https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

as do cory booker and kirsten gillibrand.

interesting.

I’m bsing

99 days until midterms. I’m shook.


TIL update
She really is married to a white man. Yeah, I’m keeping that in mind next time some “blackity black blacks” go for her neck.

whether fair or not

I totally get get record as AG and DA are less than ideal
But the lack of praise ever for her raised some red flags to me.

I don't give a fuck about that sort of stuff but I imagine the imaginary conservative voter persona we all seem to cater towards would care about this

Plus, she was unmarried until she was well into her 40's, and was hooked up with Willie Brown (!), so she'll be able to say she tried with black men, but it just didn't work.

No other demographic will hold it against her that she's married to a white dude.

not all tho...

White women are funny about that shit too.

sideways most likely aren't gonna vote anyways

>White women are funny about that shit too.

>>White women are funny about that shit too.<<


Dat shit fux with them FAREAL!

I once overheard some Beckys talking about one of their peoples that has a preference for Sistas and the line that stuck out most was:





Becky: I mean, I just don't get it. Why would he choose to get with another Black girl if he has the option to date White?


Shorty was real-life hurt by it. Her glass-house of white supremacy was crumbling and her inferiority-complex was on full display in 4k HD resolution somethin serious!

With direct defense focus her stance and actions with regards to policing.

this chick has been calling herself black all day every day. people just making up history at this point.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/kamala-harris-forced-address-alleged-sex-assault-husband-s-law-n1063321


has nothing to do with emhoff and harris, but it will be brought up to undermine harris vp prospect, yet her husband had nothing to do with it

I think Bernie thing is he doesn't have the most "progressive" voting record on gun control? He lives in Vermont. He doesn't have to.

I just don't believe you have to agree on every issue to be a progressive person.

Progressive Purity test will kill Dems.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

caucuses with Dems.

It's funny Benrie is an independent when he wants to be and a dem when he needs to be.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

building of the Democratic Party and infrastructure?

i belong to a million different mailing lists and most the major elected dem officials constantly send out fundraising and gotv emails for other dems. like a bunch of them are getting people involved in the upcoming special election in ohio. or they just do general party fundraising for the dlcc/dccc/dnc. basically playing team ball.

the bernie and our revolution emails just basically trash the establishment and support 'progressive' candidates looking to unseat incumbent dems or win open seats in primaries against party-backed opponents.

dude is basically running a third party operation but using dem resources when it suits his agenda.

every now and then they all unify around the same candidate like stacey abrams in georgia but thats becoming more and more rare these days.

Is destructive and parasitic

I legit don’t get how people are still rocking with him
And I voted for him and believe in his policies
When the choice was him or HRC I voted for him.
But since then he’s done nothing to address his blindspots
And his race blindness may have “worked” in the immediate follow up to Obama, but with the fissure that this white nationalist administration has opened up, someone needs to tackled that head on.
And he’s not the guy

i really dont get his cult members either.

with democracy hanging on a thread and a unified far right government repealing rights/protections for marginalized groups and working class citizens...apparently the biggest threat we face today in their eyes are centrist democrats who saved healthcare for millions of americans and fought against massive wealth distribution to billionaires in the form of tax cuts.

peace & blessings,

x.

www.twitter.com/poetx

=========================================
I'm an advocate for working smarter, not harder. If you just
focus on working hard you end up making someone else rich and
not having much to show for it. (c) mad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiiygzGY6SI&feature=youtu.be&t=2652

this is the segment from michael moore's most recent doc film showing how he was robbed by the DNC.


his campaign, now headed by a muslim american who was the former staffer with the ACLU, is using it's years-old email list as an organizing tool in support of migrants:

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/25/18715627/bernie-sanders-email-list-warn-immigrants-ice-raids-2020

Like cool have your opinion and what not
But I’m also free to have mine which is to think yours is a bogus one

not prosthelytize. you can keep it moving meanwhile someone else reading likely appreciates insight.

such a fucking mess.

In Minnesota, they endorsed FOUR different candidates for governor ahead of the state Dem convention, essentially as a way to say they were not endorsing one of the choices. Except delegates can't choose "anyone not named Tim Walz," so it was essentially a pointless endorsement.

