Virginia Ex-GOP Sen. John Warner endorses Democrat

[fskimospy]

Here's another graphic I found interesting. House Democrats appear to be much more monolithic and much more left of center than Republicans.

What's interesting is that you (presumably inadvertently) took an image from DW-NOMINATE's voteview blog.

If you are actually interested in which party the people who make that metric view to be further from the ideological center, they have an entire section on political polarization. All you really need is their handy chart however, which I've shown you before:

The mean Republican ideological position is MUCH further to the right than the mean Democratic position. Since you find their charts worth linking to, I presume you accept their methodology as accurate.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

But what does -0.5, 0, and +0.5 mean on the X-axis?

I don't know specifically...I imagine it's a statistical value. eskimospy can probably shed some light on this as he's got a Political Science degree if I remember correctly.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What's interesting is that you (presumably inadvertently) took an image from DW-NOMINATE's voteview blog.

If you are actually interested in which party the people who make that metric view to be further from the ideological center, they have an entire section on political polarization. All you really need is their handy chart however, which I've shown you before:

The mean Republican ideological position is MUCH further to the right than the mean Democratic position. Since you find their charts worth linking to, I presume you accept their methodology as accurate.

I previously posted that particular chart in Post #37...did you not see it? And yes...I do think their methodology is relatively accurate.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't know specifically...I imagine it's a statistical value. eskimospy can probably shed some light on this as he's got a Political Science degree if I remember correctly.

The person you are taking this chart and other things from is actually a former professor of mine, Keith Poole. For the purposes of these charts +1 is the most conservative you can possibly be and -1 is the most liberal you can possibly be. 0 is the ideological center.

As for McCain's position you can look at his first dimension common space DW-NOMINATE score in any of the rank orderings for a Congress he was a part of. (they will all be the same)

http://voteview.com/senrank.asp

 

[fskimospy]

I previously posted that particular chart in Post #37...did you not see it? And yes...I do think their methodology is relatively accurate.

I mean that pretty much tells you why someone as conservative as McCain would be considered a RINO. .38 used to be much more conservative than average. Now .38 is considerably less conservative than average. This is because the Republican Party has radicalized.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I mean that pretty much tells you why someone as conservative as McCain would be considered a RINO. .38 used to be much more conservative than average. Now .38 is considerably less conservative than average. This is because the Republican Party has radicalized.

I understand your point when you look at his average score over his career and compare it to the where the party is today. However, McCain's tenure during the 107th Congress made quite an impression on his colleagues when he significantly deviated from party unity. So please answer my previous question to you: Was McCain considered a RINO by many in the Republican Party well before the Tea Party came along?

 

[fskimospy]

I understand your point when you look at his average score over his career and compare it to the where the party is today. However, the 107th Congress made quite an impression on his colleagues when he significantly deviated from party unity. So please answer my previous question to you: Was McCain considered a RINO by many in the Republican Party well before the Tea Party came along?

Define 'many in the Republican Party'?

For his position as a whole with the Republican Party I would say clearly no. He won the Republican Primary in 2008, and primaries are dominated by party activists. They still elected him. Even his state he was just censured in for being too liberal he won the primary by 13 points, which matched his overall numbers that were inflated by the last few primaries where the presumptive nominee runs away with it. (for example he got 86% of the vote in the last primary)

I simply find the idea that you would take someone that the party was willing to nominate for president in 2008 and then declare them unacceptably liberal in 2014 despite them moving considerably to the right during that time to be an absurdity.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Define 'many in the Republican Party'?

For his position as a whole with the Republican Party I would say clearly no. He won the Republican Primary in 2008, and primaries are dominated by party activists. They still elected him. Even his state he was just censured in for being too liberal he won the primary by 13 points, which matched his overall numbers that were inflated by the last few primaries where the presumptive nominee runs away with it. (for example he got 86% of the vote in the last primary)

I simply find the idea that you would take someone that the party was willing to nominate for president in 2008 and then declare them unacceptably liberal in 2014 despite them moving considerably to the right during that time to be an absurdity.

You're really dancing around this for some reason I can't understand. I'm not going to play semantics games with the definition of "many". In addition, I'm not asking about his position as a whole within the Republican Party. And lastly, my question has nothing to do with some declaring him unacceptably liberal in 2014. I've asked twice and I don't know how I can be any clearer with my question, so I'm going to give up in complete frustration at this point.

