How do they determine .. (0.00 / 0)

these scores? .. it seems silly that Russ Feingold is in the middle of the pack with these numbers

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 13:16:28 PM CST

 

Methodology (0.00 / 0)

Can be found here

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 13:26:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

And they don't .. give special demerits for votes .. (0.00 / 0)

like the FISA bill .. AUMF .. or some of those other hideous things?

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 18:24:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

Progressive punch is only semantics (0.00 / 0)

Their ideal of ‘progressive’ might not really match ours.  Really it is a pretty useless metric.

---

by: Ricky @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:36:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]  

Looking ahead (0.00 / 0)

Given that the Republican Party is in such disarray, has little positive to run on and has terrible presidential candidates, I feel increasingly confident that national Democrats will have a very good 2008 election.

That said, I agree fully with Chris’ implication that progressive results are hardly assured with this “play it safe” attitude among Democratic leaders, regardless of the underlying reasons. So while 2008 may be a done deal, I strongly fear that unless the party steps up with courage, conviction, competence, cojones, and chutzpah — the 5 c’s — the short term electoral and (only potentially political) gains will be eroded in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016…. you get the idea.

---

by: randy g @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 13:32:22 PM CST

 

Keep moving the bar like this, (4.00 / 2)

people will think there’s no pleasing us. More Democrats. Better Democrats. Feistier Democrats. Gracious.

Next thing we know, there will come a clamoring for Democrats who get things done, and then where will we be?

---

by: Natasha Chart @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 14:15:49 PM CST

 

'Pick more fights' with whom? (0.00 / 0)

With a veto override needing around 60/16 GOP reps/senators to succeeed, the 110th wasn’t going to be a Congress offering much of a percentage to Dems to stick their necks out.

And in the 111th

we will still have a problem passing legislation unless we pick more public fights.

Who with? And how will legislation pass as a result?

Clearly, with a Dem prez, the limiting factor to passing progressive legislation once more becomes the Congress.

In which there will likely be a solid non-progressive majority in both houses – not to mention the Senate supermajority.

Now, there would certainly be a strategy – I’ve suggested a feisty Prez Edwards might go for it – of challenging the Congress to pass progressive laws with a view to going third party in 12. (Bull Moose +100!)

Call it a version of Truman’s turnip session in 1948.

But – barring that unlikely event, and bearing in mind the likelihood of Dem losses in 2010, I can’t see Congressional Dem parties dripping with culture of caution changing much in the 111th.

---

by: skeptic06 @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 14:34:26 PM CST

 

Think. (4.00 / 1)

To use Progressive Punch’s rating system borders on idiotic.  When any rating system has Diane Feinstein as more Progressive this past year than Russ Feingold then there is nothing to be discussed.  Either the methodology is whack, or “progressive” means something entirely different than I thought it was, and something entirely different than what I want to be aligned with.

---

by: DD2 @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 14:38:06 PM CST

 

66 on Corporate Subsidies (0.00 / 0)

Feingold scored a 66 in the Corporate Subsidies category and 44 in the Agricultural Corporate Subsidies subcategory. You miss a day of school and your overall grade goes to B+. Clinton has an overall rating of A because she’s even across the board with a lowest score of 80 on War and Peace.

---

by: donna darko @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 19:00:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

Progressive Punch's ratings (0.00 / 0)

Chris is right in saying that most of the Senate Democratic class of ’06 is reasonably progressive. Claire McCaskill is really the only one who I would characterize as a disappointment. There are two reasons that the freshmen Democratic members of the Senate have high lifetime scores. One is that their party controlled the agenda in the Senate so that votes were scheduled MOSTLY according to what Harry Reid wanted voted on so that the divisive social issue votes that the Republicans had put on the agenda in years past just didn’t come up for a vote at all. The second is that the narrow margin with which they controlled things, exacerbated by Tim Johnson’s long absence due to his brain aneurysm put a premium on unity, i.e. the Dems essentially had a 50-49 majority so every single vote counted. Of course this majority disappeared when Lieberman would trot off to vote with the Republicans on anything having to do with wars — past, present or future. It seems to me that a more apples to apples comparison would be to look at the Progressive ’07-’08 scores of members (also available at http://progressivepu…) — of course for the freshmen it would be the same as their Lifetime scores because they’ve just started serving but this provides a better indication where they stack up vis a vis their colleagues.

Of course I think Democrats need to be feistier as Chris asserts. But the biggest problem is that there aren’t enough of them. Even our 51st vote currently is Ben Nelson D-Nebraska who votes with progressives only about 63% of the time on close votes (see our “Chips Are Down ’07-’08” scores on the same page). A slogan of more AND more progressive Democrats would seem to be one that most readers of Open Left could embrace.

There’s a very, very detailed explanation of our methodology for determining progressive scores at the link Chris kindly provided above. I think people should read it before offering obviously uninformed commentary. Remember this year there was great unanimity among Dems against Republicans on most votes,so the absolute differences between most members are small this last year, thus it doesn’t make too much sense to look at rankings. It makes more sense to look at the absolute percentage numbers. That said, on the “Chips Are Down” scores for ’07-’08 Feingold does actually score higher than Feinstein. I’ve met Russ Feingold and I admire him. He’s the most courageous Senator bar none re: taking principled stands, especially on civil liberties issues. But people who think that he’s the Wisconsin version of Paul Wellstone are mistaken. While a social and foreign policy hardcore progressive by anyone’s standards, he votes with Republicans more frequently than many of his Democratic colleagues on economic issues. Visit ProgressivePunch.org and click on Feingold’s name (or any of his colleagues) to see who’s been naughty or nice in any one of 160 different issue categories. 

Joshua

---

by: Joshua Grossman @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 16:47:42 PM CST