Nate Silver-whose poll and statistical work is usually quite sound--seems to be terribly off in advancing and endorsing a ratings of senators according to how "progressive" they supposedly are, without even defining that word. The rankings are--how shall I put it--odd and at variance with both common sense and respected web sites like Voteview and Ontheissues. Silver is, of course, the founder and chief writer over at fivethirtyeight.com which usually has boatloads of good information.
In an article posted on June 6, 2009, "New York's Gillibrand Has Become Lockstep Liberal"--Silver cites a rating put out by the privately owned ProgressivePunch.org that ranks Gillibrand as the 15th most progressive senator. I don't profess to be a numbers type person but I did learn in a beginning sociology class that I took long ago at Wisconsin, Madison, that: a) one should define terms like "progressive" first, and b) one cannot really make an accurate projection based on inadequate data. So shouldn't Silver have asked himself: what makes a "progressive" and how could anyone make such a ranking since Gillibrand has been in the Senate what, a month or two?
Shouldn't Silver also have noticed how this rating stacks Gillibrand up against well-known and long-serving Senators and that their rankings are, to say the least, bizarre?
To show what a hoot this ratings is, look at some of its findings (lower number here means more progressive):
- GILLIBRAND
- Barbara BOXER
- Bernie SANDERS
- Bill NELSON (Florida)
- Joe LIEBERMAN
- Max BAUCUS
- Byron DORGAN
- Russ FEINGOLD
- Ben NELSON (Nebraska)
- Ted KENNEDY
- Judd GREGG
Bill Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and Byron Dorgan are more progressive than Russ Feingold? Ben Nelson just two ranks away from Feingold? Ouch! Joe Lieberman ranked ahead of Ted Kennedy who is in 64th place just one notch above Judd Gregg? Double Ouch! Bernie Sanders, who often seems to be the sole senator carrying the torch of progressivism (witness his brave stand on single payer) ranked 23rd? Triple ouch! Even the most casual observer of politics should know that these ratings bear NO RELATIONSHIP TO COMMON SENSE OR REALITY WHATSOEVER. I'm not sure that one can really quantify a progressive (nor do I see any attempt to define progressivism by Silver or the pollster) but I think these findings fail the test that a justice once applied to the murky question of what pornography is. The judge said, and I paraphrase, he's not quite sure what pornography is but if something looks, sounds, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. To me, these findings fail the duck test although Lieberman does seem to quack a lot.
Do the ProgressivePunch ratings make sense? For example, do most people think Ben Nelson ranks almost 20 spots above Feingold? Hardly and that is shocking as are a lot of the other ratings. Nelson in reality is one of the most "conservative" of all Democratic senators. This position advanced by ProgressivePunch is completely warped. A much better approach is that used by the website ontheissues.org
It looks at a politician's record based on voting patterns on key issues and then assesses them. Feingold is given this assessment: "Hard-Core Liberal" and shows him on a matrix to the far left. The same web site gives Nelson the label "Moderate Populist Conservative" and shows him on a matrix to the right-center. This is much more realistic and accurate.
Another respected website that ranks senators on their voting records is Voteview out of the University of California, San Diego. Voteview's ranks are completely different from those of ProgressivePunch. For the 110th Congress here are the top 5 rankings of senators by philosophy with the lowest number being the most liberal:
- Russ FEINGOLD
- Bernie SANDERS
- Chris DODD
- Barbara BOXER
- Ted KENNEDY
LIEBERMAN was ranked tied for 34th with Bill NELSON, let alone Ben NELSON at 59. DORGAN was 40th. Judd GREGG was ranked 86th or 21 spots lower than ProgressivePunch's rating. Most observers of politics would say that these rankings are far more correct that the suspect ones at ProgressivePunch. Why is all of this important? Because if senators who are known progressives like Sanders, Feingold and Kennedy were given their rightful spots, the rankings of someone like Gillibrand would go down considerably. Remember that in the ProgressivePunch results, Gillibrand finishes ahead of Feingold, Sanders, Kennedy and even Boxer. So instead of being ranked 15th, she would be probably something ranked somewhere in the 20's. But then ProgressivePunch (and Nate Silver) would have little basis for crowing that she is a progressive or a "lockstep Liberal" as Silver does.
SOURCE: http://voteview.ucsd.edu/...
Importantly too, voteview.ucsd.edu is run out of the University of California, San Diego political science department by two highly respected academics--Howard Rosenthal and Keith Poole. Whereas, ProgressivePunch is privately owned and run by one person, Joshua Grossman, who describes himself as a "social entrepreneur" and its source of funding is unclear.
