Obama will lose..look at the map

[mindseye]

They graded on 99 votes...Obama missed 33 of them due to his campaigning. With the remaining 66 votes that he actually showed up for, he voted the "liberal way" 65 times.

So, um, how did they pick which 99 votes to count?

Either way, Obama was the 10th most liberal senator in 2006, when he was actually there for the vast majority of the votes.

That's a more fair assessment. It's pretty clear to anyone who followed the news that NR's methodology skews the results. Consider the following four scenarios:

• Obama supports the 'liberal' position, but the bill's outcome is certain regardless of whether or not he shows up: Obama stays on the campaign trail.
• Obama supports the 'conservative' position, but the bill's outcome is certain regardless of whether or not he shows up: Obama stays on the campaign trail.
• Obama supports the 'liberal' position, and the vote on the bill is close enough that the outcome is in doubt: Senate leadership -- Reid, Durbin, Dorgan, etc. -- prevail on Obama to show up, possibly offering various legislative carrots in exchange for his support. Obama takes a day off of campaigning to show up.
• Obama supports the 'conservative' position, and the vote on the bill is close enough that the outcome is in doubt: Senate leadership offer Obama no incentives to show up.

In other words, in a year in which a candidate is spending a significant amount of time on the campaign trail, his (or her) voting record is likely a reflection of that candidate's negotiations with Senate leadership, and as a result, neither of the two scenarios in which Obama would have supported the 'conservative' position (which led to his 10th-place ranking the year before) come to light in the year he's campaigning.

But even if you accept the premise that absenteeism can contribute towards one's "most liberal" status; what of Tim Johnson? Johnson missed even more votes than Obama, due to his ongoing medical issues, yet the National Review passed him over, giving him no ranking at all.

So, to sum up: NR chose 99 votes out of over 400 roll call votes on which to base their rankings, and then excused some Senator's absenteeism, and not that of others. With that kind of mushy flexibility, I could make a case for Mitch McConnell as the most liberal senator.

I would say being in the top 10% paints you as a far left liberal.

I'd disagree with this; I'd say that getting elected puts you out of the far left.

2. I don't know where you got your ACLU number but it is off, at least according to the ACLU which has him lifetime at 82%

That's his lifetime rating; I used his 2007 rating (and cited the link for it) so that the rating would be comparable to the 2007 rating that you cited originally.

The Children's defense fund senate vote record had him at 60% ??!?!!? You are off the reservation...yes...60% 6 out of 10 votes...that was A PERFECT SCORE...they graded on 10 votes!!!! He missed four votes and only voted on 6!!!! He was 6 for 6!!!!!!!!!!

In 06 and 05 he was at 100%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you are totally offbase.

So, um, you'd say that a senator who 40% of the time doesn't lift a finger to vote in support of children's issues deserves a 100%? Well, one of us is "off the reservation."

Sorry, Obama is in fact in virtual lockstep with all those organizations you mentioned, and the only reason showing him as anything else is because of ABSENTEEISM, which is a bit different.

So, NR has the right to choose how they want to count missing votes -- even to the point of applying a different standard to Obama from the one they apply to Johnson, but these other organizations don't get to decide how to count absenteeism?

Shyeah, that's totally fair.

 

[playainda336]

That poll is an "outlier"....Realclearpolitics does an average of ALL polls:
Obama 238 Mccain 163

RealClearPolitics - Electoral Map

Or even CNN's:

CNN's Electoral Map: Who's ahead - CNN.com

 

[Flashy]

So, um, how did they pick which 99 votes to count?

It was pretty simple as described in the short paragraph at the link below

You can also look further down that page which shows every single vote side by side, and examine them (and Hilary's as well, should you wish) they show all his 33 non-votes and each of those bills and who won the vote (conservative or liberal)...from a brief perusal, it looks like it is safe to say he would vote the "liberal" way on the vast majority of them had he been there .

NATIONAL JOURNAL: How The Vote Ratings Are Calculated (01/31/2008)

NATIONAL JOURNAL: Key Votes Used to Calculate the Ratings (01/31/2008)

That's a more fair assessment. It's pretty clear to anyone who followed the news that NR's methodology skews the results. Consider the following four scenarios:

• Obama supports the 'liberal' position, but the bill's outcome is certain regardless of whether or not he shows up: Obama stays on the campaign trail.
• Obama supports the 'conservative' position, but the bill's outcome is certain regardless of whether or not he shows up: Obama stays on the campaign trail.
• Obama supports the 'liberal' position, and the vote on the bill is close enough that the outcome is in doubt: Senate leadership -- Reid, Durbin, Dorgan, etc. -- prevail on Obama to show up, possibly offering various legislative carrots in exchange for his support. Obama takes a day off of campaigning to show up.
• Obama supports the 'conservative' position, and the vote on the bill is close enough that the outcome is in doubt: Senate leadership offer Obama no incentives to show up.

