Centerfield

Ben Nelson (ACU score 52) is more popular in largely Republican Nebraska than Chuck Hagel (ACU score 85) -- optimism for centrists.

In case anyone couldn't figger, these approval ratings for senators are ratings by the senator's home state constituents.

I couldn't help but notice that of the senators most liked by their constituents, most were democrats, and at least half of the republicans are moderates/RINOs: 13 D, 1 Ind, 6 gop: Collins, Snowe, McCain, Stevens, Lott, Hutchinson.

Of the senators least liked by their constituents, 19 of 24 are GOP (I used 24 in order to include all of the senators tied at 50%). Other issues aside, that doesn't augur well for the GOP.

The other thing that's interesting is the few senators who had a combined change of say 8 to 10 or more. Presumedly thise senators did something that made their consituents sit up and take notice...

Note that since the Nuclear standoff ended, Sen. Frist's numbers have plummeted by a full 7%. By contrast, McCain and Warner dipped by 2%, Graham and DeWine by 1%. Chafee GAINED 5% in heavily Dem RI, while Snowe's number remained more-or-less where they've always been - 71% of all respondents approve of Sen. Snowe's performance, including 100% of African Americans, 80% of Democrats, 65% of Republicans and a majority of conservatives. That primary challenge idea is dead letter.

If this is the heavy price moderates are paying for the compromise, then the right really is all hat and no cattle. It seems that the real fall guy here is Frist.

Simon, maybe not.

If this is the heavy price moderates are paying for the compromise, then the right really is all hat and no cattle.

Huzzah! A monolith is only as good as its foundation. Once the compromise busted the appearance of invulnerability, things started to slide back towards the "normal" scrum. The idea that the party could put any kind of hurt on Collins or Snowe was never taken seriously.

The figure to watch is the "spread." Anyone up for re-election next year with a spread under 15 points should be watched. Seeing Coburn take a big hit in his ratings cheers me up, but he's not back on the ballot for five years.

I'm not a fan of either one of my Senators. One's a lightweight, while the other has emerged as the Vatican's Representative to DC. Interestingly enough, Mel Martinez--the Vatican's mouthpiece--has the lowest approval ratings of any Senator. (35%)

He's had a lot of bad press in Florida, particularly in his home town of Orlando. Many of his closest friends and advisors have gone to the media claiming that he is now too "good" for them and never calls them when he is home from DC. It may sound petty, but if it's a pattern, people pick up on that. One of the enduring legacies of the man he replaced--Bob Graham--was that he was seen as an everyday man. (Despite his family's ownership of the Washington Post and vast wealth.)

Nelson, a moderate Democrat, is sitting at 50%. As of right now, it looks like he'll be facing the Vancome Lady in November. (Katherine Harris) I would venture a guess that he could be in trouble...we'll have to see how people react to old Katherine. Despite the national media's distaste of her, she is from one of the oldest and most influential families in the state.

Yeah, I only like one of my three Congresscritters at all. The one who serves his constituents well (ALL of them) instead of showboating and sermonizing.

When they start talking about "higher principles," hide your wallet and check your powder.

I made a slight error when I stated Martinez had the lowest...I was looking at the May ratings. As one of my buddies just pointed out, Martinez has risen above the "Justice Slayer" (Coryn) and the "Cadaver" (Lautenberg).

Movin' on up...

Nelson, a moderate Democrat...

For the record, he has a lifetime 14 rating from the American Conservative Union (if he is in fact a moderate, his opposite Chuck Hagel would be considered a moderate as well with a score of 85). Bob Graham ended with a rating of 18.

Cornyn has a 93 to Lautenberg's 6...unpopular folks at the poles.

Scott, that would sure be true if we were just talking about integers instead of subjective ratings, but....

If I were to try to use these subjective ratings for comparative purposes, I'd plot the scores on a range from highest to lowest among democrats. Then I'd divide them into quartiles, and call the top 4th conservative dems, the middle half moderate dems, and bottom 4th liberal dems. In other words, I'd consider the raw number meaningless, and focus on the ranked order. Is that what you did?

Hey, I don't see my Senators on that list. Oh, that's right, I live in Washington, DC.

Off topic, but, some form of real congressional representation for the District should be a part (if even a small part) of any electoral reform movement. It's ridiculous that American citizens who pay full federal taxes would be denied representation.

Alan,

I guess I pretty much agree with you, but it's just not going to happen anytime soon. For one thing, that would automatically add 2 Democrats to the US Senate. Of course, if Puerto Rico was given the same rights, it could also add some Republicans to the equation.

What I wonder about is when the Dems controlled DC for as long as they didn't, why didn't they do anything about it? They had majorities in Clinton's first two years, but did nothing. They've just never made it a priority.

Brian, I'd agree but...what if it was commonly agreed that all representatives of party X were dovish socialists while those of party Y were hawkish free market fascists? All of X registered near 0, all of Y registering near 100...is the dovish socialist who scores a 5 a "conservative Dem"?

For the purposes of what I wrote about, since the "agreed with ACU" position is 100 while the opposite is 0, I concluded any representative that was equidistant from one pole as another representative was from the other pole, representative 1 could safely be called as equally moderate as his converse.

We need to get the ADA ratings through 2004 into this -- turn either conservative or liberal into the "100" rating, then sum the two ratings.

I'm with Alan.

Also Brian, in case you haven't seen the ACU ratings, they're based on votes and ACU's weighting of the importance of each vote. ADA does the ratings much the same way.

