HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » As we debate Bernie vs Hi...

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 09:49 PM

As we debate Bernie vs Hillary, we should keep this in mind.

This is a chart put out by crowdpac, an organization that tallies right/left political leanings by tracking vote records and money.

[img][/img]

While there is no denying that Bernie and Elizabeth are more liberal than Hillary, this chart emphasizes just how far Hillary and Bernie are from someone like Ted Cruz.

There is no comparison!

Both are excellent choices based on cold hard data. One choice is better than the other, imho, and that's Bernie. But, acting like Hillary is Ted-Cruz-Lite or a DinoTrump is just not true.

We need to all stop attacking each other and start thinking of how we can help each other reach common goals. We are getting so worked up over this primary that we are forgetting the cold hard data. We are a party of science, information, figures and fact. Let us never forget that.

Is Bernie better? Yes. Is Hillary the devil? No.

We are all democrats. We all care about the same things: income inequality, racial equality, education, climate change, gun control, lgbt rights and healthcare including affordable pharmaceuticals.

Remember. Think with your head. Not with your guts. Bush thought with his "guts" and look where that got us?

13 replies, 3507 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply As we debate Bernie vs Hillary, we should keep this in mind. (Original post)
musicblind Apr 2016 OP
thucythucy Apr 2016 #1
Maedhros Apr 2016 #2
musicblind Apr 2016 #4
Maedhros Apr 2016 #10
loyalsister Apr 2016 #12
Hydra Apr 2016 #3
musicblind Apr 2016 #5
CorporatistNation Apr 2016 #6
musicblind Apr 2016 #7
Lucinda Apr 2016 #8
MiniMe Apr 2016 #9
geek tragedy Apr 2016 #11
musicblind Apr 2016 #13

Response to musicblind (Original post)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 09:53 PM

1. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musicblind (Original post)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 09:59 PM

2. I don't trust these kinds of analyses without seeing their work.

 

How they define "liberal" vs. "conservative."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #2)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 10:12 PM

4. Here is more information about how they came to these results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musicblind (Reply #4)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 10:42 AM

10. Yeah, there's not much there.

 

Crowdpac's Scoring System

Crowdpac calculates objective scores for political candidates showing their overall political position and, where possible, their position on specific issues. The scores use a liberal/conservative scale: 10L is the most liberal and 10C is the most conservative. In some cases, candidates are given scores showing as 10+L or 10+C; this means they are more extreme than our scale can show. Overall scores are based on publicly available campaign contributions information, analyzed by our data model. Issue scores are based on campaign contributions and Congressional voting records. When candidates do not have a score, we either do not have the minimum amount of data needed or the analysis is inconclusive; if we cannot accurately place a candidate on the liberal/conservative scale, we won't provide scores.


Their data model draws from Money, Speech, and Votes. Their interpretations can be highly subjective. For example, Obama gave lots of great "liberal" campaign speeches that we now know were entirely insincere (e.g. "most transparent Presidency in history".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #10)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 10:51 AM

12. Likewise, Hillary's votes while representing NY

very well may have little bearing on how she would serve as president and has the excuse of also needing to represent extreme conservatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musicblind (Original post)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 10:11 PM

3. *LMAO*

Biden and Clinton are at least 3.0 Red. Huntsman is actually pretty good for a Republican when he's not running for Pres.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hydra (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 10:15 PM

5. Here is how they came up with these results.

CROWDPAC DATA MODEL

The Crowdpac data model combines three sources of publicly available information about candidates:

Money - which individuals or organizations have contributed to the candidates' campaigns, and which campaigns the candidates themselves have contributed to, as reported to federal and state regulatory authorities. This gives us a good indication of their overall political position.
Speech - what the candidates say: the bills they sponsor or co-sponsor (if they are currently in office or have been elected before); the words or phrases they use most, as reported in legislative text and floor records, and candidate statements made on official websites, Facebook profiles and via official tweets. This gives us a good indication of their political priorities.
Votes - the candidates' voting record (if they are currently in office or have been in office before). This helps increase the accuracy of our predictions - from around 92% to 94% - and to estimate candidates' position on specific issues.
It works like this: to calculate overall scores for candidates - both incumbents and new candidates - we rely on campaign finance records. Donors to political campaigns tend to support candidates who share their policy preferences and/or personal interests, and screen out those who do not. This generates large amounts of information on where candidates stand. In analyzing the patterns of who gives to whom, our data model is able to make inferences about the issue positions of both candidates and donors. Additional information on candidates' personal contributions made to other campaigns are incorporated to improve the modelís predictions. As a result, it represents a new way of forecasting how a candidate would likely vote and legislate if elected to office.

To calculate scores on specific issues, for incumbent candidates, we use Congressional voting records; for non-incumbent candidates with no voting record, we compare their donors with the donors of incumbents.

We calculate scores for as many candidates as possible. It depends on the candidate, but often a single donation that candidate made to another candidate is enough for the model to calculate an overall score. In most cases, a candidate must receive 50 donations before we can calculate issue scores. In all cases, the contributions need to have been reported to federal or state regulatory authorities. The more data we have on a candidate, the more confident we can be about our scores. On each candidate's profile page, we provide a summary of the availability of data for that candidate.

You can find a more detailed academic explanation of our data model, including a paper prepared by co-founder Adam Bonica, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Stanford University here: http://data.stanford.edu/dime/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musicblind (Original post)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 10:18 PM

6. I Would Quarrel Strongly With The Assessment! You Cannot Lump Socially Liberal Issues With Economic

issue positions. The Establishment cares ONLY about Economic positions... Hillary is VERY conservative here and no matter WHAT she might say in a primary... She is Wall Street's go to pol and their FIRST choice for Prez! The Social issues are just a distraction... Just shiny objects for the little people. Remeber... IT IS... ISSSSS.... ALL About The $MONEY$!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 10:28 PM

7. I think it's a fair point to say that it is hard to lump social and economic issues together.

A separate chart showing both would be very interesting.

However, I don't agree that social issues are just shiny objects for the little people. Social issues are very important to me and are no joke to me. I would even say that I lean toward them being more important than economic issues, but economic issues have become social issues because of how they are drastically effecting society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musicblind (Original post)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 10:33 PM

8. KNR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musicblind (Original post)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 11:22 PM

9. Is it my eyes, or is tRump missing from the chart?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiniMe (Reply #9)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 10:47 AM

11. never held public office, so no voting record nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiniMe (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:10 PM

13. It's what Greek Tragedy said. He never held office so there isn't a record to pull numbers from.

I do wonder where they would put him on that chart. He seems so right wing to me. But so does Jeb Bush and they have him ahead of Kasich, so who knows what the actual facts are?

I would consider Drumpf to be very conservative though. He wants to ban people from the country based on a religious litmus test. Surely that is enough to get you on the far red side of the chart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread