General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKamala 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
yardwork
(61,417 posts)yardwork
(61,417 posts)dsc
(52,130 posts)He has been a liberal's liberal for decades. Other than some environmental issues he votes across the board liberal.
True blue good dude.
louis c
(8,652 posts)...and Senator Brown usually sides with unions.
dsc
(52,130 posts)though he stopped supporting coal.
yardwork
(61,417 posts)CTyankee
(63,771 posts)as Harris's VP in 2020.
But as my father always said "There's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip."
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 10, 2019, 07:12 AM - Edit history (1)
Thought he would be number 1
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)What do you mean?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)You'll have to figure it out yourself.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)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)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)It's tough to back down.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Go ask Mr. Owl.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Not childish games.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)I wrote NOT childish games
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)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)Which why my confused by your recent posts.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)What is the problem?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Why not just have an honest discussion? Isnt that the point of this forum?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Please dont put words in my mouth.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)of being dishonest.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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)
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)Democratic Senators with less seniority than her. 2 of which were just elected in 2019.
Power 2 the People
(2,437 posts)Not worth arguing about.
Gothmog
(143,999 posts)Response to SidDithers (Original post)
elocs This message was self-deleted by its author.
nini
(16,670 posts)People who don't know her will learn how smart and strong she is.
Bradshaw3
(7,455 posts)That often doesn't correlate to electability.
nini
(16,670 posts)and the suspicious russian meddling etc..most likely affected those 'close' states.
Save that crap for someone else please.
Bradshaw3
(7,455 posts)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.
nini
(16,670 posts)much easier
Bradshaw3
(7,455 posts)Easier to pretend they don't exist.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)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)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)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)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.
Cha
(295,912 posts)Bradshaw3
(7,455 posts)I tried to use reason and facts. Obviously you weren't up to it. What a joke.
Bradshaw3
(7,455 posts)Well that is an improvement for you.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)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)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.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Bradshaw3
(7,455 posts)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)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.
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)IronLionZion
(45,259 posts)yet here we are
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)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.
stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I admire all the great Democrats on that list!
nini
(16,670 posts)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.
louis c
(8,652 posts)Biden-Harris 2020
Politicub
(12,163 posts)betsuni
(25,128 posts)sheshe2
(83,341 posts)Are mine from MA!
Thanks for the list, Sid!
honest.abe
(8,556 posts)Dumb in my opinion.
AlexSFCA
(6,137 posts)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)You know, the guy who kind of made that Iran deal happen?
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.
snip-------------------
snip-------------------
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-eyes-irans-ballistic-missile-program-with-new-sanctions/
Moreover, it was reported in Al-Monitor/Iran Pulse that
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.
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)then voted against them stating they were combined.
yardwork
(61,417 posts)Nothing "purity" about it.
honest.abe
(8,556 posts)Agreed those are not purity votes.
johnp3907
(3,723 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)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.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)louis c
(8,652 posts)...but I still want a Biden-Harris ticket.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)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.
marybourg
(12,540 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)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)Any one could be President. Interesting that Brown is the only one not from a "coast".
dsc
(52,130 posts)dsc
(52,130 posts)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)....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.
mcar
(42,210 posts)Thanks.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)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!!
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)I'd proudly vote AND work for any one of those nine.
Cha
(295,912 posts)You, Jackie
bdamomma
(63,654 posts)RI should be added to that list. He's a believer of Climate change too.
Quixote1818
(28,903 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)1. WARREN, Elizabeth Democrat Massachusetts -0.757
2. HARRIS, Kamala Devi Democrat California -0.694
3. BOOKER, Cory Anthony Democrat New Jersey -0.612
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)Love her
bigtree
(85,917 posts)aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)I hope we hear from more of the people on this list .
TSheehan
(277 posts)Agree to disagree.
Cha
(295,912 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)backabby-blue
(144 posts)But I do not have a candidate yet.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)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.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)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)...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?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...."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)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?
George II
(67,782 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)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)....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)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?
Cha
(295,912 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)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)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?
Cha
(295,912 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(4,867 posts)I wish any of those 10 were president instead of the ass clown we have now.
akraven
(1,975 posts)I love all of them.
Cha
(295,912 posts)than BS.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)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.
yardwork
(61,417 posts)Cha
(295,912 posts)Cha
(295,912 posts)Cha
(295,912 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)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.
BS is #9. ha.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)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)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)be pleasantly surprised if I"m wrong.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)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)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)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)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.
Cha
(295,912 posts)yardwork
(61,417 posts)Cha
(295,912 posts)Mahalo, Tarheel!
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Cha
(295,912 posts)Good to see about the other Dems.
Mahalo, Sid!
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)She's been in the forefront lately; more people need to know about her.
Cha
(295,912 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)She's slyly unassuming but tough as nails, and relentless, too.
Cha
(295,912 posts)Not showboating.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)nycbos
(6,033 posts)... 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)that it was never Bernie at all! Well done nycbos. well done.
betsuni
(25,128 posts)Cha
(295,912 posts)betsuni!
betsuni
(25,128 posts)Cha
(295,912 posts)for the suggestion!
Cha
(295,912 posts)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?
betsuni
(25,128 posts)The View, January 8, 2019
Cha
(295,912 posts)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!
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)Im looking forward to learning more about KH.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)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:
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.)
Cha
(295,912 posts)DesertRat
(27,995 posts)Or Klobuchar/Harris
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)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)During the Franken fiasco.
Having said that, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.
Cha
(295,912 posts)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.
Gothmog
(143,999 posts)jalan48
(13,798 posts)She has a lot of personal integrity which is important in a candidate I think.