It's not subjective in the way I believe you're thinking, i.e. 10 ACU people sit around a table, 5 say Hillary Clinton's an 11, 5 others say she's a 7, so her total rating is a 9. If there are 100 equally weighted votes in the Senate, and Hillary has sided with the ACU 9% of the time, her rating is a 9.

If the numbers are scrunched, that causes problems for quartile-based reasoning. But surely you agree that one could better argue that a 14 signified a liberal democrat if that person were ranked 5th most liberal than 28th most liberal, unless they are clustered extraordinarily closely. (Which, by the way, would be very advantageous for such a partisan interest group since the ratings would "prove" that all liberals are the same...) I'm always amazed but not surprised when people jump to accept the invitation that a number always implies some form of superior objectivity. It might, but...

This all just points at the extremely limited utility of such ratings (leaving aside political utility of course) Even so, the scale implies 50 as a political moderate and so 25 as a moderate democrat, which is what I thought we were chatting about.

DC-ites deserve representation, even if it means granting everyone who lives there the ability to choose an adjoining state in which they get to vote. I am fine with statehood, and am also fine with telling place like Puerto Rico and, say, Guam, to sh!t or get off the pot: become a state or go it alone.

But surely you agree that one could better argue that a 14 signified a liberal democrat if that person were ranked 5th most liberal than 28th most liberal

In the context of the voting habits of one party in one body (eg the Senate), yes, but not absolutely. It would just make the argument easier.

DC-ites deserve representation, even if it means granting everyone who lives there the ability to choose an adjoining state in which they get to vote.

As a resident of one adjoining states, please leave us out of this fight. DC has a representative in Congress, albeit a non-voting member. DC wants two Senators. DC, Maryland and Virginia voters are all united in not sharing Senators.

If the Republicans would return DC's representative voting privileges, that would do much to assuage DC's complaints.

Alan, I disagree. I think a better decision would be for DC to cede all but the vital, Federal areas back to Maryland, thereby bringing DC's population representation as part of that state, rather than making it a de facto state unto and of itself.

A couple of comments from AZ. John McCain is not a moderate he's an iconoclast (and I'm not saying that in a bad way). I'm surprised at Kyl's number. He's a low key conservative who hasn't had much opposition. What are folks unhappy about and why hasn't it reflected in the polls?

In 1978, an overwhelming bipartisan support, both chambers of Congress pass the DC Voting Rights Constitutional Amendment, which would give District residents voting representation in the House and the Senate, by two-thirds majority in each chamber.

Only 16 of the required states ratified it by 1985.

I doubt Maryland wants DC. And, anyway, I'm not sure they can annex DC without a constitutional amendment, given that the Constitution establishes DC as its own district free of any state.

And the Democrats didn't do anything about it in 1992-94 because it would take a constitutional amendement to give DC senators and representatives and they probably figured they didn't have the 2/3rds needed.

The whole "two more Dem senators" is a major part of the problem. Not only would they be Democrats but they would be FAR left Democrats.

But, really, that doesn't matter. It's taxation without representation. Which is why you can't lump Puerto Rico in with us. Their citizens don't pay federal income taxes. The only Americans that pay federal income tax and don't have representation are those living in Washington, DC. This is, when you think about it, ridiculous.

Oh, and congress still has the authority to change our laws if it wants to.

Actually, Scott, it's subjective in exactly the way I'm thinking. Of course they have a method mor sophiscated than extracting integers from rectal cavities. Big whoop!. The method doesn't get rid of the intitial subjectivity. ACU's ratings are based on the assumption that the ACU represenst perfect conservatism and that all their positions are entirely correct. Then they use their "system" to quantify a subjective classification. Liberal and Conservative are simply not quantifiable terms.

What the ratings really are is this: a measure of obedience to the ACU. This is not to say that they are without value, especially to the ACU and its closest adherents. but they're undeniably highly subjective, just as subjective as every single one of the ACU's positions. Or those of any other partisan organization.

Three notes.

1. Every Senators has a net positive. So even though Rs are a majority of the bottom half, it looks like incumbency is still strong.

2. Of those up for re-election in 2006, more Dems are near the bottom including Nelson (FL), Stabenow (MI), and Dayton (MN).

3. These numbers are for "adults" which is significantly different than "registered voters" or "likely voters." So they may gauge support well, but actual voters tend to be a few points more Republican.

ACU's ratings are based on the assumption that the ACU represenst perfect conservatism.

Yes, that is a base assumption and an admitted flaw.

Also, that's why I think using the ADA ratings and making an adjusted average between the two sets of ratings would help to remove single group subjectivity. E.g. Russ Feingold gets a 98 from the ADA but a 12 (88) from the ACU.

None of this quantification is perfect, naturally, but it's a good launch pad of sorts.

Yeah, that's why I asked for a liberal groups rankings.

I bet if we took the middle 25 from each list, we'd have a decent start.

Also, I'm very curious as to the identity of senators on whom the wings disagree. I'd consider looking very highly on anyone that both sides is reluctant to call their own, or eager.

McCain in particular, is often called a moderate by some even though he's pretty conservative, IMO. Some in the GOP call him a RINO, which is really representative of insufficient loyalty much moreso than ideological impurity.

Hmmm... Jeffords has among the very highest approval ratings in the entire list.

Saw that, Kevin. Anyone that well liked by their constituency is doing something right. He still trails Leahy by a bit, though.

I'm suprised Levin isn't more popular considering his raw sex appeal.

(Sorry, Wonkette made me do it.)

I'm glad to see that Cornyn is down there. He's emerged as somebody whose mouth is way too fast for his brain.