In other words, in a year in which a candidate is spending a significant amount of time on the campaign trail, his (or her) voting record is likely a reflection of that candidate's negotiations with Senate leadership, and as a result, neither of the two scenarios in which Obama would have supported the 'conservative' position (which led to his 10th-place ranking the year before) come to light in the year he's campaigning.

But even if you accept the premise that absenteeism can contribute towards one's "most liberal" status; what of Tim Johnson? Johnson missed even more votes than Obama, due to his ongoing medical issues, yet the National Review passed him over, giving him no ranking at all.

So, to sum up: NR chose 99 votes out of over 400 roll call votes on which to base their rankings, and then excused some Senator's absenteeism, and not that of others. With that kind of mushy flexibility, I could make a case for Mitch McConnell as the most liberal senator.

Well, to sum up, perhaps we might start out by you designating the correct magazine.

It is not in fact, the conservative National Review that did this. It is the much more objective NATIONAL JOURNAL...not NR or National Review...NATONAL JOURNAL. They do not have the same axe to grind as the NAtional Review against Obama which changes things significantly. :smile:

As for Johnson not having a ranking, i do not know if that is the case since i do not have a subscription to NJ and its other rankings are behind the subcription service and inaccessible. I assume if they did not do one for him it was because he actually had a legitimate reason, i.e. not being fully functional for nearly 10 months and having to have occupational, physical and speech therapy for 4 hours a day to learn how to walk and speak again...which is a tad different then saying "Ta-ra...off on the campaign trail...don't hold up the vote for me"

I'd disagree with this; I'd say that getting elected puts you out of the far left.

Bush was elected too, didn't put him out of the far right. If Obama gets elected too, it won't put him out of the far left.


Hitler was elected too...didn't change what he was.

That's his lifetime rating; I used his 2007 rating (and cited the link for it) so that the rating would be comparable to the 2007 rating that you cited originally.

The ratings for both his 2006, 2007 and lifetime rating are all there, and they bot h say a similar thing. He is very liberal

So, um, you'd say that a senator who 40% of the time doesn't lift a finger to vote in support of children's issues deserves a 100%? Well, one of us is "off the reservation."

I would say that a guy who was 6 for 6 was pretty solidly liberal...I refer you to your bullet points statement a few paragraphs up...didn;t you say if the issue was already decided there was no need for him to show up if it was in the liberal favor?

I would say that it is pretty obvious that considering the staunch and laudatory supportive messages that organziation has shown for him, they know his record is reflected in the 96% rating of 06, and the perfect 6 for 6 he showed up for. Not for the votes missed being out on the campaign trail.

The Children's Defense Fund recently released its yearly report card. And in it, Clinton received a rating of 70 percent for her votes on ten key legislative issues. Obama, scored slightly lower at 60. But each Senator, representatives of CDF note, were hurt not by philosophical disagreements but congressional absenteeism. Obama missed four report card votes, Clinton three.
"Both of them have a pretty good reputation," said Ed Shelleby, a spokesman for the organization. "Obviously Senator Clinton use to work here 35 years ago and was a board member as well. Obama also has had a pretty good history of child advocacy, so he has a good score as well."


sorry...wrong on that one...Hillary had a 7 of 7 missing 3 votes and Obama had a 6 for 6 missing 4 votes.

So, NR has the right to choose how they want to count missing votes -- even to the point of applying a different standard to Obama from the one they apply to Johnson, but these other organizations don't get to decide how to count absenteeism?

Shyeah, that's totally fair.

For the last time, it is the NATIONAL JOURNAL not National Review. Totally different.


The reason why they left out Johnson, was because they select the 99 most key votes as determined by staff, and he missed so many due to his illness that they were unable to give him a proper rating.

Frankly, no system is perfect, as illustrated in this article about exactly that topic with regards to the National Journal scale.

However, considering he was #10 in 2006, but then missed 33 votes which may have kept him at that level, he in fact caused his rating to go up.


PolitiFact | Is Obama a liberal?


The national Review editor answered a Q&A on this very topic

Vote Ratings: From the Editor (1/31/2008)




I personally do not think Obama is the "most liberal", but when you are the 10th most liberal out of 100...sorry, you are VERY liberal.