BTW, I found an interesting study on him if anyone is interested....particularly the graph on Page 12 and the table on Page 13.
http://crookedtimber.org/2008/10/22/mccain-the-measure-of-a-maverick/

 

[fskimospy]

You're really dancing around this for some reason I can't understand. I'm not going to play semantics games with the definition of "many". In addition, I'm not asking about his position as a whole within the Republican Party. And lastly, this has nothing to do with some declaring him unacceptably liberal in 2014. I don't know how I can be any clearer with my question so I'm going to give up in complete frustration at this point.

I answered you as explicitly as your question permitted. If you want more concrete answers you need to ask better questions and you definitely need to define your terms better. If you aren't going to tell me what you mean by 'many' then how can I possibly answer to your satisfaction? I think you were just trying to keep it vague enough to get the answer you wanted.

Given the vague nature of your question I answered to the best of my ability. I do not think the party standard bearer, elected by the most activist (and presumably most conservative) elements of a party only 5 years or so prior, could reasonably be considered to be a member of that party 'in name only' by 'many' due to his presumed moderation, particularly considering the fact that he has only become more conservative in the intervening years.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I answered you as explicitly as your question permitted. If you want more concrete answers you need to ask better questions and you definitely need to define your terms better. If you aren't going to tell me what you mean by 'many' then how can I possibly answer to your satisfaction? I think you were just trying to keep it vague enough to get the answer you wanted.

Given the vague nature of your question I answered to the best of my ability.

I was intentionally trying to be vague using the word "many" to give you some room to answer honestly and qualify your answer as you felt appropriate. Instead I got answers to questions I clearly didn't ask.

I do not think the party standard bearer, elected by the most activist (and presumably most conservative) elements of a party only 5 years or so prior, could reasonably be considered to be a member of that party 'in name only' by 'many' due to his presumed moderation, particularly considering the fact that he has only become more conservative in the intervening years.

And I would agree with you. On the other hand, Joe Lieberman (who "many" considered a DINO with a -.220 lifetime score) was once the darling of the Democrat Party as well when he ran with Gore in 2000...and you see what happened to him.

 

[fskimospy]

I was intentionally trying to be vague using the word "many" to give you some room to answer honestly and qualify your answer as you felt appropriate. Instead I got answers to questions I clearly didn't ask.

I answered it as clearly and honestly as I could, given the quality of the question. If you have further things you'd like to know I'd love to answer them but you're going to have to help me help you. The term 'many' was so vague as to be worthless as a statement, so I chose to answer if I thought that view was prevalent in the party at the time. The electoral results clearly show this was not the case.

And I would agree with you. On the other hand, Joe Lieberman (who "many" considered a DINO with a -.220 lifetime score) was once the darling of the Democrat Party as well when he ran with Gore in 2000...and you see what happened to him.

Calling Joe Lieberman the darling of the Democratic Party is QUITE a stretch. He was quite clearly chosen due to his recent attacks on the Democratic Party (and Clinton in particular). Additionally, he was selected by Gore and was never subject to any kind of competitive election by the party, unlike McCain that received the explicit endorsement of the voters. He is not even remotely comparable with McCain.

Additionally, McCain was approximately 72% further towards the right than Lieberman was towards the left. This further reinforces my point.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I answered it as clearly and honestly as I could, given the quality of the question. If you have further things you'd like to know I'd love to answer them but you're going to have to help me help you. The term 'many' was so vague as to be worthless as a statement, so I chose to answer if I thought that view was prevalent in the party at the time. The electoral results clearly show this was not the case.



Calling Joe Lieberman the darling of the Democratic Party is QUITE a stretch. He was quite clearly chosen due to his recent attacks on the Democratic Party (and Clinton in particular). Additionally, he was selected by Gore and was never subject to any kind of competitive election by the party, unlike McCain that received the explicit endorsement of the voters. He is not even remotely comparable with McCain.

Additionally, McCain was approximately 72% further towards the right than Lieberman was towards the left. This further reinforces my point.