Now with the primary coming up, the official state chapter has endorsed one candidate, while some of their more active regional chapters endorsed someone else entirely (who would not only cut into the vote share of the much less well-known person the state chapter endorsed, but also used to work in the fucking Bush White House.)

And they accidentally endorsed an ICE agent for an open Congressional seat in the northeastern part of the state.

Just a complete shitshow. They're also getting a reputation for issuing endorsements before they've even sent out their candidate surveys, which seems completely backwards.

I'm genuinely disappointed by what a ragtag operation they've been, because a national progressive organization that is able to direct people's efforts/talking points would be an increidbly useful thing.

crazy ass dennis kucinich didnt even get 25% lol. like how do you let a fox news russia conspiracy assad apologist trump supporter get your endorsement in a serious statewide *dem* primary?

and i didnt even know they are backing richard painter against tina smith.

i think they have just become a weapon of nina turners grievance with the democratic party. by your reply...im assuming you read the politico piece a while back about their issues.

>>I just don't believe you have to agree on every issue to be a progressive person.

but hasn't Bernie been in office longer than those folks you mentioned? Being that Washington is a fairly dirt town in terms of having to compromise yourself to get bills passed, him serving in Washington for a while could factor into those numbers you posted up.

gillibrand and harris still come out on top.

It is silly to use this to make any distinctions. So not very interesting

and i like her but yea

corporate establishment neoliberal centrist dinos and so on.
and bernie is supposed to be the progressive benchmark.

at the very *least* they are damn near identical on actual policy.

so why the attacks from the left on the other senators?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/14/14262732/cory-booker-senate-democrats

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article167825757.html

literally typed corey booker not progressive

https://www.google.com/search?q=corey+booker+not+progressive&rlz=1C1LENP_enUS693US693&oq=corey+booker+not+progressive&aqs=chrome..69i57.7863j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=kamala+harris+not+progressive&rlz=1C1LENP_enUS693US693&oq=kamala+harris+not+progressive&aqs=chrome..69i57.6296j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

seems like those weiner, rahm, carville etc attack dog types are a dying breed in the party.

He's just doing it to people in Chicago who don't want to spend 95 million dollars on a new police academy.

he seems hell bent on locking down that crossover republican vote.

You don't need a single Republican vote to be mayor of Chicago. And if you're an incumbent, you don't even really need to court corporate donors that thoroughly, since your competition is usually gonna run at you from the left.

So this probably isn't just 4th dimensional chess. Or maybe it is, and he just sucks at it. If the play is for a better elected position in the future, then it's a pretty bad one. The "mayor of the murder capital of the universe" label isn't going to go away even if its not really true. And spending a ton of money on the Jon Burge Institute for Torturing Black People isn't really going to shore up the Democrat base in Illinois. So he's just made himself into a uniquely un-viable 'tweener.

dude has accumulated a lot of political allies that like to be repaid in a timely manner.

I was joking about Avegahdi, although I would pull for himnationally if he's the option

https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?topic=&house=senate&sort=overall-current&order=down&party=

crucial votes for 17'-18' difference is 0.48%

https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?topic=&house=senate&sort=crucial-current&order=down&party=

ONE MORE TIME FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK

If the democratic party wants to embrace the bernie sanders base, this isn't how you do it.

So you're saying instead of voting for a black woman disguised as a senior citizen white man from Vermont, you chose HRC

?

and why continue to rail against him and his supporters, if the dems are going to incorporate a progressive agenda*?

i dont think he does either.

subsequent posts

subsequent posts

to someone with no record? lol huh?

you realize harris didnt start her 1st term until 2017 right?

Even the best bill can get some bullshit added as an earmark or a rider, so how do they possibly quantify these scores?

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

Using publicly published data from Congressional Quarterly, we averaged a couple of different types of scores that they published, looking at all votes going back to January 1, 1991. After going through a number of steps and gyrations, we came up with a list of eleven hard-core progressive United States Senators (11% of that body) and 37 hard-core progressive United States Representatives (about 9% of that body). The algorithm that we've used to come up with these progressive scores is as follows: We take ANY VOTE in which a majority of the progressives we've identified--so in the House say, if there were no absences, it would be 19 of 37--voted in opposition to a majority of the Republican caucus and have that vote qualify for the database. The same process is used in the Senate. So, non-ideological votes such as National Groundhog Day: 429-0 with 6 absences, do not qualify for the database. ANY vote in which a majority of progressives in the progressive cohort listed just below here votes against a majority of Republicans qualifies for the database and is included in the Overall % scores.

"The Progressive Position" by definition, is the position of the majority of the Progressives. The “Conservative Position” is the position of the majority of the Republicans. We’ve tested this algorithm in the real world and it works extremely well. In the case of members of Congress elected before November 1990, the “Progressive Lifetime Scores” include only votes cast in Congress since January 1, 1991 (1991-92 was the first full Congress where vote records were computerized). In the case of members of Congress elected on or after November 1990, the scores include all votes that have ever been cast while that member has been in Congress. The column labeled “Progressive ‘17-‘18 Scores” is for the current Congress and shows scores for votes since January 2017, which allows for an apples-to-apples comparison for the same time period of all current members of Congress. For example, the total number of qualifying votes according to this criteria in 2007 was 747 in the House and 269 in the Senate. After we catch up with a programming backlog, we will post the specific roll call vote numbers of the votes that qualified for inclusion on Progressive Punch scores. The composite scores include ALL votes qualified by our algorithm, whether we've written the narrative vote descriptions that allow us to put them into categories or not. So the category scores can look different from the composite scores.

The votes used to calculate the scores in the Crucial Votes % columns are a subset of the overall votes that qualify according to the Progressive Punch algorithm described above. They show the impact that even a small number of Democrats have when they defect from the progressive position. Crucial Votes are really “where were you when we needed you” votes. The Crucial Votes % categories include all roll call votes where the margin between yes votes and no votes was narrow and could have been changed by a small group of Democrats voting differently. Narrow margins are defined as votes in which the winning side came out ahead by 20 votes or fewer in the House (so a shift of 10 votes from one side to the other would have changed the result) or by 6 votes or fewer in the Senate (so a shift of 3 votes from one side to the other would have changed the result).

Similarly, we treat absences differently depending on whether the vote was close. If the absence was on a vote where the overall margin was less than or equal to 20 votes in the House or six in the Senate then we count it as a “bad” vote, which gets counted against the member's score. However, if the margin was greater than 20 votes — say, 320–80 — then we remove the absence from the numerator and denominator, and it won't count at all. Conversely, if a member votes “Present” rather than “Yea” or “Nay,” we will always count that as a bad vote as long as the vote qualifies for the data base at all.

Prior to 2011, we had also included in the Crucial Votes % category any vote in which the progressive side was on the losing side, irrespective of how close the vote was. However when Republicans are in a majority in either the House or Senate — due to their strong ideological cohesion in their voting patterns — they're almost invariably on the winning side. That is to say they stick together and when they're in a majority that sticking together is enough for them to win most of the time. So we're actually using slightly different methodology for determining which votes fall in the Crucial Votes % category when the vote isn't a close vote. In situations where the Democrats are in control of a legislative body — as was the case with the US Senate for 2013–2014 — we continue to classify as Crucial any vote in which the progressive side was on the losing side, in addition to all close votes as defined above. However, in situations where the Republicans control a legislative body — as is the case with both the US Senate & the US House of Representatives for 2015–2016 — we classify votes where at least three-quarters of the progressive cohort listed just below voted against the Republicans AND at the same time at least 10% of the Democratic Caucus voted with the Republicans as a Crucial Vote, along with still including all close votes as well. In other words “Crucial” votes are votes in which there was strong progressive cohesion and at the same time a significant defection on the part of more conservative Democrats to the Republicans. Summing all this up, “where were you when we needed you” votes would probably be a better title for this column than Crucial Votes % but the word crucial fits much more easily at the top of a column. We have made this calculation retroactive to all previous periods where the Republicans controlled the Senate or the House in the past; this change affected Members' Lifetime Crucial Votes % scores very minimally.

