How conservative are these candidates, really?

http://voteview.com/senrank.asp ^ | vanity?

[BroJoeK]

Looking at the original field of candidates, how conservative are these folks, really?

Well, it's hard to measure governors -- Huntsman, Perry and Romney -- since they faced different legislatures.

For example, even though Romney vetoed hundreds of Massachusetts Democrat run Legislature's bills, he signed others, most famously, Romney-care, which neither Perry's nor Huntsman's legislatures ever passed.

But members of Congress can be measured statistically and compared, so here it is:

1. Ron Paul votes more conservative than 99% of Republican Congressmen.

2. Michelle Bachmann votes more conservative than 80% of Republican Congressmen.

3. For comparison: Both John McCain and Bob Dole voted more conservative than 50% of Republican Senators.

4. Newt Gingrich voted more conservative than 42% of Republican Congressmen (yes, McCain is relatively more conservative than Gingrich).

5. Rick Santorum voted more conservative than 33% of Republican Senators.

Of course, these are based on statistical measures, and might be disputed on a case-by-case basis.

So, who really are the most conservative Senators and Congressmen -- as of the 111th Congress?

Senators:

1. Barasso from Wyoming
2. Kyle from Arizona
3. Demint from South Carolina
4. Coburn from Oklahoma

Congressmen:

1. Graves from Georgia
2. Braun from Georgia
3. Paul from Texas
4. Flake from Arizona

As of the 111th Congress there were no -- zero -- Republican Senators or Congressmen less conservative than the most "moderate" of Democrats.

[ansel12]

Read post 16 again, it is describing a tea party victory.

If we aren’t about change, then why win at all, just to keep things stagnant for four years, so that the next Democrat can just start where they left off?

[FreeInWV]

I read it. I also stated that the GOP establishment won’t allow it. Even if it means losing to the dems.

Quite a quandry, isn’t it?

[BroJoeK]

scrabblehack: "Yes...I find it a bit hard to believe...Gingrich as Speaker abstained on most votes (as do other Speakers)....although I’d be shocked if his ACU rating were as low as 42, or Michele Bachmann’s as low as 80."

If you follow the link, what you find are simple rankings, from most liberal to most conservative -- based on their votes -- for every Congress from the first to the 111th.

If you look, for example, at the 111th Congress, you'll see they rank Ron Paul as the second most conservative Congressman.
I simply converted that to percent and said he votes more conservative than 99% of other Republican Congressmen.
And as of the 111th Congress, all Republicans voted more conservatively than any Democrat.

If you look on the Senate side, you'll see that, for example, John McCain ranks about half way down the list of Republicans -- in other words, half of Republicans voted more conservatively, half less.

For Santorum and Gingrich I went back to previous Congresses, and looked where they stood relative to their peers.
In his last Congress, Gingrich voted more conservatively than 42% of other Republicans. In other words, more than half of Gingrich's Republican peers voted more conservatively than Gingrich.
Santorum in his last congress voted more conservatively than 33% of other Republicans. In other words, two thirds of Santorum's Republican peers voted more conservatively than Santorum.

My point is, except for "severe" conservatives like Paul and Bachmann, these guys all come from the middle of the Republican pack.

[NCole]

No! It means we have to draft someone. I would recommend SC Senator Jim DeMint, he's the only one that has a chance of getting Paul supporters, as he realizes the debt is the most serious issue, and believes in an affordable foreign policy.

[GeronL]

How does DeMint get Paul supporters?

[JediJones]

Newt said he’ll repeal Obamacare, Sarbanes/Oxley, Dodd/Frank on his first day. And he’s been talking about encouraging domestic energy production for years. Plus Newt has the strength to push Congress to go his way. He’ll be willing to take the heat for it and take the cause to the American public to “shame” Congress into doing those things the same way he “shamed” Clinton into passing welfare reform after Clinton vetoed it twice.

No one’s going to repeal the Patriot Act because that would be stupid. We’re at war with Islamic fundamentalists and unilaterally disarming is suicide.

[JediJones]

Grading on a curve is silly though. This isn’t a contest. If every Congressman voted conservative 100% of the time, but one guy only voted conservative 99% of the time, then he would be deemed “less conservative” than 99% of Congressman. Which in this case sounds a lot worse than it is. If the Congress overall is very conservative, than ranking lower among your peers isn’t that bad.

We also need to know how they define conservatism. Voting for tougher penalties for drug-related crimes is conservative to me. The Ron Paulites would think that was being a big government liberal and that it was “conservative” to repeal all drug laws.

[ichabod1]

It may not matter. I think the next congress is going to reassert control over the operation of the feral government. Romeny will do as he’s told (by Congress). I think Santorum might be far more of a principled conservative than he’s ever been in a position to demonstrate. I think Santorum has the most chance to be a Great President.

I thought it was interesting that Ron Paul is the most conservative member of congress. I had never seen that asserted before. The trouble with Paul, and I’m sorry to say it, but he lacks the personality that people want to see in the chief executive. He’s querulous.

[Little Ray]

That’s for sure. The ACU and Moslem-suborned Grover Norquist are no longer such good indicators of “conservatism.”

[BroJoeK]

JediJones: "Grading on a curve is silly though. This isn’t a contest."

Not so silly when you look, for example, at the four most conservative Senators: Barasso, Kyle, Colburn and Demint.
The first two are in Senate leadership positions, the second two, more junior, are frequent public spokesmen, and my point is, those are serious leaders, pulling Congress in a more conservative direction.

By contrast, our presidential candidates mostly come from the center of the pack -- they are neither more nor less conservative than their Republican peers.
They are not leading the way, they are not pushing to the right.
Like "maverick" John McCain they like to reach across the isle.
Like Newt Gingrich, they like to sit down with the Nancy Pelosis to find "common ground" -- not on our ground, but on hers.

JediJones: "We also need to know how they define conservatism."

True, but when you have nearly all Democrats voting one way, and nearly all Republicans the other, then you might assume we're looking at a clear distinction.
So I would give the authors the benefit of the doubt based on the intuitive ideas that 1) we instantly recognize those famous names ranked as most liberal or most conservative, and 2) as well we recognize the "moderates" in the middle, like McCain or Dole.

As for Ron Paul, I don't know how often he votes with liberal Democrats against the military, or some other weirdness like legalizing drugs, but those kinds of votes must be infrequent and virtually all of his other votes are strictly conservative.

Anyway, here's the bottom line: every Republican is more conservative than any Democrat, and so would steer the nation in a better direction.
But wouldn't it be nice if some day more conservative leaders could win more national recognition?

[ansel12]

In his last Congress, Gingrich voted more conservatively than 42% of other Republicans. In other words, more than half of Gingrich's Republican peers voted more conservatively than Gingrich.

Gingrich got a 100% ACU conservative rating that year, how could almost 60% of his fellow Republicans have voted more conservatively than that?

[BroJoeK]

ansell2: "Gingrich got a 100% ACU conservative rating that year, how could almost 60% of his fellow Republicans have voted more conservatively than that?"

Obviously, ACU more carefully selected which votes to count.

This data from voteview.com is a generalized statistical analysis which may include votes that groups like ACU find too unimportant, inconvenient or, ahem, embarrassing to count.

I don't dispute ACU's results, no doubt they have their reasons.
This is simply another take on the data, perhaps broader and more long term.

[ansel12]

It all looked pretty bizarre to me, we tried to ask you to better explain how you flipped everything, and made a 100% ACU conservative rating more liberal than the other 58% of Republican congressman, and how the much more liberal Paul record was manipulated to make it actually the most conservative, but I don’t really see the explanation.

[BroJoeK]

ansel12: "we tried to ask you to better explain how you flipped everything, and made a 100% ACU conservative rating more liberal than the other 58% of Republican congressman."

To be clear: I made no reference to any ACU study (never saw one), except to respond to questions by suggesting a reason why results might differ:

if two studies select different data, or use different methods, then chances are good they'll reach different conclusions.

If you wish more information on the DW-NOMINATE report I've referenced, you might try reading here.
Note that it reaches a very different conclusion than I do.
Note the study is trying to measure "polarization", suggesting that is a bad thing.
I'm saying, no -- our problem is way too many Republicans over-eager to play huggy-bear and kissy-face with Liberals, and that's why we continue to march -- no gallop -- towards socialism.

I'm saying we need more people on the Conservative end of the scale, pulling Liberals in our direction.

Anyway, here seems to be the main point of that DW NOMINATE report:

Among other things, the study tells us that Congress-people like Santorum, Gingrich, McCain and Dole, are less consistent in their votes than some others.

Of course, I have no brief against Newt Gingrich -- I think he's a great guy and will be happy to support him, if he's the nominee.
But since he seems to be your sore point, I'll track where he stood in these reports:

First, whenever Ron Paul is listed (he took some years off from Congress) he is at or near "dead-last", which I take to mean "most conservative" since ranked near him are other known conservatives like Dick Cheney, Dick Armey and and Tom Delay -- all ranked near the "bottom" of the lists.

And so was Gingrich, near the "bottom" of the list -- most conservative -- in his first Congress, the 96th (starting 1979).
That term he ranked 398, compared to Dick Cheney at 423 and Ron Paul "dead last" at 439.

But in every Congress afterward, Gingrich "rose" in the rankings (became more "moderate"):

1. Gingrich: 379 in the 97th Congress (1981), Cheney 419, Paul "dead last" at 437
2. Gingrich: 375 in the 98th Congress (1983), Cheney 422, Paul 437
3. Gingrich: 364 in the 99th Congress (1985), Cheney 422, Delay 429, Armey 433
4. Gingrich: 364 in the 100th Congress (1987), Cheney 422, Delay 432, Armey 432
5. Gingrich 368 in the 101st Congress (1989), Kyle 427, Armey 436
6. Gingrich 364 in the 102nd Congress (1991), Santorum 351, Kyle 423, Armey 432
7. Gingrich 346 in the 103rd Congress (1993), Santorum 331, Delay 429, Armey 432
8. Gingrich 311 in the 104th Congress (1995), Delay 425, Armey 430, Coburn 443
9. Gingrich 305 in the 105th Congress (1997), Delay 421, Armey 428, Coburn 440, Ron Paul 442 -- still "dead last".

Note the comparison between McCain & Santorum:
when John McCain first moved to the Senate, in 1987, he ranked 86 there, meaning only 14 Senators voted more conservatively.
By 1997, he "turned maverick", and "rose" into the 70s, where he stayed until the 111th Congress (2009), when he "fell" back to number 81, meaning among the most conservative senators.

Compare, Senator Rick Santorum's voting ranked about 70th from 1997 (a "moderate" among Republicans), but "rose" to 64th in the 109th Senate in 2005 (a near "liberal"), after which he was defeated for reelection.

These numbers tell me that some but not all people elected to Congress vote their principles consistently over the course of their careers.

And those are the ones who should be encouraged to seek leadership positions, imho.
That's why I find the DW NOMINATE reports interesting.

Of course, you are free to disagree with every aspect of this report.
Perhaps you could link to other reports which in your mind better reflect political realities?

[Marguerite]

"How conservative are these candidates, really?"

I tell you how:

Rick: "I am the most conservative"

Mitt: "I am severely, extremely, obsessionally conservative"

Newt: "Here are my plans to restore America prosperity and greatness"

http://www.newt.org/solutions

Newt doesn't need to say it, EVERYBODY knows he's a staunch conservative Republican, from the age of 19, when he became immersed in politics. He never wavered. He is the best candidate the The Republicans have had in the last 25 years.

America needs SOLUTIONS , not Talking Points

[ansel12]

Gibberish, good luck with selling this nonsense.

[BroJoeK]

Marguerite: "Newt doesn't need to say it, EVERYBODY knows he's a staunch conservative Republican, from the age of 19, when he became immersed in politics.
He never wavered.
He is the best candidate the The Republicans have had in the last 25 years."

I like Newt. If he's the nominee, I'll be happy to support him.
But statistics suggest that none of these candidates (aside from Ron Paul who I do not support and Michelle Bachmann who's out of it) are as consistently conservative as they now pretend.
All have wandered off the reservation, "gone maverick" and pussy-footed with Liberals when it suited them.

In short, Newt's various affairs and new wives correlate with his loyalty to political conservatism.
Ideologically as well as physically, Newt has a "wandering eye."

But aside from Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann, none of the other candidates were particularly consistent either -- all have records in the middle-of-the-road a la John McCain and Bob Dole.

Of course, all are vastly better than any Democrat, especially the incumbent President, but we shouldn't kid ourselves that these guys are in any way "radical" or "severe" conservatives.
They're not, and that's the point of this post.

[BroJoeK]

ansel12: "Gibberish, good luck with selling this nonsense."

I take your response to mean that you missed the point and have no data to offer supporting your own opinions.

Have a nice day!

[ansel12]

Again, Gibberish to normal people, what drives you?

[Marguerite]

“Newt’s various affairs and new wives correlate with his loyalty to political conservatism.
Ideologically as well as physically, Newt has a “wandering eye.”

Here we go:

Prior to his second marriage, Woodrow Wilson had a relationship with a woman named Mary Allen Hulbert.

Franklin Roosevelt had an affair with Lucy Page Mercer, whom Eleanor Roosevelt had hired as her social secretary. Mercer was with President Roosevelt when he died in 1945 in Warm Springs, Georgia.

During World War II, General Dwight Eisenhower had an extra-marital relationship with Kate Summersby, his personal secretary and military aide.

John F. Kennedy had an affair with a Mafia moll, Judith Exner, and Marilyn Monroe, among many other reported.

Bill Clinton had numerous affairs before and after he was elected.

Gingrich divorced twice (the average rate in America) and he’s happily married for the last 12 years. I really don’t see what that has to do with his unwavering conservative politics in a 50-year career.

If Gingrich were candidate to sainthood, I guess he would fail, but he is candidate for the US president office.

GO, NEWT!