QandO

Actually it isn't myth busting ... its selective stats. None other than the ADA who rank these people give John Kerry a lifetime 92. That's because, like I reported, in '93 he had a perfect 100%. So I don't buy into Kevin's so-called "myth busting". The lifetime average is much more indicative than a selected 5 year average. BTW ... the number I used for Edwards is also an ADA lifetime score.

Posted by: McQ at July 13, 2004 07:42 AM

I'm not sure I agree that these are "selective" stats. It's the most recent five years. My lifetime score would be pretty liberal, due to a couple of decades I spent as a socialist.
Certainly a person's ideology drifts, and it's not unreasonable to think that Kerry's (and Edwards') drifted during the last 5 years. Although, since Bush took office, they certainly both "drifted" hard leftward...

Posted by: W at July 13, 2004 08:12 AM

So, lemme make sure I understand this Here's the reference to the ADA stats. These are stats that Kevin's saying are inaccurate.

(CNSNews.com) - It's official, the Republican National Committee said on Wednesday. The Kerry-Edwards ticket has made history, because it is more liberal than the 1984 Mondale-Ferraro team, based on ratings from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action.

The ADA gave Democrat Walter Mondale a lifetime rating of 90 percent, the RNC noted, while John Kerry's lifetime ADA rating is 92 percent.

Mondale's running mate Geraldine Ferraro received a 79 percent lifetime ADA rating, while John Edwards' lifetime ADA rating is 81 percent.

Americans for Democratic Action says it judges politicians' liberal tendencies, based on 20 key votes on a wide range of social and economic issues, both domestic and international.

"Since ADA's founding in 1947, the Annual Voting Records have served as the standard measure of political liberalism," the group's website says.

So, if I'm reading Kevin's posting correctly, he's suggesting that these stats were skewed by the ADA to make these people look better to their fellow liberals.... stats designed by liberals to make their fellow liberals look more liberal and therefore more attractive,and more electable, to their fellow liberals.

And it also appears Kevin himself is using some selective stats, just to make this point.

So, is what's going on that Kevin's using selective stats to suggest that we can't take liberals (the ADA) at their word because they use selective stats?

And this isn't suposed to look like Kevin's using some BS stats to prove that the liberals aren't liberals, and getting moreso by the day?

So is what Kevin's really saying is that we can't trust liberals OR their apologists because they use tainted data to make their points?

Drum and those trying to dispell the notion that Kerry isn't nby far the most liberal thumbsucker that the DNC has ever puked up are simply not credible, sorry.

And as an aside someone (over at Cox and Forkum I think) mentions; how can he be the most liberal senator based on his voting record when he hasn't VOTED in about a year or so?

Posted by: Bithead at July 13, 2004 08:23 AM

I'd say that if Kevin Drum thinks the ADA's rankings are significant enough to use for a selective 5 year rating, then arguably, the methodology, suspect or not, is a bit irrelevant. Both sides have decided to give the ratings relevance. I'm just arguing that his selective statistics don't give the whole picture as he pretends they do.

Posted by: McQ at July 13, 2004 09:59 AM

Good points, guys. I've responded in an update to the post.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 13, 2004 10:07 AM

McQ: perhaps I'm mistaken, but are the numbers Kevin cites from the same ADA poll? For some reason, I'm under the impression that they are from a separate National Journal poll. (wish I could remember where I saw that this morning)

Also, where did you see the 1993/100% ranking?

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 13, 2004 10:10 AM

At the ADA web site. Go to the Senate side, click on Mass and read across to '93. If you'll go to my "'L' word" post, the link is in there.

Posted by: McQ at July 13, 2004 10:19 AM

I see where the problem is. The ADA lists conflicting data on different pages. Elsewhere, it gives Kerry a 90 for that same year. And, oddly, if you check the description of that 1993 voting record, you'll find there's not a single mention of Kerry.

In fact, if you check the Voting History page you cited, you'll find--as far as I could tell--not a single instance in 1993 in which Kerry is listed with anything but ??????????? - which, per the key, indicates he did not vote.

Now, that may indicate that the ADA has piss-poor methodology, piss-poor record-keeping....or it may indicate that I don't know how to read their report. I don't know.

But it doesn't lead me to believe this is evidence that John Kerry is genuinely more liberal than Dennis Kucinich.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 13, 2004 10:36 AM

I don't think that was the case being made, Jon.
Look, let's face it....Even the Democrats don't take Dennis Kucinich seriously, seeing him apparently as a "Jerry Brown Lite"

Posted by: Bithead at July 13, 2004 11:01 AM

I think Jon's comment really nails the problem. It's technically true to say Kerry has the most liberal voting record according to whatever group, but because of their skewed methodology, a distinct shift in Kerry's voting to the right in his second and third terms, and Kerry's campaigning schedule, it's not an accurate reflection of Kerry's positions today or the polciies he now endorses.

And in Edwards' case, it's way off because of the methodology and campaigning schedule. In three of his five years he ranked in the 30s, so calling him the fourth most liberal senator clearly isn't accurate.