Lieberman was the VP candidate in 2000 for crying out loud...I surely don't recall Dems loudly complaining and wanting to oust him from the party at that time. However I do love the way you played that 72% chip...lol. We should give out prizes for spin. Anyway, I have another tough question for you, would it be fair to say that "many" people in the Democratic Party consider Lieberman a DINO today as well as during his 2006 re-election bid? Or is that question too vague for you as well?

 

[fskimospy]

Lieberman was the VP candidate in 2000 for crying out loud...I surely don't recall Dems loudly complaining and wanting to oust him from the party at that time.

Funny, news articles from the time specifically called out how his personal politics diverged from the Democratic Party and specifically their ticket:

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/27/u...oudly-pro-business.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

People weren't trying to oust him from the party, but attempting to equate his acceptance with the acceptance of McCain is poor logic.

However I do love the way you played that 72% chip...lol. We should give out prizes for spin.

We definitely should. When speaking about two people being ousted from their parties for being too moderate, a person who would attempt to equate one individual with another individual who is closing in on twice as far from the ideological center by an objective measure is spinning at a pretty furious rate.

To then accuse the OTHER person of spinning because they pointed that out... that takes balls, I'll give you that.

Anyway, I have another tough question for you, would it be fair to say that "many" people in the Democratic Party consider Lieberman a DINO today as well as during his 2006 re-election bid? Or is that question too vague for you as well?

Yes, also too vague. Define 'many people in the Democratic party'.

 

[werepossum]

Funny, news articles from the time specifically called out how his personal politics diverged from the Democratic Party and specifically their ticket:

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/27/u...oudly-pro-business.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

People weren't trying to oust him from the party, but attempting to equate his acceptance with the acceptance of McCain is poor logic.

We definitely should. When speaking about two people being ousted from their parties for being too moderate, a person who would attempt to equate one individual with another individual who is closing in on twice as far from the ideological center by an objective measure is spinning at a pretty furious rate.

To then accuse the OTHER person of spinning because they pointed that out... that takes balls, I'll give you that.

Yes, also too vague. Define 'many people in the Democratic party'.

Actually you're talking about ONE person being ousted from his party as McCain is still a Republican. Lieberman on the other hand was primaried out of that kind, tolerant Democrat Party and won re-election as an Independent amid widespread attacks from the Democrat establishment.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Funny, news articles from the time specifically called out how his personal politics diverged from the Democratic Party and specifically their ticket:

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/27/u...oudly-pro-business.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

People weren't trying to oust him from the party, but attempting to equate his acceptance with the acceptance of McCain is poor logic.

Poor logic indeed. I'm not trying to equate...just pointing out similarities. There was a vigorous attempt by the Democratic machine to take his Senate seat...I call that trying to oust him.

We definitely should. When speaking about two people being ousted from their parties for being too moderate, a person who would attempt to equate one individual with another individual who is closing in on twice as far from the ideological center by an objective measure is spinning at a pretty furious rate.

To then accuse the OTHER person of spinning because they pointed that out... that takes balls, I'll give you that.

Again...not trying to equate...just pointing out similarities. You do realize that that whooping 72% you cited actually represents a mere 16% of the spectrum...right? But I do love the way you played it. Nice job! Too bad McCain wasn't +.05 and Lieberman -.02...then you could claim that McCain was approximately 250% further towards the right than Lieberman was towards the left! You sir are the King of Spin!

Yes, also too vague. Define 'many people in the Democratic party'.

I used to think you'd be fun to have a few beers with and shoot the shit...but now I'm having 2nd thoughts wondering if you would actually press me on the exact meaning of "few". You're too funny. Thanks for the laughs!

 

[fskimospy]

Actually if you want to use the relevant part of the scale that each party occupies it would be 32%, and considering that much of the high end of the scale is unoccupied by any elected official you can compress the range still further.

Seriously, I told you what I thought what type of explanation would be useful to the term of 'many'. To me it was whether or not someone was broadly accepted by his party. McCain got the presidential endorsement fair and square. Lieberman was always part of the minority in the Democratic Party and when he ran for president in 2004 he got about 2% of the vote.

I am pretty fun to drink with, although I rarely discuss politics when out. Better to talk about furries.