Here is a picture graph list of the 50 most "conservative" of the republicans from NAtional Journal in 2006

AllSenReps.png (image)

now, Allard of Colorado, Chambliss of Georgia, Inhofe of Oklahoma, Enzi of West Virginia...they are placed right at that same range...roughly 90% conservative....in 2006


and here in 2007

NATIONAL JOURNAL: 2007 Vote Ratings (03/07/2008)




This is the American Conservative Union's Top 10 Most Conservative Senators for 2006

10. Elizabeth Dole (R.-NC)
2006 ACU rating: 96%
Lifetime ACU rating: 91%
Years of Service: 4

9. Michael Enzi (R.-Wyo.)
2006 ACU rating: 96%
Lifetime ACU rating: 91%
Years of Service: 10

8. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.)
2006 ACU rating: 96%
Lifetime ACU rating: 94%
Years of Service: 4

7. Saxby Chambliss (R.-Ga.)
2006 ACU rating: 96%
Lifetime ACU rating: 94%
Years of Service: 12

6. Jim Bunning (R.-Ky.)
2006 ACU rating: 96%
Lifetime ACU rating: 95%
Years of Service: 20

5. John Thune (R.-S.D.)
2006 ACU rating: 100%
Lifetime ACU rating: 87%
Years of Service: 8

4. John Ensign (R.-Nev.)
2006 ACU rating: 100%
Lifetime ACU rating: 94%
Years of Service: 12

3. Tom Coburn (R.-Okla.)
2006 ACU rating: 100%
Lifetime ACU rating: 98%
Years of Service: 8

2. Jim DeMint (R.-S.C.)
2006 ACU rating: 100%
ACU rating: 98%
Years of Service: 8

1. James Inhofe (R.-Okla.)
2006 ACU rating: 100%
Lifetime ACU rating: 98%
Years of Service: 20



Would you not consider those folks in the roughly 8-10 range VERY conservative?

 

[mindseye]

I wrote out National Journal the first time I mentioned it, and then garbled the reference from that point on. Mea culpa. Thanks for the correction.

Apart from the brain-fart of referencing the wrong magazine, I stand by my position.

 

[Flashy]

I wrote out National Journal the first time I mentioned it, and then garbled the reference from that point on. Mea culpa. Thanks for the correction.

Apart from the brain-fart of referencing the wrong magazine, I stand by my position.

fair enough...i don't believe that Obama is the MOST liberal senator in the senate. But he is clearly one of the most liberal senators in the senate.

I stand by my position as well :smile:

 

[TurkeyWithaSunburn]

There are 33 different ways in which there could be an electoral tie....

Won't that be fun if that happens? :biggrin1:

 

[Penis Aficionado]

I really couldn't care less how "liberal" or "conservative" the candidates are rated by some media group. Those terms have broken down -- they have little meaning in 2008.

 

[Flashy]

I really couldn't care less how "liberal" or "conservative" the candidates are rated by some media group. Those terms have broken down -- they have little meaning in 2008.

not if you are the type of person, like me, who dislikes the extremism of either the very conservative or very liberal wings of the two sides

Despite the blurring of the lines by a media group, those terms do indeed still have a great deal of meaning in 2008 to alot of people.

I would assure you that if you went to the left or right of each wing, you would find that in the prevailing view, they find the opposite wing to be very much the definition of those terms that allegedly have little meaning.

It is pretty hard to look at Pat Robertson or Jim DeMint and say they are not conservatives and also to look at Bernie Sanders or Sheldon Whitehouse and say they are not liberals....even when and especially if you are a moderate looking at both sides, or on the far opposite side.

Those terms are still crystal clear.

 

[Shelby]

Well I'm hoping that as senator his votes represented his constituency and as president his policies will adjust to reflect the wishes of his now much expanded constituency.

I think he's smart enough to know that if he does get elected and he takes the country on a sharp sustained turn to the left, four years from now he'll be tossed out on his butt.

 

[Guy-jin]

yeah that's exactly why...not that i don't want my taxes going up, or increases on estate taxes, or the far left having the chance to do as much damage to the country as the far right had with Bush.

Giving any one party carte blanche is a massive error. Iran included or excluded.

I haven't voted for either party in the 19 years i have been eligible to vote. Even if voted for McCAin, it still would not matter, since i am in an overwhelmingly blue state and my vote has no impact.

Iran aside, both Obama and McCain are just as bad for the future of this country. You can believe otherwise if you wish.