Votes that otherwise conform to the algorithms above have been eliminated if they're pro-forma votes to either adjourn the House or approve the House journal, unless the vote qualified as both a Crucial vote and an overall vote, in which case it was retained in both categories.

There is no surefire objective way to compute how progressive, or for that matter how conservative, a member of Congress is. A lot of thought went into coming up with this methodology. That doesn't mean it can't be critiqued. What we have done is to try to take human beings out of the equation as much as possible. In other words, the percentages calculated on this site do not necessarily correlate with the individual political positions of Joshua Grossman, the primary author of this website. There are some criticisms that could be levied against our methodology. One is that it treats every vote equally, when they're obviously not all equally important. Another is that lonely principled stands, that might be viewed by some as progressive, such as Barbara Lee's sole vote against war in Afghanistan, do not qualify for the database, because not enough Progressives rallied around her flag (no pun intended). One other thing that no voting index can measure is intensity of support/leadership.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/07/bernie-sanders-strategist-tad-devine-paul-manafort-files-mueller


____________

DALLAS LAKERICKS LETS GO!!

manafort and devine went directly from working together for russian interests in ukraine to both working on american campaigns that kneecapped hillary clinton (and elevated trump).

Jill Stein too...LOL&SMH

its crazy how much that election in the ukraine paralleled the one here. even down to yanukovych saying the election was going to be 'rigged' against him like trump also did. a lot of other similarities too (but yanukovych actually did jail his female opponent on sketchy corruption charges).

just wondering when you are going to hold the party accountable for anything (or see the fallibilities of their candidates)

...let's say for the sake of argument your insinuation is true...

Bernie was working as covert agent to impede HRC's election (even though she beat him for the nomination)

How is the DNC absolved?

A self-proclaimed democratic socialist, that runs as an independent, and only 'caucuses with the democrats'

If he is allowed to join the DNC POTUS primaries...isn't the DNC at fault here?

The emails
Russia
Bernie
Comey
...the summer for being too hot...

Just wondering when you run out of plea cops and start holding people accountable?

ONE MORE TIME FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK

If the Dem party wants to embrace the Bernie base, this isn't how you do it.

since...you know...the dem party is much bigger and winning actual elections where more than 30k people vote lol.

does the courtship only go one way? serious question.

About the 3rd or 4th reply where you deflect or answer a question with a question

2s

Mnuchin says hi!

There's a decent chance we're going to be in like 4 new wars between now and then, wtf knows who will be running or what they're running on?

dude doesn’t give a fuck and Americans love tough talk

that she was associated with (don't remember the name and don't feel like searching for it)

was funneling money to his campaign through the NRA

something like...the NRA's contribution doubled in comparison to what they donated to Romney

i.e. he'll be fine without the Koch $$$

But I'm not sure why "oh, Trump's not taking Koch money?" is going to be a thing that decides it, or is even on people's radar in 2020.

The Kochs give money to lots of people, not all of them win.

trump generates so much free press and this time his coffers are stacked. he doesn't need their money. the average trump voter doesn't care, understand or even know, so to me it isn't a strong indicator of anything. but i am certainly open to hearing why you think it is.

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

Always liked Brown and this is another strong indicator, progressive as anyone in a strong Dem state despite Ohio being right-leaning.

Not sure I buy this index given the high ass numbers for virtually every one in the field. Also it's not just about voting record, it's also about emphases and proposed policies.

But at least it gets one thing right, Warren is the most progressive candidate out there.

She also allowed her attorneys to conceal evidence that would've exonerated defendants. Particularly defendants of color.

Fascinating stuff.

link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6veTMpW2Cag

.

Crime and convictions went down for black men although it's by default disproportionate because of the entire criminal justice system.
Anybody that sums her record up as "locking up black men disproportionately" is lying to you and lazy.

Her record has some serious positives for criminal justice reform and the way law enforcement interacts with citizens.
Most of the programs she implemented are the first of their kind.
The only stain I see is the whole situation with the exculpatory evidence debacle.
Although she implemented rules that require prosecutors to allow exculpatory evidence into cases. She didn't make the right decision on that one case in particular.
Yet she is one of the most progressive voices in congress.

a public defender.

That's hard for most people to understand, but the most important job a prosecutor has is deciding who and who not to prosecute.

I see this as the son of two progressive prosecutors. Hell my pops was so progressive that the Feds came in to investigate him for NOT prosecuting a certain athlete who made headlines a while back.

Anyway, all that discounting politicians for being "cops" is assbackwards to me. We need more black "cops".




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

is just as bad as Biden.


https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/01/democratic-debate-kamala-harris-tulsi-gabbard-joe-biden-fact-check/

Here's an interview with one of the many mothers directed affected:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=redw6jD1QVU

I see you, papi

Bernie supports seem to have a perpetual axe to grind.

cuz the incels chased off most of the women.

so this gotta do for now.

It's now essentially used to mean whatever people want it to mean.

Joe Biden: "We will have the strongest, Progressive platform."
Hillary Clinton: "I'm a Progressive who gets things done."
Amy Klobuchar: "I'm a Progressive who gets things done."

*cue Oprah*

You're a Progressive; everybody's a Progressive!

-->

meaning 'bernie supporter' to bernie supporters.

case in point...

'progressives' are plotting to primary elizabeth warren because of her disloyalty to bernie.

meanwhile...in the same state...ed markey...the most progressive senator in congress and the architect of the green new deal...is facing a primary from an entitled kennedy heir. and 'progressives' dont really give a fuck enough to defend him.

>'progressives' are plotting to primary elizabeth warren
>because of her disloyalty to bernie.

Only in your fantasy mind is this a reality.

-->

and yes...the man buns ((c) amritsar) were discussing primarying her in the heat of the moment.

Except in your imaginarium.


-->

...Centrists won..they got their candidate ..Progressives are all on board ..yet all they talk about is Bernie, AOC, The Squad

Maybe get your eyes on the road?

LOL

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-squad-members-win-democratic-primaries-reelection_n_5f33771fc5b64cc99fdfca65

They all won their primaries

Looks like a signal for the direction of the party

...but, but...Bernie bros... :(

https://twitter.com/Newsweek/status/1293377781443821569

i also see a lot more 'blue checks' on twitter starting to point out her progressive voting record.

if it were really about policy/votes...i think a lot more 'progressives' would warm up to her.

You're still doing it wrong.

She may have scored as slightly more liberal than Sanders because one of her authored bills actually became a law whereas none of Sanders' have"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spc_hRIGB8M&feature=emb_logo

And she's right - it is a pretty ridiculous ranking - and it's no surprise that the only people pushing this are now right-wing propagandists who want to equate Biden/Harris ticket with Cuban communism.

But pretty rich to hear Kamala claim that this idea is only being spouted by people like Mike Pence - and I think she's right.

Sorry brother Reeq - even Kamala herself ain't co-sign this lol.

-->

and she doesn't want to give further ammo to the other side.

Crazy.


Seriously, did you think this was a dunk? What's your point?


Imagine right today being the guy who is still worrying about that time someone said Kamala was more progressive than Bernie.

Imagine viewing everything as some agenda to win, so much so that you are upping shit like this that has zero relevance to anything.


All of the shit that is happening right now and you are worried about fantasy senator rankings.


Jesus privileged bernie bro christ

>
>and she doesn't want to give further ammo to the other side.
>
>
>Crazy.
>
>
>Seriously, did you think this was a dunk? What's your point?
>
>
>Imagine right today being the guy who is still worrying about
>that time someone said Kamala was more progressive than
>Bernie.
>
>Imagine viewing everything as some agenda to win, so much so
>that you are upping shit like this that has zero relevance to
>anything.
>
>
>All of the shit that is happening right now and you are
>worried about fantasy senator rankings.
>
>
>Jesus privileged bernie bro christ

Stuck in the primary.

like these replies dont even read like theyre coming from a real person anymore.

just some youtube comment bot made to sound like a bernie bro caricature.

im not even sure of his aim/purpose at this point.

dude is constantly calling for party unity and deference to bernie voters who made up 1/4 of the primary base...but still trying to dunk on the party ticket 1 week before an election.

everyone is talking about defeating trump and this nigga still tryna expose kamala.

that shit is pathological fam.

then you do trying to defeat Trump - but you're just following directions from poor leadership so I can't really fault you.