Those of you who don't have a problem with these rankings, do you truly believe John Kerry and John Edwards actually are the first and fourth most liberal senators or are you just spouting talking points?

Posted by: at July 13, 2004 11:26 AM

Again, wonderful, the methodology is not the greatest.

But is Kevin Drum arguing methodology or numbers?

The point is he has used selected stats, regardless of the methodology. He's trying to pretend Kerry isn't liberal by selecting a group of years which "proves" his thesis.

My argument isn't about methodology. The methodology is the same for both sets of numbers.

My argument is he's picking and choosing his stats to support his position.

Posted by: McQ at July 13, 2004 11:53 AM

Those of you who don't have a problem with these rankings, do you truly believe John Kerry and John Edwards actually are the first and fourth most liberal senators or are you just spouting talking points?

If we're talking strictly about votes, yes, I do think so. If we're talking about positions, what time is it?

Look, the bottom line here is that Keryy and Edwards are both on record as playing both sides of every issue in this election... and clearly, we cannot trust their words. At that point, all you have left to make judgements on as regards their ability to run the WH, is their records.

And their records are even by liberal standards, abysmally liberal.

Posted by: Bithead at July 13, 2004 12:09 PM

Addendum:

I posted a thread on this subject at my place.
I included in that bit, a snip from Sowell's column of today:

It is an insult to our intelligence to claim conservative values when both liberal and non-partisan organizations have rated John Kerry's voting record as the most liberal in the Senate, more liberal even than Ted Kennedy's.

What matters is not what Senator Kerry says during an election year about life beginning at conception. What mat ters is how he has voted on bills involving abortion — and how he has declared that he will block the appointment of any judges who are not pro-abortion.

The rest, IMO, follows.

Posted by: Bithead at July 13, 2004 12:52 PM

Sowell put it right out in the open the reasons I do not pay any real attention to what rankings people have. Has anybody seen any polls put out by conservative pollsters about how liberal or not congressmen are? I agree with McQ in that Drum is selectively putting out statistics to help his thesis. The ADA does similar things. We all agree the methodology is wrong on all sides we've seen. But it's certainly most safe, and most prudent to simply look at the votes they've cast on specific points, i.e abortion, immigration, taxes, and the war. So why do these polls need to become arguing points at all?

Posted by: Isaiah at July 13, 2004 01:06 PM

Isaiah: The polls we're referencing here are not opinion polls. They do look at the actual votes those people have cast.

re: the votes against anti-abortion bills....
Doesn't that put him right in line with about 1/2 the Senate at any given time, and at least half--or more--of the country?

re: the rest....
If the argument is that, yes, all the polls are methologically flawed....then from whence comes the argument that Kerry is significantly more liberal than most US Senators?

And, for the record, I'm not a believer in the "flip-flop" portrayal of Kerry. I think he tends to discuss issues on the margin, rather than in absolute terms....which, in a sountbite world, lends itself to charges of wishy-washiness. His alleged flip-flops seem no more or less common than those of any politician.

That is, of course, not an endorsement of him. I don't agree with the positions at which he arrives...regardless of the complexity he goes through to get there.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 13, 2004 01:24 PM

I submit that the complexity he uses, he involkes as a sheild against those who object. We're all too stupid to see and understand his 'subtlety'.

Well, as VDH said the other day; Sometimes the answers really ARE that simple.

Posted by: Bithead at July 13, 2004 01:28 PM

I don't quite get what the fuss is about. I was using ratings from the National Journal, not ADA. And using the past five years seems reasonable to me, although I'm not the one who put these numbers together. I got them from Sullivan's site.

Remember, my point is not that Kerry isn't liberal. Of course he is. I was only arguing that he isn't the #1 most liberal senator in the country. And in fact, if you prefer lifetime ADA ratings instead, you'll see that there are quite a few senators with higher ratings than Kerry, including my very own junior senator, Barbara Boxer.

Bottom line: Kerry is pretty liberal and Edwards is a moderate liberal. But neither one is really even in the top ten of liberalism in the Senate.

Posted by: Kevin Drum at July 13, 2004 02:27 PM

Kevin....

Far as I knew, the original claim was that Kerry/Edwards constituted the most liberal presidential ticket since Mondull/Ferraro.

Would you agree that seems an accurate rating?

Posted by: Bithead at July 13, 2004 03:03 PM

I've gotta agree with Kevin. Aside from being somewhat methodologically suspect and inconsistent, the ADA rankings just seem to defie belief.

Can somebody tell me policy areas in which John Kerry is significantly to the left of the mainstream of the Democratic Party?

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 14, 2004 05:41 AM

Clearly, on those points that the ADA meausred. They certainly considered them important points to measure, or they'd not have tilted that direction.

If they were vaid numbers when they were being used to push liberals into voting for whoever scored best. To now deny it's import seems a rather transparent dodge.

Posted by: Bithead at July 14, 2004 08:30 AM

I agree with what you say - makes sense to me.
Looking for some propecia?

Posted by: propecia at November 13, 2004 12:09 AM