Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 08:31 AM Jan 2019

Kamala Harris ranked as Most Progressive Senator...

based on her votes, according to Progressive Punch.

http://www.progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

The top 10:

1 - Kamala Harris (D-CA)
2 - Ed Markey (D-MA)
3 - Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
4 - Corey Booker (D-NJ)
5 - Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
6 - Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
7 - Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY)
8 - Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
9 - Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
10 - Jack Reed (D-RI)

Sid

180 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kamala Harris ranked as Most Progressive Senator... (Original Post) SidDithers Jan 2019 OP
Good to see. yardwork Jan 2019 #1
I think of Sherrod Brown as fairly moderate. Good to see him ranked this high. yardwork Jan 2019 #2
on what planet? dsc Jan 2019 #22
+1 Crutchez_CuiBono Jan 2019 #32
Sometimes Environmental issues and Union issues collide... louis c Jan 2019 #44
that and coal for a long time dsc Jan 2019 #48
As noted below. I really like Sherrod Brown. I think he's terrific. yardwork Jan 2019 #59
i do too and he has a calming effect and good positiions on our issues. I can see him running CTyankee Jan 2019 #162
Good to know. (nt) ehrnst Jan 2019 #3
Sanders is 9? Trumpocalypse Jan 2019 #4
LOL! NurseJackie Jan 2019 #35
Explain Trumpocalypse Jan 2019 #37
... NurseJackie Jan 2019 #39
Or you could just say what you mean Trumpocalypse Jan 2019 #42
Or, you could just admit that you already know. NurseJackie Jan 2019 #43
Actually, the way I read his post. Blue_true Jan 2019 #75
Yeah. You're probably right. I'm sure that's it. NurseJackie Jan 2019 #81
Don't feel bad. I have been in those types of posts exchanges before. Blue_true Jan 2019 #82
Actually, I was kidding. (Thanks for trying to help though.) NurseJackie Jan 2019 #83
No I don't Trumpocalypse Jan 2019 #85
That's a shame. NurseJackie Jan 2019 #86
I'm here for serious discussion Trumpocalypse Jan 2019 #89
Uh-huh. Whatever. NurseJackie Jan 2019 #90
I think you misunderstood Trumpocalypse Jan 2019 #94
I understand you much better than you think I do. NurseJackie Jan 2019 #96
I think you are smart Trumpocalypse Jan 2019 #97
Too bad. NurseJackie Jan 2019 #98
Why? Trumpocalypse Jan 2019 #99
You'll have to figure it out on your own. NurseJackie Jan 2019 #100
You've said that several times Trumpocalypse Jan 2019 #101
So now you're accusing me of being dishonest. Charming. NurseJackie Jan 2019 #103
Never said that Trumpocalypse Jan 2019 #104
I've done no such thing and you know it. NurseJackie Jan 2019 #105
And I never accused you Trumpocalypse Jan 2019 #106
Yes, you did. Don't treat me like I'm stupid. NurseJackie Jan 2019 #112
No I didn't Trumpocalypse Jan 2019 #114
Now that's some hair-splitting right there! NurseJackie Jan 2019 #164
Please Trumpocalypse Jan 2019 #167
Sanders is 9, right behind Brown. yardwork Jan 2019 #60
This is the list I see.. BS is #9. Cha Jan 2019 #123
That's what he wants you to think. n/t pnwmom Jan 2019 #131
Lol Trumpocalypse Jan 2019 #138
This cracks me up. This is a lifetime Senate voting scorecard. Kamala Harris only has 5 Snotcicles Jan 2019 #165
+1 Power 2 the People Jan 2019 #176
Thank you for posting this polling Gothmog Jan 2019 #5
This message was self-deleted by its author elocs Jan 2019 #6
She's electable nini Jan 2019 #11
Hillary was smart and strong Bradshaw3 Jan 2019 #77
She got the popular vote nini Jan 2019 #93
The electoral college winner gets to be president Bradshaw3 Jan 2019 #109
or... I just can dismiss you nini Jan 2019 #110
Yeah facts are troublesome Bradshaw3 Jan 2019 #111
You have zero evidence that Bernie would have done any better in the electoral college pnwmom Jan 2019 #133
What in the world are you talking about Bradshaw3 Jan 2019 #151
Hillary still is smart and strong. Cha Jan 2019 #127
Another wrong-headed straw dog Bradshaw3 Jan 2019 #156
Nah, all you have are insults. you lose. Cha Jan 2019 #169
Pointing out how wrong your post was isn't an insult Bradshaw3 Jan 2019 #171
.. Cha Jan 2019 #172
Emojis now Bradshaw3 Jan 2019 #173
She only lost the Electoral college because of 70,000 votes in 3 states that were subject to pnwmom Jan 2019 #132
+1 betsuni Jan 2019 #134
I know why she lost and your comment has nothing to do with my post Bradshaw3 Jan 2019 #155
There is no guarantee of winning no matter what you do. nt pnwmom Jan 2019 #160
That's brilliant Bradshaw3 Jan 2019 #166
I also voted for McGovern and am proud of it. watoos Jan 2019 #15
+1 Crutchez_CuiBono Jan 2019 #33
Trump wasn't electable either IronLionZion Jan 2019 #31
+1, people leave out "The Russians help Trump" part of the equation uponit7771 Jan 2019 #102
One ranking neither denies nor minimizes another wholly separate ranking. LanternWaste Jan 2019 #47
K&R stonecutter357 Jan 2019 #7
Interesting. Thank you for posting this. NurseJackie Jan 2019 #8
Not surprised nini Jan 2019 #9
Kamala Harris is going to make a great Vice-President louis c Jan 2019 #10
Be still my beating heart! n/t Politicub Jan 2019 #21
K&R betsuni Jan 2019 #12
#2 and #3 sheshe2 Jan 2019 #13
Bernie has some purity votes against some legislation that is generally considered progressive. honest.abe Jan 2019 #14
he lost relevance after he voted against russia sanctions AlexSFCA Jan 2019 #17
not really.. and his vote was in line with Kerry's opinion on the Iran details in those sanctions. JCanete Jan 2019 #50
... lapucelle Jan 2019 #108
In fact what I read was he first voted to COMBINE the Iran and Russian sanctions in committee Eliot Rosewater Jan 2019 #52
Bernie votes against gun control and immigration rights. yardwork Jan 2019 #61
Good point. honest.abe Jan 2019 #63
But is she "likeable?" johnp3907 Jan 2019 #16
I think she is. It matters. Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #20
Yea, they would rather have Trump than vote for someone who doesn't make them feel all goosebumpy leftofcool Jan 2019 #130
Like. Hell, I Love Her... louis c Jan 2019 #24
Yes... very. InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2019 #177