I'm glad you've affirmed that I can read you like a book.

But at least you aren't voting, given that your most important issue is in what interests Israel most, and not the United States.

Keep going on about how liberal Obama is as if the very concept has meaning, though.

As to your last sentance--nothing on the table currently is worse for the future of this country than perpetuating the war (read: moneydrain) in Iraq. Bottom line. You can believe otherwise if you wish. But you'll be wrong. :tongue:

 

[Trinity]

There's always those die hards who continue to spin the facts in a way that discredits Obama.

Obama discredits himself by action (or in this case lack of action) and words.

If someone told ME as a person running for the presidency that visiting them while campaigning was prohibited, I'd probably be inclined to remain on the side of caution too.

The Pentagon reminded this Harvard educated Lawyer and U.S. Senator that he would need to visit the troops in his official capacity as a Senator. It was as simple as that.

The alternative would have been to make the visit and then have the same bitchin whiners complain that I campaigned by visiting troops in Germany, in violation of U.S. policy.

This isn't a hard thing. This is a very simple thing really. Obama could have gone to visit wounded soldiers for an hour with his secret service. It wasn't a difficult thing to do. No press, just Obama and the soldiers. It did not have to be an issue. That is what a Commander in Chief would have done...problem solved. If Obama doesn't know the right thing to do in an instance such as this and blame is placed constantly on others for his shortcomings he really is a sad choice for President. He makes problems where there are none and doesn't do when it should be done. If this man is going to ask Americans to step up...he should first step up and be a Man. It's not about scrutiny over his campaign. Just go visit soldiers and stop making excuses..."but they'd whine about it if I did...so I didn't" That is the most pathetic excuse in the world. What kind of a leader is that? No leader at all. If someone whined and b*tched about me visiting wounded heroes I'd wear it as a badge honor because I know where my priorities are...with the men and women putting their lives on the line for this nation. If Obama did what the State Dept. reminded him of...there would have been very little room to criticize him because there would have been no campaigning.

 

[mista geechee]

Personally, I feel like my head will explode from the overlead of divisive terms.

Obama may be unproven but, at this point in time, I'd rather take a chance on him over McCain.

 

[deleted15807]

Obama's Lead Over McCain Grows in Poll - AOL News

- Certain 'democrats' will not be happy.

 

[b.c.]

These numbers are phenomenal, given the fact that this is a black candidate for president... one who's been dogged by every type of smear, lie, distortion, mischaracterization, and stereotype that they (McCain supporters and disgruntled Clinton supporters) could drum up.

Of course, the flip side of it that the lead (not withshanding all the above) should be a 30% one.

 

[Iluvmywife333]

two words: political agenda...whoever is going to be president was going to be from the start...otherwise Ron Paul would've won.

 

[Flashy]

I'm glad you've affirmed that I can read you like a book.

But at least you aren't voting, given that your most important issue is in what interests Israel most, and not the United States.

Keep going on about how liberal Obama is as if the very concept has meaning, though.

As to your last sentance--nothing on the table currently is worse for the future of this country than perpetuating the war (read: moneydrain) in Iraq. Bottom line. You can believe otherwise if you wish. But you'll be wrong. :tongue:

1. You can read nothing. You didn't say that my concerns were my own economic well-being, nor did you say that my concern is allowing one party rampant carte blanche, no matter what side of the aisle they are on.

2. Who said i was not voting? I simply said i do not vote for either the Republicans or the Democrats. I most certainly do still vote. There are still other candidates you know...I know it is hard to see beyond your own blinkered view...

It must be hard for you to read me like a book, when you do not even seem to know how to read my posts.

3. Who said my "most important issue is in what interests Israel most"? Please point out where i said that. The only important "Israel issue" i have is that the United States remain committed to its ally. FYI, Israel happens to be a vital strategic ally to the US in the region, despite what you think. Ironically, Obama seems to think it is pretty vital too considering he just went there and is so desperate to convince voters here he can be trusted on that topic.

My most important issues are
1. Taxes
2. Environment
3. Energy Policy
4. Legalization Of marijauna/Hemp production


Neither Obama or McCain, adequately reflects my views on any of those issues.

4. Sorry to break it to you, I know it is tough to get through your head since you are so invested in Obama...OBAMA IS VERY LIBERAL...same as GEORGE W. BUSH IS VERY CONSERVATIVE.