And yet, Nate Silver pitches the ProgressivePunch ratings which are at such a variance with both Voteview and Ontheissues:
...Gillibrand has thus far compiled a progressive score of 98.45% in the 111th Congress, and 94.12% on critical votes. Although there has been little to distinguish the first 30 or so Democratic senators, most of whom have voted in lockstep with the President's agenda, those scores rank Gillibrand 15th among the 59 Democratic Senators; her ratings are essentially identical to those of reliably liberal Senators like Tom Harkin and Pat Leahy, as well as those of her colleague in the Senate, Chuck Schumer.
But Nate Silver is fair enough to tell us this:
"...Progressive Punch founder [from which, of course, the ProgressivePunch poll comes from] Joshua Grossman is a contributor to FiveThirtyEight.com...)
SOURCE: 6.06.2009 "New York's Gillibrand Has Become Lockstep Liberal"
by Nate Silver
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
Ah! There we have it. So maybe because Joshua Grossman is a contributor to Silver's own website, Silver hasn't read the rating carefully? Mr. Silver, I really like your work generally--especially your baseball stuff--and hell, everyone makes mistakes. Sorry though, trumpeting a rating or ranking (some might even call it a poll) with clearly bogus findings is not "politics done right".
NOTE: The late, great Senator Robert M. La Follette (ranked by historians in a poll of their own as the greatest senator of all time--sharing the honor with Henry Clay) knew a thing or two about progressivism. In his Autobiography (1913), in the public domain and available free and online from the Wisconsin Historical Society, he wrote:
We have long rested comfortably in this country upon the assumption that because our form of government was democratic, it was therefore automatically producing democratic results. Now, there is nothing mysteriously potent about the forms and names of democratic institutions that should make them self-operative. Tyranny and oppression are just as possible under democratic forms as under any other. We are slow to realize that democracy is a life; and involves continual struggle. It is only as those of every generation who love democracy resist with all their might the encroachments of its enemies that the ideals of representative government can even be nearly approximated.
The essence of the Progressive movement, as I see it, lies in its purpose to uphold the fundamental principles of representative government. It expresses the hopes and desires of millions of common men and women who are willing to fight for their ideals, to take defeat if necessary, and still go on fighting.(From the Preface)
...It was clear to me that the only way to beat boss and ring rule was to keep the people thoroughly informed. Machine control is based upon misrepresentation and ignorance. Democracy is based upon knowledge. It is of first importance that the people shall know about their government and the work of their public servants. "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." This I have always believed vital to self government. (p.64)
...Of one thing I am more and more convinced with the passage of the years--and that is, the serious interest of our people in government, and their willingness to give their thought to subjects which are really vital and upon which facts, not mere opinions, are set forth, even though the presentation may be forbidding. (P. 67)
Never in my political life have I derived benefit from the two sources of power by which machine politics chiefly thrives--I mean patronage, the control of appointments to office, and the use of large sums of money in organization. During my fight in Wisconsin the old machine used its power of dispensing patronage to the utmost against me. When I became governor I appointed supporters of the Progressive movement to offices whenever there were appointments to make. These men did all in their power for the success of our campaigns. But such service is always criticized by the opposition, and discounted by the public because of the self interest of the officials, and does, about as much harm as good. As soon as I had the legislature with me in 1905, I secured the passage of the strongest Civil Service law that could be framed, wiping out the whole system of spoils in state offices." (pp.68-69).
When Mr. Taft, soon after he became President, began withholding patronage from the Insurgents [a name then applied to Progressives], with the idea, I suppose, of disciplining them, I stated my own views and the position of the Insurgents editorially in La Follette's Magazine [now, in its 100th year, The Progressive magazine], as follows:
"It is well to have this patronage matter understood. The support of the Progressives for progressive legislation will be given without reference to patronage or favors of any sort. That support will be accorded on conviction. And it is idle for the President to presume that he can secure adherence from the Progressive ranks for any policies, or support for any legislation reactionary in its character for the sole purpose of party solidarity."
...
In general it can be said of all the group known as Insurgents or Progressives that they have won their victories without complicated organization, without patronage, often without newspaper support and with the use of very little money. Nothing could show more conclusively that they represent a popular feeling so deep that it cannot be influenced by machine methods. (pp. 69-70)
"...from 1885 to 1891, the onslaught of these private interests was reaching its height. I did not then fully realize that this was the evidence of a great system of "community of interests," which was rapidly getting control of our political parties, our government, our courts. The issue has since become clear. Whether it shows itself in the tariff, in Alaska, in municipal franchises, in the trusts, in the railroads, or the great banking interests, we know that it is one and the same thing. And there can be no compromise with these interests that seek to control the government. Either they or the people will rule.