That has a lot to do with what state elected them. Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #18
Very good point. marybourg Jan 2019 #27
It struck me how the list reinforces the fact that... SidDithers Jan 2019 #28
+1 Kurt V. Jan 2019 #54
Those first five or six, or even seven or eight, are quite an impressive group. George II Jan 2019 #19
only one from a trump state dsc Jan 2019 #23
I have to say I take issue with some of their ranking of states dsc Jan 2019 #25
Ohio is a strange state politically. I've traveled to or through it dozens of times.... George II Jan 2019 #29
Interesting list mcar Jan 2019 #26
I can easily see the following senators as a great POTUS or VP. NurseJackie Jan 2019 #30
Agreed these DEMOCRATS are all great! Eliot Rosewater Jan 2019 #53
Agreed! We Democrats have a strong bench NastyRiffraff Jan 2019 #71
Yes, A list of Excellent Dems! Thank Cha Jan 2019 #87
Sheldon Whitehouse of bdamomma Jan 2019 #34
It's Warren on this list Quixote1818 Jan 2019 #36
The top three are in the top four of the OP list: George II Jan 2019 #107
WOOT! ismnotwasm Jan 2019 #38
k&r bigtree Jan 2019 #40
All of the great - some with long consistent careers in Congress. aikoaiko Jan 2019 #41
Meh. She's good, but #3, #%, #8, and #9 are better. TSheehan Jan 2019 #45
Meh on the 9th one down from the top Cha Jan 2019 #74
I would add Mazie to the list. InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2019 #178
She is my first choice for 2020 backabby-blue Jan 2019 #46
why does this same skewed narrative from this same(albeit good) resource keep getting JCanete Jan 2019 #49
Excellent point! InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2019 #179
I wonder how this will be received. I am not at all surprised, she is AMAZING! Eliot Rosewater Jan 2019 #51
received as a bullshit metric. The actual resource is good, but their method of calculating this JCanete Jan 2019 #56
Wasn't the vote on the war in Iraq about 17 years ago? Six of those in the top ten... George II Jan 2019 #95
thinking you really really missed the point of what an example is. nt JCanete Jan 2019 #124
Didn't miss it at all. Read the post to which I responded again. You spoke about.... George II Jan 2019 #140
holy fuck. Because my point wasn't that vote specifically. My point was that a vote like that, JCanete Jan 2019 #144
Well then, why not use a current example? I'm satisfied with the way they do their ratings. George II Jan 2019 #146
of course you are, because you know its biased but its biased in a way that gives you the JCanete Jan 2019 #149
That's curious, about six months ago (just guessing the timeframe) when Sanders was higher.... George II Jan 2019 #152
he was not higher in the rankings at progressive punch, I assure you. I've seen this same study JCanete Jan 2019 #154
Not well I see. Cha Jan 2019 #88
And i promise you the ANALYSIS certain folks will NOW do of the metrics used to Eliot Rosewater Jan 2019 #143
sure...it would have confirmed my sense of things and I may not have been as suspicious. Somebody JCanete Jan 2019 #161
Of course NOT! lol Cha Jan 2019 #168
Solid list Cuthbert Allgood Jan 2019 #55
We do run the gamut, do we not? akraven Jan 2019 #57
Ha, my Sen Mazie is "more Progressive" Cha Jan 2019 #58
keep telling yourself that. JCanete Jan 2019 #62
You don't know anything about her? You've been missing out! yardwork Jan 2019 #65
Mahalo, yardwork! Cha Jan 2019 #69
Hi there! yardwork Jan 2019 #80
Facts are Facts. Cha Jan 2019 #84
You keep digging your deep denials. Cha Jan 2019 #67
refutation coming....should I wait? nt JCanete Jan 2019 #70
"BS is #9" Cha Jan 2019 #78
yeah figured I didn't need to wait. Why not make up your own study and say according to your metric JCanete Jan 2019 #125
.. Cha Jan 2019 #128
Strawmen and insults as a defense. ehrnst Jan 2019 #136
thanks ehrnst, really insightful. Not a single bit of evidence in your post, just a rant about me. JCanete Jan 2019 #145
That glass house comfortable enough for you? ehrnst Jan 2019 #147
sigh...do you have an argument to do with the study or not? I'm thinking not, but will JCanete Jan 2019 #150
Here's the methodology, tho I can't imagine that it's anywhere near as thorough as your research: ehrnst Jan 2019 #92
I already expained the problem with their methodology. Do you have the ammo JCanete Jan 2019 #126
It doesn't agree with your "short period of research" ehrnst Jan 2019 #135
um...again...this isn't about my own research. This is about the methodology which has what JCanete Jan 2019 #148
Thanks, ehrnst.. Cha Jan 2019 #129
Thank you! yardwork Jan 2019 #137
+1 Tarheel_Dem Jan 2019 #64
Ha.. some are deep denial.. Cha Jan 2019 #68
There's a few that are... SidDithers Jan 2019 #66
Right!.. I knew already knew about Mazie.. Cha Jan 2019 #73
The more I see of Mazie the more I like her NastyRiffraff Jan 2019 #72
Mahalo, Riff! She's brilliant! Cha Jan 2019 #79
I've watched her grill republicans testifying before the Judiciary Committee.... George II Jan 2019 #91
Mazie's eye is on the prize! Cha Jan 2019 #113
Oh yeah!! InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2019 #180
But but but... nycbos Jan 2019 #76
but but but now I have this study that is actually entirely broken to PROVE PROVE PROVE JCanete Jan 2019 #159
She was fabulous on "The View" yesterday. betsuni Jan 2019 #115
Oh Good to know.. Thank You, Cha Jan 2019 #116
You're welcome -- please watch, easy to find on YouTube! betsuni Jan 2019 #117
I will.. thank you Cha Jan 2019 #118
Strangely enough.. I cannot find Cha Jan 2019 #119
Here's the whole show, she comes on half-way through (17:14): betsuni Jan 2019 #120
omg.. I'm sorry, I was looking Cha Jan 2019 #121
That was a good show for her. She did well. aikoaiko Jan 2019 #142
K&R Jamaal510 Jan 2019 #122
.. Cha Jan 2019 #174
Note that Senator Harris has been a climate activist her entire career. Hortensis Jan 2019 #139
Thank You about Kamala, Hortensis! Cha Jan 2019 #175
Harris/Klobuchar 2020 DesertRat Jan 2019 #141
Notice all the D's? Progressives are a sub-set. Crutchez_CuiBono Jan 2019 #153
I called her office and ranted SHRED Jan 2019 #157
I didn't know much about her Cha Jan 2019 #170
K&R Gothmog Jan 2019 #158
I don't know much about her but I liked what I saw during the Congressional hearings on Kavanaugh. jalan48 Jan 2019 #163