Again, I'd put my record on grass roots efforts to topple Trump against yours any day - but I find great humor in coming back on here and hearing y'all whine and cry about who's your donkey-of-the-day.

We can't even have cogent discussion anymore without y'all group-thinking to death - and actually thinking you're changing minds w/ your approach.

-->

You all spent months telling us how we were gonna lose because we put out a corporate establishment democrat

i dont even wanna know how someone falls this deep into the rabbit hole.

nigga complaining about the lack of cogent discussion while using mike pence as a cosign.

once again - nobody even brought up Bernie here, but your obsessive compulsion never disappoints.

-->

you didnt have to say bernies name explicitly 100 replies later.

you posted a clip for the sole purpose of shooting down the notion that she has a more progressive record than bernie.

you moonwalked into a post thats been dead for almost 3 months to smear kamala and save bernies pristine progressive credentials/ranking.

thats the definition of obsession.

she laughed because it was a stupid fucking question.

tell me...in detail...how this 3rd party that tracks actual votes in congress (what really matters and not just branding/rhetoric) is an incorrect way of judging how legislators have actually voted lol.

so your logic is that the right is attacking her for being progressive...therefore she must not really be that progressive.

but the right is using the same attacks against her that they use against sanders.

does that mean sanders isnt as progressive?

what are you even trying to prove here?

and explained to basic Norah the principles of liberal progressivism and how she's proud of her record. She didn't do that: she laughed at the notion that she was the most liberal member of the Senate and dismissed it as a Mike Pence talking point.

It is what it is -- it's pretty hard for you to make the case that she's "the most progressive member of the Senate" when she herself just rejected that. But you can if you want to.


-->

and he rejects that...does that mean its not true?

why is your logical understanding of reality so romper room?

for someone whos supposedly attentive to progressive policy...why are you so much more concerned about talk/platitudes than concrete votes?

it makes sense why you fell for the tulsi gabbard act. you cant see past the superficial/branding aspect of performative progressivism (like many other bros).

all she had to do was endorse bernie and call herself a progressive one summer and you were in. it didnt matter that she had an entire conservative/authoritarian/homophobic/racist history and continued to play footsies with right wing chaos agents and alt right provocateurs.

you just care about the label on the front and not the ingredients on the back.

As you said, no one is talking about this except "people like Mike Pence". And now you lol

niggas just confirmed an sc justice to 6-3 majority that has already signaled that theyre willing to steal an election.

and this nigga couldnt wait to wake up and post a kamala gotcha clip.

that was his priority.

people mad at bshelly and white privilege. but at least he aint tryna smear the black vp candidate with a gotcha clip being circulated by the same republicans he says are the only ones bringing it up.

who even does that?

I think we know EXACTLY who does that

>niggas just confirmed an sc justice to 6-3 majority that has
>already signaled that theyre willing to steal an election.
>
>and this nigga couldnt wait to wake up and post a kamala
>gotcha clip.
>
>that was his priority.
>
>people mad at bshelly and white privilege. but at least he
>aint tryna smear the black vp candidate with a gotcha clip
>being circulated by the same republicans he says are the only
>ones bringing it up.
>
>who even does that?

on a trip to the same damn place.

Don’t make me pull this car over!!!

You really are like a loud mouth on the sideline.

It’s almost impressive for you to be this inconsequential for months. Maybe even years now

You know you wouldn’t talk like this to anyone in real life but you’ve been comes up for the last few months.

Like what the fuck are your ideas or thoughts lmao

Do you have them? Or just clucking on the sidelines.

Which no candidate in their right mind would align themselves with in American electoral politics

Except one. Who willingly spent his career in Vermont

you cant make this up.