It's not important whether or not the National Journal exercised any bias in their analysis. What's important is that their analysis is very flawed when looked at from a scientific perspective.
That NJ study is one of those things that was discredited a long time ago, but somehow maintained relevance simply by constantly being repeated by politicians and the media. I remember back to when I was doing research while in university. I bet I could have disproved gravity if I was only allowed to cherry pick the results that fit my expectations while conveniently ignoring everything else ;-)
We have heard to different ideas about where the GOP should go.
1. They need to be "more conservative" at least in financial matters, in that they should stand for spending restraint and balanced budgets. They should focus on keeping the government small.
2. They need to be "less conservative" in that opposing spending and programs will alienate voters. They need to embrace things that are good but increase government such as univeral health care, and other programs.
In looking at domestic economic issues,
Poll: Should Republicans become less or more conservative economically? (Vote): More conservative--keep government small (Vote): Less conservative--embrace new sensible spending programs (Vote):
Edit: Sorry bout the third option, just ignore it.
2 other polls:
Poll: Should Republicans emphasize social issues more or less? (Vote): More (Vote): Less (Vote): Same
and
Poll: Should Republicans abandon neocon foreign policy? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No (Vote): Undecided
These poll results are very interesting. It seems like there is fairly strong support for fiscal conservatism, very little support for conservative social ideals, and no support (not even from me!) on neoconservatism.
Also, I wanted to quote this so that people who haven't voted can see it and vote.
On November 07 2008 06:56 Flaccid wrote: Hmmm. Even the National Journal, the dudes who rated Obama as the most liberal senator in 2007, admitted to fudging their ranking methods. The accepted rankings have him ~10, as clutch said. The NJ study simply cherry-picked a small number of votes in order to reach a desired conclusion.
I have never heard that. In fact they are very clear and transparent about the entire process which is automated by the way. Read the methodology.
They changed their methodology from the one used for Kerry to the one used for Obama. Had similar methodologies been used, Obama would not have been ranked as most liberal.
What we have here is a study that holds far less merit than similar studies but managed to gain traction because the result it produced created a useful talking point for one of the candidates. As a guy with a background in scientific research (I'm sure there are plenty of us around here), I find the whole thing pretty astounding. More comprehensive analysis is ignored and instead we get this 'Mc.Study' thrown at us because of the convenient result. It's insulting =/
I'm certainly not trying to imply that they intentially skewed the result. But there was an element of human intervention when they cherry-picked certain votes to be used in the analysis. When I say they 'fudged their methods', I was being to too vague - referring to the methods they used to rank Kerry as the most liberal. Methods they admitted to being flawed.
This link I posted above does a good job of summing up the problems with a study like this.
On November 07 2008 06:56 Flaccid wrote: Hmmm. Even the National Journal, the dudes who rated Obama as the most liberal senator in 2007, admitted to fudging their ranking methods. The accepted rankings have him ~10, as clutch said. The NJ study simply cherry-picked a small number of votes in order to reach a desired conclusion.
I have never heard that. In fact they are very clear and transparent about the entire process which is automated by the way. Read the methodology.
The picking of which votes are included is NOT automated, unless I am reading their methodology incorrectly.
And, as with Margarita, I'd be interested to hear why you feel the NJ methodology is superior to Rosenthal's. As far as I can tell, Rosenthal's methodology has the following major advantages: 1. Results make much more sense in terms of common sense/intuition (most people know that Feingold/Sanders/Wellstone were all among the most liberal members... Rosenthal's analysis confirms this, while NJ does not). 2. Rosenthal's method based on a much larger and broader data set. 3. Rosenthal's method has much less potential for human error. 4. Rosenthal's method has much wider acceptance among the professional community.
As I pointed out a second ago in a PM to Margarita, the NJ rankings also seem to have two clear flaws. First of all, Obama and Clinton are ranked 15 spots apart in 2007. Yet, their voting records only differ on two votes, and these two votes really can't be said to mean almost anything about how "liberal" they are. Second of all, the way that the NJ handles absences is not satisfactory; I won't go into this in detail, but you can google and read why from someone who is a lot smarter than I am. This, by the way, is why John McCain is not ranked AT ALL; he missed too many votes (not exactly a resounding endorsement).
If they want to reignite their party they will need to be more conservative in terms of keeping government small and more liberal in terms of social issues like gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, etc
As I pointed out a second ago in a PM to Margarita, the NJ rankings also seem to have two clear flaws. First of all, Obama and Clinton are ranked 15 spots apart in 2007. Yet, their voting records only differ on two votes, and these two votes really can't be said to mean almost anything about how "liberal" they are. Second of all, the way that the NJ handles absences is not satisfactory; I won't go into this in detail, but you can google and read why from someone who is a lot smarter than I am. This, by the way, is why John McCain is not ranked AT ALL; he missed too many votes (not exactly a resounding endorsement).
I find this part to be the most suspect. If they really only voted differently on 2 issues, how could they possibly be that far apart?
By Norman J. Ornstein Posted: Wednesday, April 9, 2008
From the beginning of the presidential campaign through last week, there had been 163 references in Nexis to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) being the most liberal Member of the Senate, with all of the news outlets relying on National Journal's 2007 vote ratings (which, incidentally, placed New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at No. 16).
To anyone who has spent more than a nanosecond around the Senate and has seen, met or watched Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) or Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), among others, this rating is pretty ridiculous--as was the equally ballyhooed National Journal ranking of John Kerry (D-Mass.) as the most liberal Senator in 2004. All of this raises interesting questions about what it means to be liberal or conservative, and what these vote ratings, done by top-flight publications like National Journal and Congressional Quarterly, and by many interest groups, actually mean.
There is only one reason that Kerry and Obama made the dubious distinction of most liberal. It is because they missed a lot of votes while campaigning for president.
There has been some interesting and insightful writing by top political scientists about the National Journal claims regarding Kerry and Obama, most recently by the outstanding Congressional scholar Sarah Binder. (There was also a definitive analysis in 2004 by three political scientists from Princeton and Stanford universities.) There have also been good blog entries on the Obama rating by Michael Sherer and Steve Benen.
The first point to make is that National Journal's ratings are an improvement over the previous static and unidimensional ones done by others, because they encompass three major policy areas: economics, foreign policy and social issues. But they have a huge basic flaw or gap--they are shaped dramatically by attendance and absences. There is only one reason that Kerry and Obama made the dubious distinction of most liberal (dubious because whether they are liberal or not, "most liberal" sounds extreme). It is because they missed a lot of votes while campaigning for president.
In his blog, Benen observed, "National Journal's press release on the rankings noted the criteria were based on 99 key roll call votes last year: 'Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66 votes in which he participated, while Clinton voted the liberal position on 77 of 82 votes.' So, Clinton voted for the liberal position 77 times, Obama voted for it 65 times, which makes Obama the chamber's single most liberal member. Got it."
To be sure, both Obama and Kerry would fit within the liberal camp; both would be in the top 20 in the Senate. But these rankings can't really get any more precise than that. That is the second problem with vote ratings of this sort. As the political scientists Joshua Clinton, Simon Jackman and Doug Rivers pointed out in a political science journal, the ratings ignore ranges that reflect the gross imperfections of roll-call votes on the floor--many relying on shaky judgment calls to define "liberal" or "conservative"--that statisticians call "confidence intervals." National Journal, like every other ratings operation, opts for false precision to have greater effect.
Sherer, in his blog for Time magazine, notes: "I actually browsed through the scorecard National Journal used to determine the rankings. There are precisely two scored votes where Obama took the more liberal position and Clinton took the conservative."
Sherer goes on to say that the first was an amendment offered by Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) to establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity; Obama voted yes (along with Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain), while Clinton voted no. The second was an amendment Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) offered to the immigration bill on the renewal of non-immigrant visas; Obama voted yes, along with GOP Sens. Richard Shelby (Ala.) and Tom Coburn (Okla.), while Clinton voted no. Sherer says, "So there you have it. Obama is more liberal than Clinton because he voted with John McCain . . . and Tom Coburn."
As Binder notes, the best ideological rankings are actually done by scholars Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, relying on all votes and a very complex method widely adopted by scholars. The Poole-Rosenthal scores make Obama the 10th most liberal Senator in 2007--and, by the way, make McCain the seventh most conservative.
One larger point to make here. The flaws and limitations in the rankings have been systematically ignored by journalists writing or broadcasting on this issue--either because it gets too complicated or because the reality would spoil a good story, or in many cases, because reporters pick up the reference from one story and just repeat it in the next, and on and on. As a consequence, the assertions are exploited by political forces for their own purposes.
I don't expect journalists to be statistical whizzes. But because these rankings have been flagged and analyzed repeatedly by reputable scholars and observers, I do expect some restraint in repeating the exaggerations. The problem is not simply National Journal's--it is indeed, as most press accounts say, one of the best and most respected publications around. It is more the larger headache of journalistic sloth.
As I pointed out a second ago in a PM to Margarita, the NJ rankings also seem to have two clear flaws. First of all, Obama and Clinton are ranked 15 spots apart in 2007. Yet, their voting records only differ on two votes, and these two votes really can't be said to mean almost anything about how "liberal" they are. Second of all, the way that the NJ handles absences is not satisfactory; I won't go into this in detail, but you can google and read why from someone who is a lot smarter than I am. This, by the way, is why John McCain is not ranked AT ALL; he missed too many votes (not exactly a resounding endorsement).
I find this part to be the most suspect. If they really only voted differently on 2 issues, how could they possibly be that far apart?
It's the retarded method they use. The results are completely dependant on what votes you show up for - there is no level playing field. Say senator one shows up for 10 votes. 5 of those the liberal position is obviously favorable and he votes liberal. The other 5, the conservative position is obviously favorable and he votes conservative. He gets a 50% liberal rating. Now imagine the same senator only showed up for 5 of those votes. And imagine the only 5 votes he showed up for were the votes with an obviously favorable liberal position. Congrats - he just became the 'most liberal senator' with a 100% liberal voting record.
I don't think the republican party needs to change it's platform. The democratic party was in a similar position in '04. They had no solidified face, no obvious leaders holding the party together, no real argument for power other than that they were not Bush. Obama's campaign really gave the democratic party a solidified front, and they came bounced back from not having the presidency or congress, and now they hold the house, congress, and the presidency. The republican party's main problem is that they appealed to there base to much. Clinton was successful by moving to the right and bringing in the "middle". In '00 Rove new the middle had significantly shrunk, and decided appealing to the base would be more successful. That was a genius, but short sighted strategy. The RNC set themselves up in a position where they needed the base to win, but in the process of building there base they excluded a lot of voters, so when the christian right just wasn't enough, they had a hard time changing face. I think that is an issue of message delivery as well as the message. Now they are in a similar position the democrats were in in '04. They've lost there power positions, they have no obvious leader holding the party together, and there message doesn't seem to be pulling enough people in. I personally think there message is not pulling enough people in because of there delivery. They have been very decisive and negative. I don't think I have been ever as appalled at American politics as when I saw videos of Palin supporters yelling out things like terrorist about Obama. You can say that these people are just stupid, but the problem is that those ideas were planted in there heads by the RNC, and most people were able to see through the B.S. If the RNC wants to maintain that kind of message delivery, they will never regain solidarity or power. They can maintain a similar platform, change there message delivery, and establish obvious leaders within there party, and than they will be back in debating form.
Maybee this post doesn't belong in this thread, but more stories are being leaked about Palin's stupidity and the intercampaign problems. I think she may be used as a scapegoat for loosing this election to some extent by certain groups of Reps
Flaccid, Rosenthal's analysis is very interesting. I don't have the expertise or the time really to do be able to definitively say which one is better.
But I will say that Rosenthal's analysis makes me feel hopeful. I hope he is right. Cause Obama is gonna be our President anyway. And we need SOMEONE to keep Nancy Pelosi under control.
If Obama does govern like a moderate democrat like Bill Clinton did, and if he consults seriously with Republicans and tries to include them in governing, I won't have anything to complain about.
If he does that, he will be a 2 term president for sure. But he is gonna have some serious pressure from the liberal interest groups to pass some dang liberal policies.
One I am the most afraid of is the push by big unions to remove the anonymity and privacy from votes to unionize. As it is right now, workers vote and it is anonymous. You can't tell how any single person voted. But they want to make it so everyone can access exactly how you voted. This gives more power to unions because then they can pressure people specifically and individually to change their vote. That is just wrong. If Obama signs that into law, then he will have lost all the potential respect I might gain for him.
EDIT: Laws like that are what lead to the other party making a comeback.
i hope some new evangelical leaders step up and continue to be an unrelenting millstone around the party's neck. then republicans who life for raging against the political establishment can rage without causing harm, and people can get on with normal business.
Savio, I think if you stop caring about gay marriage and civil union, you're going to be pleasantly surprised by Obama in 4 years. He is not even close to Pelosi on the liberal spectrum.
I think the Republican party HAS to stick with small government, conservative spending or else the party will basically be dead. They need to drop social issues and promote their conservative spending approach (and make it credible) rather than trying to belittle democratic socialism. The foreign policy thing is iffy. If they drop the Christian right angle, we won't have to worry about idiots in charge believing in rapture, but neo-realism still makes a lot of sense to people and I don't think it will change that quickly. Obama has said he will use political capital on places like Darfur and Somalia (which I just did a research project on today and is seriously the most fucked up country in the world; it is the next Afghanista, mark my words) but it remains to be seen if he will. Clinton was terrible in that regard.
On November 07 2008 11:58 Jibba wrote: I think the Republican party HAS to stick with small government, conservative spending or else the party will basically be dead.
Every Republican president since Reagan has run a massive deficit. Bush has increased government spending and powers an incredible amount. The Republican party's actions are diametrically opposed with their proclaimed platform - how could I ever vote for a party composed of lying hypocrites? Your party has been moving further and further right, courting the delusional Christian fundamentalists and xenophobes at the cost of alienating everybody else.
What I'm curious about is what the current make-up of the Republican party is. Are there enough of the "moderates" remaining to reclaim the party and kick out the crazies, or will they have to splinter off and form their own group? It's important to remember that the Democratic party as it is now is primarily a coalition formed to oppose the Republican party - my hope is that the Republican party will be sufficiently weakened/fractured so that the Democratic party will also be able to splinter, which would hopefully lead to the end of the two-party system.
The discussions about small government and fiscal responsibility are very interesting. The fact is the Republican Party's recent history shows it to absolutely love throwing money around in unprecedented quantities and running up colossal deficits, it is just that it does not spend much of that money on investing in the nation's future.
problem is, there is no consistent minarchist governing position that also manages to be a workable policy platform in the specific. so when you get minarchists in power, so called anyway, they cut stuff that they do not like and buff up things thought to conform to their idea of value. hence the moniker of minarchism is a shell game for an alternative distributive platform, as it currently stands.
a consistent minarchism still reeks too much ideological fear of government to be responsive to real issues in society. a government run by the guy from mises or something would be a circus.
On November 07 2008 11:58 Jibba wrote: I think the Republican party HAS to stick with small government, conservative spending or else the party will basically be dead.
Every Republican president since Reagan has run a massive deficit. Bush has increased government spending and powers an incredible amount. The Republican party's actions are diametrically opposed with their proclaimed platform - how could I ever vote for a party composed of lying hypocrites? Your party has been moving further and further right, courting the delusional Christian fundamentalists and xenophobes at the cost of alienating everybody else.
What I'm curious about is what the current make-up of the Republican party is. Are there enough of the "moderates" remaining to reclaim the party and kick out the crazies, or will they have to splinter off and form their own group? It's important to remember that the Democratic party as it is now is primarily a coalition formed to oppose the Republican party - my hope is that the Republican party will be sufficiently weakened/fractured so that the Democratic party will also be able to splinter, which would hopefully lead to the end of the two-party system.
I'm glad you think it's my party affiliation just because I'm knowledgeable. I could be a Marxist too then. Chairman Mao loves us enough to make the sun rise!
The party isn't splitting because it won't win. Stop thinking in terms of ideals, this is a pragmatic issue. If they believed they could keep winning on the 3Gs, then they would. They don't believe that, so they're looking for a new strategy to win. Splitting up because of the crazies doesn't accomplish that. They just won't appeal to them anymore.
The Bush/Reagan thing is part of building credibility. There are true fiscal conservatives who shy away from massive military budgets, but we haven't seen them recently. Every candidate since Reagan has run on the "cut spending" agenda while spending has gone up, so they have to make a plea that the next candidate truly does mean to fix the deficit. Hence we'll probably see a young, new governor as the next candidate.
EPT