dsc

(52,130 posts)
22. on what planet?
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 10:39 AM
Jan 2019

He has been a liberal's liberal for decades. Other than some environmental issues he votes across the board liberal.

 

louis c

(8,652 posts)
44. Sometimes Environmental issues and Union issues collide...
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 02:52 PM
Jan 2019

...and Senator Brown usually sides with unions.

CTyankee

(63,771 posts)
162. i do too and he has a calming effect and good positiions on our issues. I can see him running
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 01:49 PM
Jan 2019

as Harris's VP in 2020.

But as my father always said "There's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip."

Blue_true

(31,261 posts)
75. Actually, the way I read his post.
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 07:44 PM
Jan 2019

The poster was about where you are, setting reality to Bernie's true record relative to other Senators. Even Gillibrand, who some here incessantly attack, is rated higher than Bernie on true progressive causes.

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
96. I understand you much better than you think I do.
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 09:02 PM
Jan 2019

I've raised boys of my own. I've seen it all. I've heard it all. I'm smarter than you think I am.

 

Trumpocalypse

(6,143 posts)
101. You've said that several times
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 09:15 PM
Jan 2019

Why not just have an honest discussion? Isn’t that the point of this forum?

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
112. Yes, you did. Don't treat me like I'm stupid.
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 10:13 PM
Jan 2019

In as many clever words, you accused me of not being capable of having an honest discussion. It's a backhanded way to accuse me of being dishonest. That's a lie. That's an insult. That's a personal attack. Sparring and dancing with you is entertaining, but I've never personally attacked you. I think it's best if you just back away from me now. I don't deserve to be insulted like that.

 

Trumpocalypse

(6,143 posts)
114. No I didn't
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 11:08 PM
Jan 2019

Never said you were not capable of having an honest discussion. In fact, know that you are very capable of having an honest discussion discussion. Just curious why you repeatedly posted “figure that out on your own” instead of discussing the issue.

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
164. Now that's some hair-splitting right there!
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 02:31 PM
Jan 2019
Never said you were not capable of having an honest discussion.
Now that's some hair-splitting right there!

Hair-splitting and word games are a clear sign of someone who knows they have a losing hand. The insinuation that I'm stupid or dishonest has been obvious, clear and repeated. It's right there for anyone to see if they care to look back. It serves no good purpose to continue to deny it. I know what I read. I know what was meant by it. Nothing will change the facts.

That's what my children would do when they were losing a battle of wits or when they'd been caught "fibbing". I'm reminded of how my sons would deny-deny-deny eating all the cookies... but when confronted with the evidence, they too would split hairs with things like: "There are still some crumbs left, so technically I didn't eat ALL the cookies." Or "I may have nibbled them slowly until they were gone, but I didn't EAT them." --- And then there was the the time I asked "Whose idea was it to give your brother a haircut?" "I didn't give him a haircut, it was just a trim" was the smartass reply.

Look, rest assured that I've seen it all. I know these games and recognize them for what they are. These weak denials do not fool me one bit. The repeated insinuation that I lack honesty and that I lack intelligence is exceedingly clear. The word games and hair-splitting and absurd denials won't change the cleverly-worded insults being hurled at me.
 

Trumpocalypse

(6,143 posts)
167. Please
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 06:16 PM
Jan 2019

I never said that you were either dishonest or not intelligent. I know that you are. And am sorry if I gave you that impression.

yardwork

(61,417 posts)
60. Sanders is 9, right behind Brown.
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 05:42 PM
Jan 2019

I imagine his lack of support for sensible gun control and fair immigration laws played a role in where he is ranked. Sanders is quite conservative on gun control and immigration.

Cha

(295,912 posts)
123. This is the list I see.. BS is #9.
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 04:15 AM
Jan 2019

1 - Kamala Harris (D-CA)
2 - Ed Markey (D-MA)
3 - Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
4 - Corey Booker (D-NJ)
5 - Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
6 - Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
7 - Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY)
8 - Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
9 - Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
10 - Jack Reed (D-RI)

 

Snotcicles

(9,089 posts)
165. This cracks me up. This is a lifetime Senate voting scorecard. Kamala Harris only has 5
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 03:21 PM
Jan 2019

Democratic Senators with less seniority than her. 2 of which were just elected in 2019.

Response to SidDithers (Original post)

nini

(16,670 posts)
93. She got the popular vote
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 08:45 PM
Jan 2019

and the suspicious russian meddling etc..most likely affected those 'close' states.

Save that crap for someone else please.

Bradshaw3

(7,455 posts)
109. The electoral college winner gets to be president
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 10:01 PM
Jan 2019

Fact. Point is being smart and strong does not necessarily make one the mist electable candidate. If you don't like somone pointing facts out to you, don't comment on threads.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
133. You have zero evidence that Bernie would have done any better in the electoral college
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 07:40 AM
Jan 2019

than in the primary.

Why would the Russians have stood by while Trump lost to Bernie? No doubt they had some "dirt" on Bernie from his honeymoon trip to Putin's Soviet Union. They collected "dirt" on Hillary (which supposedly showed her not being truthful) and every politician who goes there.

Bradshaw3

(7,455 posts)
151. What in the world are you talking about
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 01:26 PM
Jan 2019

I never said a word about Bernie. Some of you trying to refight the 2016 primary are still so worked up you see it in every post. even if its not there. I voted for Hillary in the primary and of course in the general. I simply pointed out the fact that being strong and smart is not necessarily a winning strategy for getting elected president. Try responding to the actual words of a post instead of imaginary ones in your head.

Cha

(295,912 posts)
127. Hillary still is smart and strong.
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 04:36 AM
Jan 2019

And, just because the Russians and their enablers rigged trump in.. does not mean that another strong, intelligent, qualified female can't be elected.

Bradshaw3

(7,455 posts)
156. Another wrong-headed straw dog
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 01:34 PM
Jan 2019

Where did I say she wasn't strong and smart? Nowhere, not did I imply it. To repeat, I siad it wasn't always enough to win elections. But I guess if you don't have anything else you have to make things up. For the third time, I voted in the primary for Hillary. She would have made a great president. I wish some of the posters on here had her qualities of rationality and judgment.

Bradshaw3

(7,455 posts)
171. Pointing out how wrong your post was isn't an insult
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:08 AM
Jan 2019

I tried to use reason and facts. Obviously you weren't up to it. What a joke.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
132. She only lost the Electoral college because of 70,000 votes in 3 states that were subject to
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 07:39 AM
Jan 2019

voter suppression, Russian interference, and the Comey letter.

She won 2.9 million more votes than Trump.

Bernie lost the Dem primary by 4 million votes, because he his greatest strength was among white voters in smaller, caucus states. But suppose he'd managed to get the nomination. Anyone who thinks the Russians would have held back and let Bernie win is dreaming (and insulting Bernie -- why would the Russians have wanted him to be President. Trump was their guy.)

Bradshaw3

(7,455 posts)
155. I know why she lost and your comment has nothing to do with my post
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 01:31 PM
Jan 2019

Again this has nothing to do with Bernie. I simply pointed out that being strong and smart is not a guarantee of winning - a response to the post of another. Try reading the words of a post and respond to them, not some imaginary idea in your head that is just a refighting of the 2016 primary. BTW, I voted for Hillary in the primary so your assumptions are as wrong as your response.

Bradshaw3

(7,455 posts)
166. That's brilliant
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 04:41 PM
Jan 2019

So you go off on a rant full of wrong assumptions about me and totally irrelevant to what I posted and you come up with that? Yeah, let's not talk the pluses and minues of different candidates and their abilities to win in 2020, just say "oh well, just nominate whoever because there are no guarantees."

"Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it." -- George Santayana

 

watoos

(7,142 posts)
15. I also voted for McGovern and am proud of it.
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 10:07 AM
Jan 2019

He ran on promising to end the Vietnam war if I remember right. Wasn't he demonized for being a dove?

My cousin has been in a wheelchair for 40 years with MS symptoms because of Agent Orange exposure.

I was also headed to Nam but ended up in a bad car wreck or I would have been there too.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
47. One ranking neither denies nor minimizes another wholly separate ranking.
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 03:31 PM
Jan 2019

Your premise is that one ranking is more important than another, but that premise is fundamentally flawed as you're the only one alleging prioritizing one over the other.

It's not an either/or proposition, as both rankings can be used, with yet other rankings as well, in tandem to make the long-term decisions.

nini

(16,670 posts)
9. Not surprised
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 09:45 AM
Jan 2019

She puts her money where her mouth is and backs up what she says.

I am not surprised at how far down Sanders is either. But then I pay attention to what people do not just what they repeated say.

honest.abe

(8,556 posts)
14. Bernie has some purity votes against some legislation that is generally considered progressive.
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 10:06 AM
Jan 2019

Dumb in my opinion.

AlexSFCA

(6,137 posts)
17. he lost relevance after he voted against russia sanctions
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 10:29 AM
Jan 2019

the only other senator to do so was rand paul. He then came up with a very bogus, nonsensical claim why he did so. This will sink him in the primaries if he runs again.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
50. not really.. and his vote was in line with Kerry's opinion on the Iran details in those sanctions.
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 05:01 PM
Jan 2019

You know, the guy who kind of made that Iran deal happen?

lapucelle

(18,039 posts)
108. ...
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 09:49 PM
Jan 2019

A lead negotiator of the treaty told CBS news that the fears are unfounded because the sanctions do not violate the terms of the treaty.

The Senate...overwhelmingly passed legislation that would impose new U.S. sanctions that would target Iran's ballistic missile program, its support for terrorism and human rights violations, and yet it would still comply with the Iranian nuclear deal.

snip-------------------

Richard Nephew [a lead negotiator of the nuclear deal who previously served as principal deputy coordinator for sanctions policy at the State Department from 2013 to 2015] said he has no problem closing loopholes in existing sanctions law, but he doubts that it would add to the U.S.'s already robust sanctions architecture. He said the measure wouldn't harm the nuclear deal.

snip-------------------

"It's unclear if the legislation is even needed -- the Trump administration already has the authority to execute what is already covered under the bill, Nephew said" ...These secondary sanctions would comply with the nuclear deal because Iran's missile program is excluded from the agreement.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-eyes-irans-ballistic-missile-program-with-new-sanctions/

Moreover, it was reported in Al-Monitor/Iran Pulse that

Nasser Hadian, a prominent professor of international relations at the University of Tehran... does not believe that the new sanctions would explicitly violate the nuclear deal, though they defy the intent of the JCPOA. Hadian believes there is coordination and agreement between the United States and the EU in the escalation of pressure on Iran over its missile program, while avoiding explicit violation of the nuclear deal.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/07/iran-us-senate-bill-sanctions-reactions-nuclear-deal.html#ixzz4ovssh49P

The impact of the sanctions on Russia (rather than those on Iran) seemed to be the focus of the foreign press concerning the sanctions bill.

Because Senator Sanders's messaging video explaining his vote specifically invokes a "warning" from former SOS John Kerry, I was especially interested in reading Kerry's testimony. I couldn't find it in the Congressional Record.

Apparently the warning came, not in testimony, but via Twitter and in remarks at a fundraising event.

“After Rouhani’s reelection, there is much up in the air/room for misinterpretation. This is not the moment for a new Iran bill,” Kerry tweeted.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/335004-john-kerry-issues-tweet-storm-over-senate-considering-iran

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/336494-kerry-new-iran-sanctions-may-be-dangerous

Eliot Rosewater

(31,097 posts)
52. In fact what I read was he first voted to COMBINE the Iran and Russian sanctions in committee
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 05:10 PM
Jan 2019

then voted against them stating they were combined.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
20. I think she is. It matters.
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 10:36 AM
Jan 2019

People don't like to vote for people they don't like. It's like...do you want to get in your car and make a special trip to go to the store for cabbage, because it's good for you and you're out of it? Or are you more apt to go to the store to get ice cream because you're just dying to have some?

It's one of many things that makes for a charismatic and effective leader. Think Obama, Bill Clinton, Reagan (for Repubs), GWB (for Repubs). All very likable to members of their party.

Trump was not likable to anyone except his base. So likability isn't always determinative. The lack of it can be overcome with other assets.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
18. That has a lot to do with what state elected them.
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 10:33 AM
Jan 2019

They are there to represent the interests of their state. The same person would be rated more or less progressive, depending on what state elected them. Someone representing California would be expected to vote more progressively than someone from Virginia, for example.

The length of time they've been in their seats also matters. Those who haven't been there that long may not have had occasion to be tested on controversial bills.

So although it's interesting, I think we all sort of know who is more or less progressive, philosophically and ideologically, by their statements, in addition to their votes.

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
28. It struck me how the list reinforces the fact that...
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 10:54 AM
Jan 2019

even the worst Democrat (Jones) is better than the best Republican (Collins).

There's no R that ranks higher than any D.

Sid

George II

(67,782 posts)
19. Those first five or six, or even seven or eight, are quite an impressive group.
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 10:36 AM
Jan 2019

Any one could be President. Interesting that Brown is the only one not from a "coast".

dsc

(52,130 posts)
25. I have to say I take issue with some of their ranking of states
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 10:46 AM
Jan 2019

For example Ohio is lean R while Montana is Strong R. Other than Brown and Obama we have won no statewide races since 2006 while in Montana we have won the governor's race twice. Ohio isn't the swing state it was when I was living there.

George II

(67,782 posts)
29. Ohio is a strange state politically. I've traveled to or through it dozens of times....
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 10:55 AM
Jan 2019

....and lived there near Dayton for nine months.

Driving up from Cincinnati to Cleveland in the fall back when Obama was running against Romney, in the southwest part of the state the signs and billboards were predominantly republican. As I got near Columbus they were a mix and then in the Cleveland area they were predominantly Democratic.

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
30. I can easily see the following senators as a great POTUS or VP.
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 11:03 AM
Jan 2019

1 - Kamala Harris (D-CA)
2 - Ed Markey (D-MA)
3 - Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
4 - Corey Booker (D-NJ)
5 - Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
6 - Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
7 - Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY)
8 - Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
9 -
10 - Jack Reed (D-RI)

What an impressive group of DEMOCRATS!!

George II

(67,782 posts)
107. The top three are in the top four of the OP list:
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 09:37 PM
Jan 2019

1. WARREN, Elizabeth Democrat Massachusetts -0.757
2. HARRIS, Kamala Devi Democrat California -0.694
3. BOOKER, Cory Anthony Democrat New Jersey -0.612

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
41. All of the great - some with long consistent careers in Congress.
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 02:00 PM
Jan 2019

I hope we hear from more of the people on this list .
 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
49. why does this same skewed narrative from this same(albeit good) resource keep getting
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 04:30 PM
Jan 2019

Last edited Wed Jan 9, 2019, 05:00 PM - Edit history (1)

trotted out? The metric ranking is entirely problematic. Those who structured the point system even admit that there are holes in their process, which by design, simply favor voting in line with democrats(when republicans are opposed overall) over voting out of line with democrats, even if that choice is the more progressive.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
56. received as a bullshit metric. The actual resource is good, but their method of calculating this
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 05:13 PM
Jan 2019

statistic is worth looking up, and favors those who vote for legislation that pulls in maybe 10 or 20 republicans (which in no way ever under the sun is going to be progressive) over those who refrain from doing so. It simply favors going with the herd, so long as the opposing herd went the opposite way. They should call it what it is...."votes with democrats most of the time." The intentionally skewed bias of pretending that that means "most progressive" is paper-thin to the point where they even acknowledge that criticism as a limitation in their own notes.


They do make some interesting adjustments that I think are worth-while, like weighting states and their politics in the mix, but they still would give no credit whatsoever to politicians who, for instance, vote no on giving the President war powers to invade Iraq.

George II

(67,782 posts)
95. Wasn't the vote on the war in Iraq about 17 years ago? Six of those in the top ten...
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 08:55 PM
Jan 2019

...weren't even in Congress back when that vote was taken. So you're dwelling on a vote that more than half of that top ten didn't even participate in?

George II

(67,782 posts)
140. Didn't miss it at all. Read the post to which I responded again. You spoke about....
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 10:54 AM
Jan 2019

...."a bullshit metric" (your words) then you come up with a "metric" of a single vote from 17 years ago, one in which most of the people we're talking about here didn't even participate.

Why not come up with "an example" more current that most if not all of the people on the list in the OP were involved in?

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
144. holy fuck. Because my point wasn't that vote specifically. My point was that a vote like that,
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 01:15 PM
Jan 2019

where an individual goes against the will of the party, gives you no points, even if the action taken is the more progressive one. Is that any clearer to you?
 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
149. of course you are, because you know its biased but its biased in a way that gives you the
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 01:24 PM
Jan 2019

results you want to see. Either tell me why my complaint about it isn't really a problem at all, or recognize that you don't actually have an argument.

George II

(67,782 posts)
152. That's curious, about six months ago (just guessing the timeframe) when Sanders was higher....
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 01:27 PM
Jan 2019

....in the rankings people were raving about the methodology.

To save you some trouble, no, I won't go looking for it.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
154. he was not higher in the rankings at progressive punch, I assure you. I've seen this same study
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 01:30 PM
Jan 2019

vomited up here at least 3 times over the last year, and that's why I was already familiar with its problems. Why are you so afraid to weigh in on the actual methodology? Does it make it too challenging for you to actually make your case?

Eliot Rosewater

(31,097 posts)
143. And i promise you the ANALYSIS certain folks will NOW do of the metrics used to
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 12:31 PM
Jan 2019

determine this would NEVER be done if a certain someone was higher up the list.

There would be NO discussion at that point

S I G H

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
161. sure...it would have confirmed my sense of things and I may not have been as suspicious. Somebody
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 01:43 PM
Jan 2019

else would have been and would have looked into the study. Had they then brought evidence to bear of the broken nature of the study, I would be forced to either stick my head in the sand, or concede that there are serious problems with the methodology. I'm thinking I would do the latter. You?
 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
62. keep telling yourself that.
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 06:23 PM
Jan 2019

not that there is on paper anything wrong with her. She looks good, given the short period of research I just did, but it doesn't make this particular methodology any more sound.
 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
125. yeah figured I didn't need to wait. Why not make up your own study and say according to your metric
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 04:27 AM
Jan 2019

Sanders is the king of the lizard people. If you aren't going to even defend the methodology here why are you going to cling to its findings? Again, just make up your own bullshit findings.
 

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)
136. Strawmen and insults as a defense.
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 08:26 AM
Jan 2019

Sounds like someone else is the one "making up their own bullshit findings."

You are angry that Sanders isn't at the top of the rankings by this org, so you try to smear them and equate anyone that isn't angry like as saying "Sanders is the King of the lizard people" or believing "bullshit findings."

You are the one providing the "ammo" against your claims.





 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
145. thanks ehrnst, really insightful. Not a single bit of evidence in your post, just a rant about me.
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 01:17 PM
Jan 2019
 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
150. sigh...do you have an argument to do with the study or not? I'm thinking not, but will
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 01:25 PM
Jan 2019

be pleasantly surprised if I"m wrong.
 

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)
92. Here's the methodology, tho I can't imagine that it's anywhere near as thorough as your research:
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 08:45 PM
Jan 2019

Adjusted for Medical absence.

We've assessed the State or District Tilt of each political jurisdiction as indicated below. The assessments are based on what could reasonably be expected to happen in an open seat (no incumbent running) race where no scandal was attached to either candidate. The odds calculations are based on a moderately liberal Democrat's chances of winning [NOT a conservative Democrat] in that State or District against a Republican candidate.

Strong Democratic District = 80-100% chance moderately liberal Democrat wins open seat general election.

Leaning Democratic District = 60-80% chance moderately liberal Democrat wins open seat general election.

Marginal = 40-60% chance moderately liberal Democrat wins open seat general election.

Leaning Republican = 20-40% chance moderately liberal Democrat wins open seat general election.

Strong Republican = 0-20% chance moderately liberal Democrat wins open seat general election.

The “%” and “Rating” columns underneath the “Progressive Score vs. State Tilt” are two different ways of measuring the same thing. They both measure how naughty or nice a member of Congress' voting record has been relative to how hospitable his/her state is to a moderate to liberal Democrat. We're grading on a curve. An A in the “Rating” column indicates members of Congress who are doing the best in terms of voting MORE progressively than could necessarily be expected given their states. Those with an F rating are performing the worst in relation to their states.

We do this in a 3 step process:

We start with Progressive Punch's Lifetime Crucial Votes score for each member of Congress.
................................................................................................................................................

We identify which of five categories of Democratic strength that member of Congress belongs in (Strong Dem/ Leaning Dem/ Swing/ Leaning Rep/ Strong Rep). To see which of those five categories a given member of Congress is in, view the “District Tilt” category for House members & the “State Tilt” column for Senators.

[Our assessments of the districts & states are just that, assessments of the districts & states themselves NOT at all how politically comfortable or weak the given member of Congress is in his or her district.]

For each one of the five categories, there is a minimum percentage that we consider acceptable using the Progressive Punch Lifetime Crucial Votes scores. The percentages that we consider acceptable are:

Strong Dem 83.33 (B)
Leaning Dem 80.00 (B- )
Swing 76.67 (C+)
Leaning Rep 73.33 (C)
Strong Rep. 70.00 (C-)

We then subtract the minimum acceptable percentages listed above in number 2 from that member's Actual Lifetime Crucial Votes percentage. And that's how we come up with the percentage numbers under the “%” underneath the Progressive Score vs. State Tilt column.

So for example, as of 3/10/15 in the US House Mark Pocan of Wisconsin's 2nd district had a Lifetime Crucial Votes score of 99.15%, best of all returning (non-freshman) members. We have him in a Strong Democratic district. The minimum acceptable Lifetime Crucial Votes score for a Strong Democratic district we have as 83.33%. Subtract 83.33% (minimum desired) from 99.15% (actual) and you get 15.82% which puts him in first place among all Democrats in the House and in fact among all House members in general. So Representative Pocan is the best example of Nice!


https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate&party=&sort=overall-lifetime&order=down

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
126. I already expained the problem with their methodology. Do you have the ammo
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 04:30 AM
Jan 2019

to explain what's wrong with my criticism, or are you just going to try to give it the air of legitimacy because they have a number of paragraphs that explain it?
 

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)
135. It doesn't agree with your "short period of research"
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 08:25 AM
Jan 2019

Isn't exactly have "the air of legitimacy" itself.

Your defensiveness about being presented with "a number of paragraphs" doesn't either.

Nor could one consider it "ammo," like you are demanding from others.

Is that clearer?

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
148. um...again...this isn't about my own research. This is about the methodology which has what
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 01:22 PM
Jan 2019

can only be taken as an intentionally skewed bias that the researchers even recognize. They recognize that they take away no points for voting in large numbers with republicans(no matter what that bill is). They recognize that they give no points to any politician who is an outlier and doesn't vote with the herd in a given case or another. They just don't give a fuck, because the agenda is to get certain names to the top of the list.

Unless you're going to bring an actual argument along with your ad-hominems, I don't know what you are hoping to achieve here.

NastyRiffraff

(12,448 posts)
72. The more I see of Mazie the more I like her
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 07:37 PM
Jan 2019

She's been in the forefront lately; more people need to know about her.

