Effectiveness of Senator

Page 2 of 3<123>
May 21st, 2018 at 2:18:43 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
Hot Potato?
I recall some toxic plant that was to be constructed. The hearings were held in one state since that is where the facility would be located but the prevailing winds would blow the noxious fumes just across that state's border, leaving the neighboring state to bear the environmental costs.

Federal hot potatoes probably look for weak Senators to do pretty much the same thing.

I remember when LBJ wanted some votes. He got them by personally calling some big wigs in the politician's home state. When three or four wealthy big wigs get a personal call from the President apologizing for keeping some politician from meeting his commitments in his home state that weekend because the President needed him in Washington DC, that Politician moves up a notch or two at home and those rich big wigs strut around town boasting about a personal call from the President.

This type of log rolling rarely gets to be "part of the candidate's record". The various favors get tallied up off the books. And candidates run on publicity rather than on substance.
May 21st, 2018 at 4:05:53 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
No one expects to see a correlation between effectiveness and popularity of win. There is none!

Here is an interesting ranking of 23 Democratic Senators running in 2018. The percentage is how much they won on their last election. The number is from 1-44 and is a ranking how "effective" they are at legislation out of all of the Democratic Senators.

As you can see there is no direct correlation between the effectiveness at legislation and the percentage of the win. Kirsten Gillibran is ranked in the bottom 25%, but she wins by the largest majority of any Democratic Senator.

Since the swearing-in of Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi on April 9, 2018, the 115th United States Congress has 23 female Senators (6 are Republican). In previous history another 29 women have served as Senators including Rebecca Latimer Felton (b. 1835), the nasty racist who represented Georgia for a single day in 1922.

Kirsten Gillibrand, AT AGE 51, may easily be the most attractive of the 23 currently serving female senators and the 29 previously serving female senators

23 Democratic Senators in race in 2018 (ranked by percentage win in previous election)
72% 32 Kirsten Gillibrand, NY-------FEMALE
66% 2 Thomas Carper, DE
65% 12 Amy Klobuchar, MN-------FEMALE
64% 6 Sheldon Whitehouse, RI
63% 5 Dianne Feinstein, CA-------FEMALE
63% 17 Mazie Hirono, HI-------FEMALE
61% 10 Maria Cantwell, WA-------FEMALE
61% 37 Joe Manchin, WV
59% 27 Robert Menendez, NJ
59% 39 Debbie Stabenow, MI-------FEMALE
55% 3 Benjamin Cardin, MD
55% 21 Bill Nelson, FL
55% 28 Claire McCaskill, MO-------FEMALE
55% 41 Christopher Murphy, CT
54% 7 Robert Casey, PA
54% 34 Elizabeth Warren, MA-------FEMALE
53% 36 Tim Kaine, VA
51% 22 Tammy Baldwin, WI-------FEMALE
51% 26 Sherrod Brown, OH
51% 29 Martin Heinrich, NM
50% 9 Heidi Heitkamp, ND-------FEMALE
50% 44 Joe Donnelly, IN
49% 4 Jon Tester, MT

23 Democratic Senators in race in 2018 (ranked by "effectiveness" from least to most)
50% 44 Joe Donnelly, IN
55% 41 Christopher Murphy, CT
59% 39 Debbie Stabenow, MI --- FEMALE
61% 37 Joe Manchin, WV
53% 36 Tim Kaine, VA
54% 34 Elizabeth Warren, MA --- FEMALE
72% 32 Kirsten Gillibrand, NY --- FEMALE
51% 29 Martin Heinrich, NM
55% 28 Claire McCaskill, MO --- FEMALE
59% 27 Robert Menendez, NJ
51% 26 Sherrod Brown, OH
51% 22 Tammy Baldwin, WI --- FEMALE
55% 21 Bill Nelson, FL
63% 17 Mazie Hirono, HI --- FEMALE
65% 12 Amy Klobuchar, MN --- FEMALE
61% 10 Maria Cantwell, WA --- FEMALE
50% 9 Heidi Heitkamp, ND --- FEMALE
54% 7 Robert Casey, PA
64% 6 Sheldon Whitehouse, RI
63% 5 Dianne Feinstein, CA --- FEMALE
49% 4 Jon Tester, MT
55% 3 Benjamin Cardin, MD
66% 2 Thomas Carper, DE

Center for Effective Lawmaking ranks the 44 Democratic Senators from Least to Most effective for 114th congress from January 3, 2015, to January 3, 2017
http://www.thelawmakers.org/#/find

Tina Smith (D) United States Senator from Minnesota was appointed and Assumed office on January 3, 2018. Al Franken resigned on January 2, 2018, after several allegations of sexual misconduct were made against him. She has no ranking from Center since she didn't serve in the 114th congress . She is up for special election this fall.

Heidi Heitkamp is probably the most vulnerable female Democratic Senator, but I think most people think that gender politics will trump partisan politics this year.
May 21st, 2018 at 4:53:57 AM permalink
SOOPOO
Member since: Feb 19, 2014
Threads: 22
Posts: 4157
To answer Rx, he is 98% correct. There are a few local Democrats that are obviously left of where I want the State or Country to be that I could vote for. These are politicians I have met personally. One example is the present Mayor of Buffalo. I met him multiple times when he was a State Senator. Although in general he opposed the positions I was advocating for, he was always prepared, asked well informed questions, and thought through the arguments cogently. If Cuomo moves on I think he (Byron Brown) has a chance for Governor.
But of course, what laws pass is much more important than who sponsors them. The fact that we had two (Trump and Clinton) candidates that essentially accomplished nothing in the legislative arena and were their respective party's nominees show that 'sponsoring legislation' is not a high priority for the electorate. Another Democrat I would vote for after meeting him is Joe Morelle. He is running for Congress but not in my district. So Rx is 98% correct.
May 21st, 2018 at 5:25:24 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: SOOPOO
The fact that we had two (Trump and Clinton) candidates that essentially accomplished nothing in the legislative arena and were their respective party's nominees show that 'sponsoring legislation' is not a high priority for the electorate.


The Center for Effective Lawmaking did not give Hillary a bad grade, ranking her higher than Chuck Schumer for her first two terms, and just below him for the second two terms. As we saw the legislation she sponsored only resulted in three laws (road name change, post office name change, and upgrading a "national landmark" to "national site"). So the Center must have given Hillary huge credit for the legislation she co-sponsored.

2001/2002
Clinton, Hillary 15 / 50
Schumer, Charles 17 / 50

2003/2004
Clinton, Hillary 7 / 48
Schumer, Charles 22 / 48

2005/2006
Schumer, Charles 15 / 45
Obama, Barack 16 / 45
Clinton, Hillary 18 / 45

2007/2008
Schumer, Charles 12 / 50
Clinton, Hillary 17 / 50 | On January 20, 2007, Hillary stating "I'm in and I'm in to win."
Obama, Barack 35 / 50 | February 10, 2007, Obama announced his candidacy for President of the United States

Kirsten Gillibrand, has received ratings in the bottom half of the Democratic Senators, but she usually stays out of the bottom quarter. Since her sponsored legislation has never resulted in a law, the center must be giving her a lot of credit for co-sponsored bills.
2009/2010 38 / 62
2011/2012 42 / 52
2013/2014 31 / 57
2015/2016 32 / 44
May 21st, 2018 at 5:50:09 AM permalink
SOOPOO
Member since: Feb 19, 2014
Threads: 22
Posts: 4157
I have experience with cosponsoring bills at least on the state level. What really happens is a senator or assemblyman puts out a bill, and then asks his colleagues if they can cosponsor it. Sometimes, if there is a bill that a constituent or a special interest likes, that constituent will go to other senators and assemblymen and ask them to cosponsor the bill. Taking credit for being a cosponsor on the bill is disingenuous as far as I am concerned. It does of course show you are for the issue, but did not actually do the work.
May 21st, 2018 at 6:30:19 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
Sometimes one bill will be passed but the text will be substituted from another bill. So the voting "credits" remain intact but are clearly in error.
November 6th, 2018 at 7:27:17 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
They've called it for
Kirsten Gillibrand (Democratic) 72.5% ✓
Chele Farley (Republican) 27.5%
50.5% precincts reporting
November 6th, 2018 at 8:15:38 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: Pacomartin
They've called it for
Kirsten Gillibrand (Democratic) 72.5% ✓
Chele Farley (Republican) 27.5%
50.5% precincts reporting


Claire McCaskill just lost. What a shame.
Ted Cruz won. Like he was ever gonna lose.
All that money they poured into Beto
a lot of pissed off people out there.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
November 6th, 2018 at 11:25:54 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
As of 2:24 Eastern Time Democrats
Decided 207
Safe +7 = 214
Likely +3 = 217
Leaning +4 =221

As they need 218 to control the House, CNN has called it for the Democrats. There are still 12 toss up elections.

PA split 9-9.
November 7th, 2018 at 10:30:17 AM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
This is Beto giving his concession speech.
This buffoon is the big hope for the Dems
in 2020? He waves his arms around like
a loon non stop. Turn the sound down
and he looks like a skit on SNL. Most
unappealing public speaker I've seen
in a long time.

If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
Page 2 of 3<123>