option, will a Yes vote count as being liberal or conservative?

Another interesting question: can we answer the above question without getting into the usual fireworks?

[ Parent ]
There is a huge problem with this analysis (4.00 / 3)
if Harry Reid loses, then the majority leader will be Schumer or Durbin.  Either one of those two is much, much more left-wing than Reid.  This means that, due to a change in leadership, the outputs of the caucus will move to the left, even if the net average of the caucus doesn't move a standard deviation.  
Really confusing differences between the ratings! (0.00 / 0)
Just look at Sanders, known as a great progressive: Where does the low mark from the National Journal come from?
Or Feingold: Totally unimpressive, according to the Journal and PP (?), but DW thinks he's the salt of the earth! Wtf?

Is there a comparison between the different score card methods somewhere, giving any insight into the flabbergastingly varying results?

I don't give these ratings as much credit as others do (0.00 / 0)
in part because they assign "liberal" judgments to votes that don't account for context.  The same vote can be made from a variety of motives.  For example, a No vote on the current health care bill can be from the left or the right, but a rating system might simply count it as "conservative".

Not to mention that missed votes skew rankings inaccurately, which is why every one of our presidential nominees always happens to be "the most liberal Senator". (I wish!)

[ Parent ]
Another take on the stats... (4.00 / 2)
I think it is difficult to rate the caucus on either the mean or median values given the size of the caucus (59) and the relatively small fraction of the caucus (at least statistically) that is impacted (leaving).  

Here is another non-parametric statistical way to look at this data based upon their rankings from 1 to 59.  Four of the six lowest scores would be eliminated versus just 1 of the 10 highest scores, or 2 of the highest 11, or 3 of the highest 16.  Which side of that choice would you rather have as a progressive wanting higher scores?  I'd take losing 1 of the top 10, as opposed to four of the lowest six anytime.

It is difficult to find statistical tests, even non-parametric tests, that will confirm this finding, however.

I looked at this very question (4.00 / 1)
a month ago, and if I may say so my analysis was better in the sense that I also looked at potential Republican seat pickups to offset Democratic losses.  Chris appears to have just removed all the Democratic seats from consideration, as if we'll lose every seat (which likely won't be the case as we're heavily favored in CT) and fail to pickup any seats.

Unlike Chris I did not use any quantitative ratings; I relied on the admittedly crude but nonetheless mostly-accurate labels of "Real Liberal", "New Dem" and "ConservaDem".

But our conclusions are largely the same.  From the post linked above:

So that's 14 contests and 18 total Democratic candidates that are on the line.  Of those 18, only 1 (Brunner in OH) is a certifiable Real Liberal, which is both good news and bad news, really.  But the real bad news is that only 3 (Specter, Lincoln, and Melancon) are certifiable ConservaDems.  Even if you lump in Harry Reid as a candidate that liberals would be better off without, that's still only 4 "desired losers".

That means that 14 of 18 candidates that will probably lose are not bad apples, but decent if uninspiring mainstream Democrats.  So this won't be a cathartic release, unfortunately, but a real loss where okay Democrats will be replaced by some potentially terrible Republicans (e.g. Pat Toomey in PA, Marco Rubio in FL).

My analysis left out Evan Bayh's seat, as he had not announced his retirement yet.  I'm not sure who's replacing him (Brad Ellsworth?) but whoever it is is likely to be a ConservaDem, and thus a "desired loser".  That makes the desired winner-to-desired loser ratio 14 to 5 instead of 14 to 4, which I guess is better.  However, it means that another seat will shift right.

In any case, it's clear that instead of just helplessly losing across the board, we can concentrate our limited resources on the ones we most want to win, while letting the ConservaDems suffer.  If we lose 3 or 4 ConservaDems but pick up 1 or 2 real liberals (e.g. Brunner) I'd consider that a win.

Democratic Senate defeats in 2010 will not make for a more left-wing group of Democratic Senators | 31 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox