Utah Democrat Rep. Matheson won’t seek 8th term

Associated Press ^ | Dec 17, 2013 7:54 PM EST | Michelle L. Price

[Olog-hai]

U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, Utah’s only Democrat in Congress, announced Tuesday that he will not seek re-election, easing the way for Republicans to pick up another House seat in a solidly red state.

Matheson was expected to face a tough repeat challenge in 2014 from Saratoga Springs Mayor Mia Love, a Republican he narrowly defeated in 2012.

While Utah Democrats admitted Matheson’s decision not to run for an eighth term is a blow, they’re hoping it will set him up to challenge U.S. Sen. Mike Lee or Gov. Gary Herbert, both Republicans who are up for re-election in 2016. …

[fieldmarshaldj]

If he’s garnering all these “Republicans”, why is he fleeing from running for another term ? Methinks he knows he will lose. As I said, the Matheson name is not nearly the force some believe it is (if it was, his brother would’ve been easily elected Governor).

[wita]

Well, knock thiyself out.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/projects/scorecard/?year=2012&chamber=2&state=Any&party=Any&memberName=

Matheson is 141 out of 435 my own Congress person somewhat lower and considered conservative although the voting record doesn’t quite support the title.

So, either the House isn’t near as conservative as anyone might think since you can’t even go down 150 out of 435 and still find a conservative, or the definition of conservative is screwed up, or any test of voting record for conservative is screwed up, or no one past the top ten meet the test, or all four.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Thanks for the link...

Obviously, Club for Growth must have different standards and priorities for ranking “Conservative.” Some of this looks like a Paulite standard. Any group that would give Justin Amash #1 is going to be questionable. I don’t trust Amash, and his going to bat for the Iranian President against a joke made by McCain was outright bizarre.

I know for a fact that Scott DesJarlais (ranked 107th), despite his personal problems of the past, is the most Conservative member from my state of TN, yet this list has Stephen Fincher, who is establishment-leaning and takes gov’t subsidies despite being quite wealthy, as the “best” from TN. Cassidy of LA, the leading challenger to Landrieu, is a RINO to the point that I’ve accused him of being a ringer for her next year, yet he ranks at 77.

Allen West at 106th place, below RINO Pete Sessions of TX ?

Matheson jumped from 42% to 68% for an election year by their reckoning (which again contradicts the ACU, which says he is still in the low 40s). That simply doesn’t pass the smell test, either. Many of the Dems appear to have “doubled” their scores from the prior year, but there certainly has been no movement from the caucus in reality to be headed in the right direction (if anything, the GOP moving left — and your hypothesis that Congress isn’t nearly as Conservative as some think is actually correct).

In any event, we’re probably better off getting an amalgamation of the scores from different groups to rank individuals (and I’d even take into account public statements beyond just their voting records). Even the ACU gets a bit odd with its ratings from year to year.

[wita]

Thanks for the reply and amen to all. The amalgamation list would be most interesting to say the least.

[fieldmarshaldj]

One thing else I might as well throw in is that it’s impossible really to rank a single individual at 100% “in the right”, since most of us here cannot agree on precisely what that would be.

Take an issue like the War on Drugs, which some FReepers disagree on. Those in favor of legalization would be ranked as A+ by the one side and F by the opposition (and vice-versa). Although that’s not as big an issue as immigration and gay marriage now. I would personally view a politician not voting in favor of strict controls on one (or at least vigorous enforcement of existing laws) on immigration and not diligently opposing the bizarre redefinition of marriage (which is a war against the very foundation of family and our religious institutions) as being anti-Conservative.

Same goes for those not voting against an out-of-control administration on spending. The recent budget, as an example, which gets an “F” from me, 7 out of the 9 members from my state of TN (2 Dems, 5 GOP) voted for the abomination and the other 2 Republicans (DesJarlais and Duncan) voted against, yet another reason I place DesJarlais as the most Conservative (he is loathed by the GOP establishment). Duncan tends to lean towards the Paleo position on issues, which has its own set of standards on Conservatism, which I don’t entirely agree with.

[Deagle]

Heh, am a Tea Party member and am wondering just why everyone is up in arms? Just what did I say that was so un-Republican (although I almost despise Republicans as much as Democrats - as they always pursue money interests over constituents...same as Democrats! Only the blind will notice the difference. I have become a Libertarian lately and really wish the Republicans well as the Democrats have taken control of things lately!

[AuH2ORepublican]

I’ve been saying for a decade now that a combination of several vote ratings would be better than anu one rating. I prefer to average the “conservative score” for 6 ratings that appear in Barone’s Almanac. Three of the ratings sre by conservative groups (ACU, Club for Growth andFamily Research Council), and the other three are from liberal groups (ADA, AFSCME and League of Conservation Voters),, so I first subtract the liberal score from 100 to get a conservative score (e.g., an ADA score of 68% is equivalent to a conservative score of 32).

[Impy]

I’ve been a fan of the Club for Growth but if they’re “pro-growth scorecard” for 2012 ranks Matheston as more “pro-growth” than conservative Republicans such as John Shimkus and Erik Paulson I have to question their criteria for that year.

And I know we like to hate people like Eric Cantor (also rated below Matheson for 2012) Matheson but that is also a friggin joke to pretend Matheston is half as conservative as him even in a single election year when he was running scared.

As DJ has pointed out Club for Growth’s lifetime ratings gives Matheson a 42%, (Shimkus a 72%).

I used to rely on ACU ratings, they’ve had some weird numbers in recent years though. And the current 2012 ratings are only available in the form of a “scribd” page where they appear sideways. WTF? Their operation has gotten pretty shoddy.

Still, their lifetime ratings for longtime members are still fairly decent, I would say. Shimkus get’s an 87. Matheson gets a 40. That’s on par or slightly worse than the most liberal RINOs to serve in Congress. Pre-party switch Jim Jeffords and former Maryland House Liberal Connie Morella are the only Republicans I’ve seen with lifetime scores under 40 from ACU. Arlen Specter as a Republican got 44% lifetime.

And let’s not forget, he votes against his party on some things on purpose in an ongoing effort to fool idiots in his district into thinking he’s less liberal than he is and voting for him. He’d vote half as conservative as he does now if his district wasn’t heavily Republican. And he’d vote down the line moonbat if he had the good fortune (for him) to represent a safely rat seat. Let’s also not forget the most important thing, all democrats are DEMOCRATS who support having democrat organization of the House which means MOONBAT MAJORITIES on every committee. So the most conservative rat (which is not Matheson) is still a filthy traitor to this country for the first 2 votes they cast every 2 years (for Speaker and for House rules).

I believe AuH2ORepublican uses his own personal formula that combines various organizational rankings.

[Impy]

Speak of the devil. ;p

We should publish your ratings somehow.

[wita]

Very interesting thread, I appreciate the Christmas Spirit, and the depth of conversation.

Merry Christmas to all, thanks for a good time and to Jim Robinson for making it possible.

[wintertime]

Matheson was expected to face a tough repeat challenge in 2014 from Saratoga Springs Mayor Mia Love, a Republican he narrowly defeated in 2012.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Ute Indian reservations like stole the election for him.

[AuH2ORepublican]

I think that the big Ute reservation lies in the UT-01 and UT-03 CDs, not in Matheson’s UT-04.

Here’s a map of the big Ute reservation in Utah:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uintah_and_Ouray_Indian_Reservation

And here’s a map of the CDs used in UT commencing with the 2912 elections:

http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/printableViewer.htm?imgF=images/preview/congdist/pagecgd113_ut.gif&imgW=792&imgH=612

[AuH2ORepublican]

Anyone can replicate “my” ratings. There’s nothing particularly clever or difficult about it: I merely take the ratings fron 6 ideological vote scorers found in Barone’s Almanac (first having converted the scores from liberal groups to “conservative scores” by subtracting the liberal score from 100 (e.g., a 24 ADA score becomes a 76 conservative score), add up the 6 conservative scores, and then divide by 600 (the maximum number of points possible).

In the 2014 Almanac, we get ratings from 8 groups for each of 2011 and 2012 and ratings from 2 groups for 2011 ONLY. I only look at the scores from the liberal ADA, AFSCME (labor) and LCV (environmental) and the conservative ACU, CFG (economic) and FRC (social). All but AFSCME have scores for both 2011 and 2012, which I average. (Another way would be to add the ratings for each year and add the AFSCME rating twice and then divide by 1,200.) Let me go through the math for a couple of congressmen to show you how it’s done:

John Shimkus (R-IL):

According to Barone’s Almanac, Shimkus received 2012 and 2011 ratings of 75% and 68%, respectively, from the ACU (which are averaged as 71.5%), 67% and 56% from the CFG (average 61.5%),and 83% and 90% from the FRC (86.5% average). The combined scores from the three conservative groups were 71.5 + 61.5 + 86.5 = 219.5.

Also according to the Almanac, Shimkus got 2012 and 2011 ratings of 0% and 5%, respectively, from ADA (average score of 2.5%) and of 9% and 11%, respectively, from LCV (average score if 10%); his 2011 AFSCME rating was 0%. His liberal scores thus were 2.5%, 10% and 0%, which are converted to conservative scores of 97.5%, 90% and 100%. The combined “conservative scores” from liberal groups were 97.5 + 90 + 100 = 287.5.

To find the total conservative percentage, we add 219.5 plus 287.5 to get 507. 507 divided by 600 (the maximum number of total points) gives us 84.5%. So, using an amalgamation of those six ideological vote raters, Shimkus’s voting record on important ideological votes was 84.5% conservative uring the 112th Congress (2011-2012).

Jim Matheson (D-UT):

Matheson voted far less liberal in election- year 2012 than in 2011, but averaging the two years gives us a truer score. Matheson’s ratings for 2012 and 2011, respectively from liberal groups were 20% and 50% from ADA (35% average) and 17% and 37% from LCV (27% average); his 2011 rating from AFSCME was 43%. Converting these to conservative scores yields 65, 73 and 57, which add up to 195.

Conservative groups rated Matheson’s votes during 2012 and 2011, respectively, as 56% and 42% from the ACU (59% average), 68% and 35% from CFG (51.5% average), and 83% and 30% from FRC (56.5% average; the pro-abortion Matheson started voting pro-life when he saw the new congressional district lines). The sum of ratings from conservative groups was 59 + 51.5 + 56.5 = 167.

Adding up Matheson’s conservative scores from all six groups, we get 195 + 167 = 362, which divided by 600 yields a 60.3:% conservative vote percentage; by comparison, NC’s Mike McIntyre, a genuine moderate-to-conservative Democrat, had a total conservative vote rating of 65.17%. BTW, had we only looked at 2011 scores, Matheson’s conservative rating would have been a measly 46.17%, and McIntyre’s a 56.86%.

Justin Amash (Paultard-MI):

Amash supporters always brag about his 100% scores from the Club for Growth, but his other vote ratings prove that he’s nowhere as conservative as they think (and, I would add, his foreign-policy views are downright dangerous).

Amash’s ratings during 2012 and 2011, respectively from liberal groups were 65% and 20% from ADA (42.5% average—higher than Democrat Matheson!) and 23% and 9% from LCV (16% average); his 2011 rating from AFSCME was 14%. Converting these to conservative scores yields 57.5, 84 and 86, which add up to 227.5.

Conservative groups rated Amash’s scores during 2012 and 2011, respectively, as 84% and 92% from the ACU (88% average), 100% and 100% from CFG (100% average) and 66% and 70% from FRC (68%). His combined score from conservative groups was 256.

Amash’s aggregate conservative scores were 227.5 + 256 = 483.5, which divided by 600 yields a conservative vote percentage of 80.58%. Barely a B minus for the supposed A+ student. And if we looked only at 2012 (and assume that he would get the same 14% from AFSCME), his conservative percentage is a pitiful 74.67%.

Others:

I’m not going to show all my work for these others, but here are a few more total conservative percentages, these for some very conservative folks and for some liberal moonbats:

Jim Jordan (R-OH): 95.00%

Steve Scalise (R-LA): 94.56%

Scott Garrett (R-NJ): 94.67%

David Schweikert (R-AZ): 94.00%

Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): 3.92%

Xavier Becerra (D-CA): 5.42%

John Lewis (D-GA): 4.92%

Jan Schakowsky (D-IL): 4.75%

[Impy]

Merry Christmas to you too.

[Impy]

Amash’s ratings during 2012 and 2011, respectively from liberal groups were 65% and 20% from ADA (42.5% average—higher than Democrat Matheson!)

Fail. Too bad that Paulbot Amash fan from last week was banned, I would like to hear his 'scuses.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Oh, there stoll are plenty of Amash acolytes around, with threads about how Amash and Bentivolio are the only true conservatives in the Michigan delegation.

[wita]

Frankly, and I’m no expert, but the math and effort required to do what no one else is doing but you at least to my limited knowledge might be worth the effort to either form your own site to distribute, or partner with FR to have an ongoing by year rating that appears far more accurate than the individual efforts of partisan raters.

What better way to educate the public taking into account both sides of the political spectrum in the process. I like it, as one more way to hold real elected officials feet to the fire, especially those truly concerned about their constituents.

So, I’m going to try it on my own Congresswoman.

ADA, AFSCME, LCV Liberal Groups.

ACU, CFG, FRC Conservative Groups.

Convert liberal to conservative add all six scores and divide by 600.

Unfamiliar with Barone’s Almanac but it might behoove me to become familiar. You only used it to choose the six vote scorers if I understand your method.

So am I missing anything important, and what would factoring in more raters, especially conservative, do to the ratings, other than increase the score for conservatives. I’m looking at Heritage Action, and Club for Growth specifically.

[AuH2ORepublican]

I already included Club for Growth (I abbreviated it CFG).

I use Michael Barone’s The Almanac of American Politics, 2014 edition, not only to select the 6 ideological vote raters, but to obtain said ratings for 2011 and 2012; of course, one can obtain the ratings by visiting six different websites, which might be a good idea a few months from now to see whether ratings for 2013 are up.

As for adding other raters, one has to be careful how it is done, since if, for example, you included two economic-conservative groups in addition to the CFG, the overall rating would be tilted in favor of economic conservatives and would not give sufficient importance to social issues.

I certainly don’t have the time to compute amalgamated conservative ratings for all 435 House members and 100 Senators, but if someone computes them (a spreadsheet would be the easiest way to do so), we can create an FR thread for the ratings.

[wita]

I was under the impression, not sure why, that you had done an amalgamation. Well the process alone is a significant step in the right direction. Not sure why I didn’t equate CFG with you know who, but I’m offering no excuses.

Your process needs a catchy name.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Well, the final score is the product of an amalgamation of six scores.

How about Total Conservative Index (TCI)?