Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumElizabeth Warren Would Be the Most Liberal Democratic Nominee Since 1972
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/elizabeth-warren-would-be-the-most-liberal-democratic-nominee-since-1972/Quantifying the ideology of politicians is tricky, but well use a method similar to FiveThirtyEights presidential forecasting model by looking at each nominees congressional voting record, fundraising and public statements (Adam Bonicas ideological scores based on a candidates donors, joint DW-Nominate scores based on a candidates voting record in Congress, and On the Issues scores based on public statements).
In all cases, negative scores mean more liberal. We usually standardize and average these three metrics, but there arent scores for all the candidates before 2000 and comparing across time can be tricky. So lets keep this simple and just look at each metric separately.
warren_idealogy
?w=575
The logic behind Bonicas fundraising scores goes basically like this: If liberals are giving you lots of money, youre probably pretty liberal, and if conservatives are filling your coffers, well you get it. According to Bonicas scores the only system of the three for which we have grades for all the candidates Warren would be by far the most liberal nominee in the modern era. Indeed, fellow Democrats have sought her help on the campaign trail in large part because of her appeal among liberal donors. Its also no surprise that those at Netroots Nation have taken a shine to her.
If Warren were to win the Democratic nomination, shed rank as the second-most liberal nominee who served in the Senate or House. Her voting record has been to the left of Walter Mondales; only the famously liberal George McGovern had a more leftward-leaning legislative record. By contrast, the past three Democrats to represent the party on the presidential ticket were all near the center of the Democratic Senate caucus, while Warren has the fifth-most liberal voting record in the Senate today.
On public statements, Warren ranks a clear second. The only past nominee to her left, according to On the Issues, is John Kerry. But the distance between Warren and Kerry is smaller than the distance between Warren and any other past nominee. In other words, Warrens liberalness on this measure is pretty clear far to the left of President Obama.
In terms of 2016 contenders, Warren is to the left of both Vice President Joe Biden and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton on all three of these measures.
But its not like Biden and Clinton arent liberal. Clinton especially has a fairly liberal donor base by historical standards. Clinton would be to the left of the median senator (-0.33) in terms of voting record. Clinton, like Biden and Warren, would be the second-most liberal nominee in the modern era in terms of public statements.
And therein lies Warrens problem. The clamoring for Warren to run in 2016 doesnt go much beyond the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Warren may be the most liberal, but the other top 2016 contenders havent left a lot of room on the ideological left for her to gain a foothold.
stonecutter357
(12,761 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Similar calculations pegged Sanders as twice as liberal as any recent Democratic nominee and he would certainly be far to the left of Warren. That's why everyone in the Green Party loves him and why he will never be elected President of the United States.
Her Sister
(6,444 posts)Way before today's toxic environment of purity tests. I find it fascinating to go back in time a little before people knew what was going to be happening now. It is telling! Yeah she is super left but people like HRC are not that far off! and are not Republican!
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)No way is he more liberal.
Its his State & Congressional record that disqualifies him.
Just sayin.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)...what I saw. You can google the article which was posted some time ago on GD-P and have your discussion with the author.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)And then you would have to do an analyses the content of each bill not only for Warren's, but also for each of other nominees and candidates for the nomination in order to get understand of their relative positions on the liberal scale. I don't think you want to spend the time to do that.
In addition the analysis like the one above and the one to which I am referring are much more comprehensive than simply analyzing how people vote.
These analysis are performed by "looking at each nominees congressional voting record, fundraising and public statements (Adam Bonicas ideological scores based on a candidates donors, joint DW-Nominate scores based on a candidates voting record in Congress, and On the Issues scores based on public statements)."
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)I didn't see her there.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)fun n serious
(4,451 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Electing & honoring successful women in politics.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)I would think H. Clinton would be a +5
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)fun n serious
(4,451 posts)otohara
(24,135 posts)and we all know if you're a female candidate who once dabbled in the GOP is unacceptable.
Right Hillary aka Goldwater girl?
Why does Elizabeth gets a pass from Sanders supporters when she was a Republican for many years.