Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe New Political Rating System That Shows the Stakes This Year
Last edited Tue Sep 2, 2014, 10:34 AM - Edit history (1)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/upshot/elections-2014-where-the-candidates-stand.html?rref=upshot&abt=0002&abg=1&_r=1The New Political Rating System That Shows the Stakes This Year
Elections 2014: Where the Candidates Stand
Any one of five or six campaigns could determine which party wins control of the Senate in November. Yet the race in Iowa is worth an extra dash of attention, not only because its been among the most entertaining full of target practice, hog castration and the Koch brothers but also because of the ideological distance between the two candidates. Its even bigger than in many other races.
In Arkansas, Mark Pryor, the incumbent locked in a tough race, is among the Senates most conservative Democrats. In New Hampshire, Scott Brown, the challenger, is a well-known moderate among Republicans. Representative Renee Ellmers, left, a Republican from North Carolinas Second Congressional District, is running for re-election against Clay Aiken. In Iowa, though, neither of the candidates Bruce Braley, a Democratic House member, and Joni Ernst, a Republican state senator qualifies as a centrist. Mr. Braley has a populist tinge to his politics, like the senator hes trying to succeed, Tom Harkin. Ms. Ernst is an Iraq veteran who has questioned the need for a federal minimum wage. Come November, one of them, and only one of them, will have a national platform to advance his or her views.
...
Until now, it has been nearly impossible to compare the ideological gap in Senate and House campaigns systematically. But an online service making its debut on Tuesday, known as Crowdpac, aims to change that. Using the work of a Stanford political scientist, it gives an ideological score to all candidates, based on their donors and, for those who have held federal office before, their voting history. Other rating systems tend to be based only on votes and, as a result, dont cover candidates who havent been in Congress before.
The Crowdpac database goes back to 1980, allowing for a portrait of American politics over the last generation. It shows, not surprisingly, that moderate candidates in both parties used to win elections more frequently than they do now. Today, elected officials within each party are more similar to one another and more different from the other side than in the recent past.
Elections 2014: Where the Candidates Stand
Any one of five or six campaigns could determine which party wins control of the Senate in November. Yet the race in Iowa is worth an extra dash of attention, not only because its been among the most entertaining full of target practice, hog castration and the Koch brothers but also because of the ideological distance between the two candidates. Its even bigger than in many other races.
In Arkansas, Mark Pryor, the incumbent locked in a tough race, is among the Senates most conservative Democrats. In New Hampshire, Scott Brown, the challenger, is a well-known moderate among Republicans. Representative Renee Ellmers, left, a Republican from North Carolinas Second Congressional District, is running for re-election against Clay Aiken. In Iowa, though, neither of the candidates Bruce Braley, a Democratic House member, and Joni Ernst, a Republican state senator qualifies as a centrist. Mr. Braley has a populist tinge to his politics, like the senator hes trying to succeed, Tom Harkin. Ms. Ernst is an Iraq veteran who has questioned the need for a federal minimum wage. Come November, one of them, and only one of them, will have a national platform to advance his or her views.
...
Until now, it has been nearly impossible to compare the ideological gap in Senate and House campaigns systematically. But an online service making its debut on Tuesday, known as Crowdpac, aims to change that. Using the work of a Stanford political scientist, it gives an ideological score to all candidates, based on their donors and, for those who have held federal office before, their voting history. Other rating systems tend to be based only on votes and, as a result, dont cover candidates who havent been in Congress before.
The Crowdpac database goes back to 1980, allowing for a portrait of American politics over the last generation. It shows, not surprisingly, that moderate candidates in both parties used to win elections more frequently than they do now. Today, elected officials within each party are more similar to one another and more different from the other side than in the recent past.
See link for more, including graphic of ratings.
Edited to add missing link.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 709 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The New Political Rating System That Shows the Stakes This Year (Original Post)
Scuba
Sep 2014
OP