Only people who are so blinded or enraptured by both fail to see what they are...If the concept of liberal or conservative has no meaning, why don't you vote for some of those dandy far right conservatives? You will see the meaning when they try and overturn Roe vs. Wade...but stuff like that doesn't have any meaning, right? Of course not.

5. I never said Iraq was not a bad situation. In fact, to my recollection, I have not mentioned it once. Kindly point out anywhere in this thread i have said otherwise. Bottom Line...you can't. If you say you can...you'll be wrong.

So kindly don't tell me what I believe in.

 

[deleted15807]

These numbers are phenomenal, given the fact that this is a black candidate for president... one who's been dogged by every type of smear, lie, distortion, mischaracterization, and stereotype that they (McCain supporters and disgruntled Clinton supporters) could drum up.

Of course, the flip side of it that the lead (not withshanding all the above) should be a 30% one.

Yep..the smears will be relentless. Well we do have one less Republican goon going after him. Sleaze-ball Bob Novak has a brain tumor and is out until further notice.

Columnist Novak diagnosed with brain tumor - USATODAY.com

He won't be running over pedestrians in his Corvette anytime soon.

Novak Cited for Hitting Pedestrian - washingtonpost.com

 

[Industrialsize]

Obama discredits himself by action (or in this case lack of action) and words.


The Pentagon reminded this Harvard educated Lawyer and U.S. Senator that he would need to visit the troops in his official capacity as a Senator. It was as simple as that.


This isn't a hard thing. This is a very simple thing really. Obama could have gone to visit wounded soldiers for an hour with his secret service. It wasn't a difficult thing to do. No press, just Obama and the soldiers. It did not have to be an issue. That is what a Commander in Chief would have done...problem solved. If Obama doesn't know the right thing to do in an instance such as this and blame is placed constantly on others for his shortcomings he really is a sad choice for President. He makes problems where there are none and doesn't do when it should be done. If this man is going to ask Americans to step up...he should first step up and be a Man. It's not about scrutiny over his campaign. Just go visit soldiers and stop making excuses..."but they'd whine about it if I did...so I didn't" That is the most pathetic excuse in the world. What kind of a leader is that? No leader at all. If someone whined and b*tched about me visiting wounded heroes I'd wear it as a badge honor because I know where my priorities are...with the men and women putting their lives on the line for this nation. If Obama did what the State Dept. reminded him of...there would have been very little room to criticize him because there would have been no campaigning.

enough already...Senator Obama visited wounded soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan without ANY PRESS THERE..........He was part of an official Congressional delegation. By the time he arrived in Germany, he was NO LONGER a part of a congressional delegation, He was there with a General who recently jojned his campaign as a military advisor. The pentagon said that seeing the General had joined the Obama Campaign it would have been a campaing trip. Rather than ruffle any of the military's feathers, he decided it would be best and cancel the visit so as not to have the "appearance" of a campaign visit. According to Andrea Mitchell, the press was NEVER invited to join the Senator while visiting troops in Germany......Senator Obama is a frequent visitor of our Military at Walter Reed, NEVER with the press:
FactCheck.org comes through with a bracing takedown of the McCain ad falsely attacking Obama over the canceled troop visit, concluding the same thing we've been yelling all day:

McCain's facts are literally true, but his insinuation -- that the visit was canceled because of the press ban or the desire for gym time -- is false. In fact, Obama visited wounded troops earlier -- without cameras or press -- both in the U.S. and Iraq. And his gym workouts are a daily routine... Reporters were not allowed to accompany him when he visited wounded troops at Walter Reed Medical Center on June 28. The small "protective pool" of reporters that routinely accompanies him was told by Obama's staff to remain outside, in the van, according to a reporter covering the campaign...no cameras or press were planned.

NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports that there was never a plan for Obama to take the press to Landstuhl, despite the claim by McCain folks and others. The plan was to go with his military aide, retired General Scott Gration. The Pentagon said Gration was off-limits because he had joined the campaign -- violating rules that it not be a political stop. Obama had gone to see wounded troops in Iraq earlier in the week, without even confirming he'd been there. No press, no pictures. He has done the same when he goes to Walter Reed -- never any press.

​

 

[Skull Mason]

has obama ever done anything wrong?

 

[Industrialsize]

has obama ever done anything wrong?

Yes..I wasn't thrilled with his voting for the FISA compromise,I'm not in complete agreement with his stand on the recent Supreme Court ruling on handgun ownership. Do I think he is going to be a great President?? Yes.

Now ask Trinity the same question...Has Senator Obama EVER done anything right or has Senator Clinton ever done anything wrog?