 

[Moonbeam]

My guess is that because the Republican party has moved so far to the right they are all too ready to rationalize the notion that they have done so because Democrats have moved far to the left and they need that extra vigor to combat a liberal takeover of the world. I think it is profoundly obvious that the Democrats have gone far far to the right in order to try to compromise with an uncompromising right. I base my conclusions on the good and solid weight of my experience of truthiness. It is titanically obvious to anybody who can think.

 

[MagickMan]

The only real solution is to divide the nation, for good this time.

 

[Moonbeam]

The only real solution is to divide the nation, for good this time.

Oh man, here comes the conservatard low level thinking. Jus cut that fucker in two. The wisdom a Soloman, I do declare.

 

[MagickMan]

Oh man, here comes the conservatard low level thinking. Jus cut that fucker in two. The wisdom a Soloman, I do declare.

You would be the stupid twat who doesn't understand sarcasm and irony, wouldn't you?

 

[ivwshane]

You would be the stupid twat who doesn't understand sarcasm and irony, wouldn't you?

How long have you been on this forum? It should be pretty obvious to you that there are quite a few posters here that actually have the mentality of your post. Your post included no emoticon or sarcasm tag (/s), or any other indicator that you were being sarcastic.

If your post could/would have been easily understood to be sarcastic, this country would probably be in a better place (meaning, the crazies aren't a normal occurrence like they are now).

 

[Moonbeam]

You would be the stupid twat who doesn't understand sarcasm and irony, wouldn't you?

I might be but I'm happier to think I made the mistake than that you believed that shit cause I know lots do.

 

[Moonbeam]

Poor logic indeed. I'm not trying to equate...just pointing out similarities. There was a vigorous attempt by the Democratic machine to take his Senate seat...I call that trying to oust him.


Again...not trying to equate...just pointing out similarities. You do realize that that whooping 72% you cited actually represents a mere 16% of the spectrum...right? But I do love the way you played it. Nice job! Too bad McCain wasn't +.05 and Lieberman -.02...then you could claim that McCain was approximately 250% further towards the right than Lieberman was towards the left! You sir are the King of Spin!


I used to think you'd be fun to have a few beers with and shoot the shit...but now I'm having 2nd thoughts wondering if you would actually press me on the exact meaning of "few". You're too funny. Thanks for the laughs!

I think the concept of few is very important to the debate you two were having. I see you trying to define somebody's long term status as a RINO by the fact he has been called that is some distant past by a few people. The meaning of words is created by the meaning of the way those words are used, so what I see happening is that you are trying to say McCain is a RINO because numbers of people say he is and those numbers are critical to whether a definition is accurate or not. If everybody agrees that McCain is a RINO then he is, but if a few people say he is and a few say he isn't the numbers of those different fews began to mean something. It is the way f things that folk on the ultra right look at folk on the far right as communists and liberal scum and RINOs. Those few don't get to create the meaning of words.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I think the concept of few is very important to the debate you two were having. I see you trying to define somebody's long term status as a RINO by the fact he has been called that is some distant past by a few people. The meaning of words is created by the meaning of the way those words are used, so what I see happening is that you are trying to say McCain is a RINO because numbers of people say he is and those numbers are critical to whether a definition is accurate or not. If everybody agrees that McCain is a RINO then he is, but if a few people say he is and a few say he isn't the numbers of those different fews began to mean something. It is the way f things that folk on the ultra right look at folk on the far right as communists and liberal scum and RINOs. Those few don't get to create the meaning of words.

Moonie, I think this particular discussion is one of the most ridiculous I've engaged in since CK left. I personally thought it was common knowledge that a fair number of people within the Republican Party regarded McCain as a RINO well before the Tea Party existed. Again, I thought this was fairly common knowledge and was hoping for a reasonable discussion beyond that point instead of getting into a trite debate regarding the semantics of the words like "many" and "few". These kind of nuances regarding the rigid meaning of words may seem to be very important to you in the scheme of things...but it comes across as bullshit game playing to me...and it effectively diverts a potentially interesting conversation in my opinion.

 

[MagickMan]

I might be but I'm happier to think I made the mistake than that you believed that shit cause I know lots do.

So, you jumped on me because of others? Isn't there something in scripture about that? What a holy man, it must be tough being such a hypocrite all the time.