I have endeavored...to show how, in those days, the consideration of private interests of all sorts overwhelmed Congress. I have showed how, in several instances, and in a limited way, I tried to fight against them ...Even then the two diametrically opposite ideas of government had begun a death grapple for mastery in this country. Shall government be for the benefit of private interests...? Or shall government be for the benefit of the public interest? This is the simple issue involved in the present conflict in the nation. (pp 88-90)
...
Again and again I have protested against secret hearings before Congressional committees upon the public business. ...When the Tariff bill on wool and woolens was in conference between the two houses last summer, I was determined as a member of that conference that its sessions should be held, if possible, with open doors. ... At that time I moved that a stenographer be present and that all questions and answers be taken down and made of record... the doors were opened, and the representatives of the newspapers were admitted. For the first time in the history of Congress a conference committee transacted its important business under the eye of the public, with reporters in attendance.
...
Evil and corruption thrive best in the dark. Many, if not most, of the acts of legislative dishonesty which have made scandalous the proceedings of Congress and state legislatures could never have reached the first stage had they not been conceived and practically consummated in secret conferences, secret caucuses, secret sessions of committees, and then carried through the legislative body with little or no discussion.
...The whole tendency of democracy, indeed, is toward more openness, more publicity. In the early days of this government not only were the committee meetings secret, but during the first two or three administrations even the sessions of the Senate itself were held behind closed doors. (pp. 299-303)
...
Mr. Aldrich soon discovered that with all his experience in piloting tariff bills through Congress he was in no wise equipped to meet the opposition of the Progressives. And after a few encounters, when either of the three or four men in the Progressive group took the floor to attack some schedule, Aldrich would beat a hasty retreat from the floor of the Senate to escape the mortification certain to follow such encounters. In all of his long leadership in the Senate on all questions, tariff or otherwise, it had been sufficient for Mr. Aldrich to say, "It is so," or "It is not so," or "It is necessary," or "It is not necessary" -- but a new day had dawned. The insurgents stood in the pathway of Mr. Aldrich's program of legislation with searching interrogatories demanding reasons for all things. The Senate boss was thrown into confusion. He had been accustomed to issue orders -- not furnish reasons." (pp.444-446)
...
Through the pages of this autobiography, I have dealt with certain governmental problems, state and national, upon which, during the past twenty-five years, I have studied and reflected. ....the struggle could not have been sustained, year after year, often in the face of disappointment and defeat, had I felt less deeply the eternal justice of the end sought to be attained.
I have never assumed to say that I had worked out to the last conclusion the solution of all these complex problems. ...With the changing phases of a twenty-five-year contest I have been more and more impressed with the deep underlying singleness of the issue. It is not railroad regulation. It is not the tariff, or conservation, or the currency. It is not the trusts. These and other questions are but manifestations of one great struggle. The supreme issue, involving all the others, is the encroachment of the powerful few upon the rights of the many. This mighty power has come between the people and their government. Can we free ourselves from this control? Can representative government be restored? Shall we, with statesmanship and constructive legislation, meet these problems, or shall we pass them on, with all the possibilities of conflict and chaos, to future generations?
(pp. 759-760)
SOURCE: Robert M. La Follette's Autobiography, Wisconsin Historical Society
http://memory.loc.gov/...
That Mr. Silver, is a true progressive. Using the test of La Follette's life and ideals or the "duck test", or even the "smell test", I think Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, and Bill Nelson fall well short of Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy. Gillibrand? Who knows yet?
UPDATE #1: I've gone back to look in detail at ProgressivePunch because I'm troubled that the page that presents the ratings does not define "progressive" although that term is bandied about a great deal. However, a link at the lower left of the page leads you to another page which includes the following page with the title "What is a Progressive Score" and that says:
There is no surefire objective way to compute how progressive, or for that matter how conservative, a member of Congress is. A lot of thought went into coming up with this methodology. That doesn't mean it can't be critiqued. What we have done is to try to take human beings out of the equation as much as possible. In other words, the percentages calculated on this site do not necessarily correlate with the individual political positions of Joshua Grossman, the primary author of this website. There are some criticisms that could be levied against our methodology. One is that it treats every vote equally, when they're obviously not all equally important. Another is that lonely principled stands, that might be viewed by some as progressive, such as Barbara Lee's sole vote against war in Afghanistan, do not qualify for the database, because not enough Progressives rallied around her flag (no pun intended). One other thing that no voting index can measure is intensity of support/leadership.
http://progressivepunch.org/...
Again, I'm no polling expert but I do know a fair amount about politics and it seems to me that this organization has admitted in the first sentence here that it is impossible to precisely pinpoint what "progressive" means. I am further troubled by some wording that precedes this (wording at great length) but it seems the pollster here trys to establish a baseline of what is progressive by using their own self-identified group of "seven hard-core progressive United States Senators" and the votes of 40 "hard-core" members of the House, coming up with various formulas and testing votes and then making ratings based on them. But this is again done, as far as I can see, without any definition of what a "progressive" is let alone a "hard-core" one. In short, the "hard-core" groups seem to be self-defined by the pollster. Again, I'm not a trained statistician or pollster but to me this seems to be little more than hocus-pocus for: they're progressives because we so identify them.