George II

(67,782 posts)
91. I've watched her grill republicans testifying before the Judiciary Committee....
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 08:44 PM
Jan 2019

She's slyly unassuming but tough as nails, and relentless, too.

nycbos

(6,033 posts)
76. But but but...
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 07:45 PM
Jan 2019

... DU told me Bernie is the only progressive and that if you don't warship him you are not a real progressive

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
159. but but but now I have this study that is actually entirely broken to PROVE PROVE PROVE
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 01:38 PM
Jan 2019

that it was never Bernie at all! Well done nycbos. well done.

Cha

(295,912 posts)
119. Strangely enough.. I cannot find
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 02:49 AM
Jan 2019

the January 8, 2018 youtube of Kamala on Ellen's show.

Only her appearance on Ellen's.. on April 5, 2018.

This did come up from cnn..



Maybe tomorrow?

Cha

(295,912 posts)
121. omg.. I'm sorry, I was looking
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 04:10 AM
Jan 2019

Last edited Fri Jan 11, 2019, 04:15 AM - Edit history (1)

for her on Ellen's show.. Even though you told me it was the View.

Thank You!

I now know how to pronounce her name! I like it better than the way I was pronouncing it to myself.

I like the way she explained her announcement will come from a family decision whether she's going to run or not.

Also liked how she explained that attributes for a leader are not specifically to gender. "They are qualifications, desire to lead, to be relevant to the people they represent,
to be innovative, to have a vision.. those should be the standards. Their capacity and willingness to lead".

Not the M$M manufacturing some "likeability" factor or "to have a beer with" as in bush and Gore's case.

"Give the People More Credit" Kamala!

She believes you can run against trump without going down in the mud. "Give the aspiration to the office of the presidency the dignity it deserves". Good Point!

Kamala handled the Rashida Tlaib and AOC questions excellently!

She's not tearing anyone down.. she's a Uniter.

She has a great personality and I like her voice.

"the media needs to question the veracity of the Admin!"

The American Public deserves Better.. We have enough problems! We don't need to create a problem.. this issue is a vanity project for trump.

"Time to go back to paper ballots 'cause Russia can't hack a piece of paper!"



Mahalo, betsuni.. I feel smarter!








Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
139. Note that Senator Harris has been a climate activist her entire career.
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 10:29 AM
Jan 2019

That's just one way of being progressive, of course, but the League of Conservation Voters gives her a 100% lifetime score, which goes back to her years as San Francisco's district attorney when she created the Environmental Justice Unit and prosecuted several industries and individuals for pollution.

E&E News (" Essential news for energy and environment professionals" ) has a very positive article on her record:

In addition to Judiciary, she's on the Intelligence, Budget, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committees. Those assignments "don't give her a high profile on climate issues," said Steve Maviglio, a Democratic strategist in California.

However, she's viewed as a strong ally in the environmental community, according to Sara Chieffo, vice president of government affairs at the League of Conservation Voters. Harris has a 100 percent rating from LCV, a scorecard based on votes.

In the current Republican-controlled Congress, most of those are opposition votes against bills to roll back protections on land and water, rules to limit climate change, and more, Chieffo said.

"Kamala Harris has a long record of environmental achievement both here in the Senate and also in her leadership roles" in California, Chieffo said. "She has been quite vocal on protections for our environmental and kids' health and standing up to attacks on our public lands." Harris has been adamant about California's right to set clean car rules beyond the federal standard, Chieffo added. ... Her other work includes sponsoring legislation to close tax loopholes for oil companies, ban certain pesticides for agricultural use, stop new oil and gas leases, and ban asbestos, Chieffo said. "She's been a very vocal part of the Senate pro-environment firewall and pushing back on this administration," Chieffo said.

RL Miller, president of Climate Hawks Vote, said Harris has green credentials, is a reliable vote on environmental issues and would be a formidable candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. All that said, she is not a champion on the issue, Miller said.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060088619


(Btw, Bernie Sanders has a 100% current rating but a 92% lifetime rating. I thought that might in part reflect voter preferences in the state he represents, but Vermont is listed as the nation's most liberal state. That would seem to suggest commitment to environmental issues. And, indeed, we know they objected to disposing of their own low-level radioactive waste within their state, and Sanders arranged to send it to a low-income, mostly Hispanic county in Texas instead. Maybe that's part of it.)

Crutchez_CuiBono

(7,725 posts)
153. Notice all the D's? Progressives are a sub-set.
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 01:27 PM
Jan 2019

Inside every D is a Progressive waiting for the chance to go full monty. Anybody who says different is already trying to wedge the party apart. We're all good. Let's see some action from ALL these people, then we can decide right before we vote(?) who's done the best.

 

SHRED

(28,136 posts)
157. I called her office and ranted
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 01:36 PM
Jan 2019

During the Franken fiasco.

Having said that, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.

Cha

(295,912 posts)
170. I didn't know much about her
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 06:54 PM
Jan 2019

until I was provided with a youtube of her on the View on Jan 8th..

Now the youtube is no longer available. Glad I got to see it when I did. I very much feel I could vote for her at this point in time.

Thanks for calling her office.

jalan48

(13,798 posts)
163. I don't know much about her but I liked what I saw during the Congressional hearings on Kavanaugh.
Thu Jan 10, 2019, 01:58 PM
Jan 2019

She has a lot of personal integrity which is important in a candidate I think.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Kamala Harris ranked as M...