But in fairness to ProgressivePunch here's more on their method in their own words:
Using publicly published data from Congressional Quarterly, we averaged a couple of different types of scores that they published, looking at all votes going back to January 1, 1991. After going through a number of steps and gyrations, we came up with a list of seven hard-core progressive United States Senators (7% of that body) and 40 hard-core progressive United States Representatives (about 9% of that body). The algorithm that we've used to come up with these progressive scores is as follows: We take ANY VOTE in which a majority of the progressives we've identified--so in the House say, if there were no absences, it would be 21 of the 40--voted in opposition to a majority of the Republican caucus and have that vote qualify for the database. The same process is used in the Senate. So, non-ideological votes such as National Groundhog Day: 429-0 with 6 absences, do not qualify for the database. ANY vote in which a majority of progressives in the progressive cohort listed just below here votes against a majority of Republicans qualifies for the database. The percentage of votes which qualify using this algorithm remains remarkably constant from one Congress to another, about half of all votes cast.
"The Progressive Position" by definition, is the position of the majority of the Progressives. The "Conservative Position" is the position of the majority of the Republicans. We've tested this algorithm in the real world and it works extremely well. In the case of members of Congress elected before November 1990, the "Progressive Lifetime Scores" include only votes cast in Congress since January 1, 1991 (1991-92 was the first full Congress where vote records were computerized). In the case of members of Congress elected on or after November 1990, the scores include all votes that have ever been cast while that member has been in Congress. The column labeled " Progressive ’09-’10 Scores" is for the current Congress and shows scores for votes since January 2009, which allows for an apples-to-apples comparison for the same time period of all current members of Congress. For example, the total number of qualifying votes according to this criteria in 2007 was 747 in the House and 269 in the Senate. After we catch up with a programming backlog, we will post the specific roll call vote numbers of the votes that qualified for inclusion on Progressive Punch scores. The composite scores include ALL votes qualified by our algorithm, whether we’ve written the narrative vote descriptions that allow us to put them into categories or not. So the category scores can look different from the composite scores.
True poll/ratings/rankings wonks are encouraged to jump in here with comments and words of wisdom.
UPDATE #2: It almost appears that there is a campaign going on to declare Gillibrand a "progressive". We have the ProgressivePunch "rating" based on little more than a methodology of hocus-pocus from a privately owned website run by a one man, self-described "social entrepreneur" who just so happens to write for another privately owned website (self-described as a "commercial site") operated by another single person, Nate Silver. Silver then puts this questionable ratings study at the top of his website and declares Gillibrand to be not only a "progressive" but a "lockstep Liberal" without defining the meaning of that term or "progressive". This is quickly followed by a diarist here at Dailykos who writes a diary ("Kirsten Gillibrand Deserves Progressive Support") citing ProgressivePunch and Silver on how "progressive" Gillibrand is. See: http://www.dailykos.com/...
All of this occurs at a time when many in New York wonder if Gillibrand is worth backing and whether an opponent will challenge her because many question whether she is a true progressive. That's all very convenient, a bit too convenient or coincidental to this skeptical individual especially since the ratings in the original study are so out of kilter with highly respected and nonprofit websites like Votenow and Ontheissues. Was it Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot (or both) who said they didn't believe in coincidence? I'm wondering if there are any ties between ProgressivePunch, Silver and Gillibrand and her campaign? It would be nice to see them address that question.
UPDATE #3: A fellow diarist at this website, PLF515, has commented below on a diary he wrote comparing different websites that rate politicians by philosophy. See his post below "ProgressivePunch is Not A Good System." He considers it inferior to Voteview in his diary which says:
According to their [Progressive Punch's] methods, the three most progressive senators are: Roland Burris, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Edward Kaufman. Huh? Well, all 3 have 100% ratings. Even for Senators that have been in for a while, there are anomalies: Is Sherrod Brown really as liberal as Bernie Sanders? One problem is revealed when we see that Ted Kennedy has a very low rating for 2009-10: They don't deal properly with missed votes. If we look at "Crucial Votes" for "lifetime" Jack Reed is rated as the most progressive senator among those who have been in the Senate for at least one full session.
The way they came up with scores is summarized here. Briefly, they first identified a few "hardcore progressives" in the Senate and the House. The 'overall' ratings are based on votes in which a majority of those progressives voted against a majority of the Republicans. The problem here is that all votes are weighted equally, and this isn't right
SOURCE: http://www.dailykos.com/...