Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Senatorial Superlatives
Senatorial Superlatives: Who’s better Clinton, McCain or Obama?
Using statics to determine who is
best suited to be president
By Martin Codrington
“Finding a needle of truth in a haystack of rhetoric” could have easily been the title of this article. Indeed, separating the two has always and will continue to be one of the most challenging things in today’s politics. Yet, to make an informed, intelligent choice between the presidential candidates; to select an individual with whom we entrust the stability and prosperity of our future, we must continually strive to accomplish this goal.
“I have 35 years of experience”, says the Junior Senator from New York. “It’s time for change- yes we can”, Says the eloquent Junior Senator from Illinois. “Courageous Service, Experienced Leadership, Bold Solutions” is the campaign slogan of the Republican Senator from Arizona. But who really is best prepared for the job? Who has the most experience?
I will attempt to suggest possible answers to these questions based exclusively on a statistical analysis of the senate records of the three senators. Based on this analysis, I will award five superlatives; Hardest Working Senator; Most Efficient Senator; Most Determined Senator; Senator Who Works Best With Others; and Best Overall Senator.
When a bill is introduced in the senate it first goes through the committee phase where it is submitted to applicable senate committees. Most bills don’t make it out of this phase but the ones that do then go to the senate floor for debate. After they are debated and amended they are voted on and enacted into law.
I did the analysis with the help of the govtrack website; which list the number of sponsored bills, the number of bills making it out of the committee phase, the number of bills enacted into law and the number of co-sponsored bills for Senators Clinton, McCain and Obama.
These raw numbers were normalized by the number of years in office for each senator (to make for a fair comparison) which yields a yearly average of what they accomplished. The Senators were then awarded points based on their relative ranking in each category (3 points for 1st, 2 for 2nd and 1 for 3rd) and the points totaled to award the most coveted superlative: best overall senator. Below are the results for the three senators in alphabetical order:
Hillary Clinton
Number of Sponsored Bills(since Jan 22, 2001): 356
Number of Bills Making it Out of Committee: 47
Number of Bills Enacted: 2
Number of Co-Sponsored Bills:1733
Percentage Bill Making it Out of Committee: 13.2%
Normalized Number of Sponsored Bills: 50.9
Normalized Number of Bills Making it Out of Committee: 6.7
Normalized Number of Bills Enacted: 0.3
Normalized Number of Co-Sponsored Bills:247.6
John McCain
Number of Sponsored Bills(since Jan 21, 1997):403
Number of Bills Making it Out of Committee: 140
Number of Bills Enacted: 12
Number of Co-Sponsored Bills:877
Percentage Bill Making it Out of Committee: 34.7%
Normalized Number of Sponsored Bills:36.6
Normalized Number of Bills Making it Out of Committee: 12.7
Normalized Number of Bills Enacted: 1.1
Normalized Number of Co-Sponsored Bills:79.7
Barack Obama
Number of Sponsored Bills(since Jan 4, 2005):129
Number of Bills Making it Out of Committee: 9
Number of Bills Enacted: 1
Number of Co-Sponsored Bills: 555
Percentage Bill Making it Out of Committee: 7.0%
Normalized Number of Sponsored Bills: 43.0
Normalized Number of Bills Making it Out of Committee: 3.0
Normalized Number of Bills Enacted: 0.3
Normalized Number of Co-Sponsored Bills:185.0
And now, the superlatives. Let’s consider the first three together:
Hardest Working Senator (determined by the normalized number of sponsored bills)
1st Place: Clinton (50.9)
2nd Place: Obama (43.0)
3rd Place: McCain (36.6)
Most Efficient Senator (determined by the percentage of bills making it out of the committee phase)
1st Place: McCain (34.7%)
2nd Place: Clinton (13.2%)
3rd Place: Obama (7.0%)
Most Determined Senator (determined by the normalized number of bills enacted into law)
1st Place: McCain (1.1)
2nd Place Tie: Clinton (0.3), Obama (0.3)
The former First Lady has proclaimed loudly that she’s ready to lead from day one. Her 3:00 AM advertisement became notorious and was arguably very instrumental in her Texas and Ohio Primary wins; now she has the evidence to back it up; Clinton is statically the hardest working senator.
This hardly surprises. Senator Clinton’s political agenda is very diverse. Her last 10 bills alone address many issues, including poverty and women’s issues in countries funded by the United Nations, the accountability of HIV/AIDS programs, amendments to the IRS code, addressing adverse environmental and health conditions in minority and low income areas, revising the boundaries of the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, minimum wage issues, nursing home quality and improving vaccine supply.
Senator Obama, however has some trouble molding his ideas in a political framework. It is indeed telling that Obama’s percentage of bills making out of the committee phase is in single digits. Too often he writes a bill that attacks a broad problem which is difficult to address politically. Compare for example, the title of one of the Illinois Senator’s recent bills;
S.2433:Global Poverty Act of 2007
to a recent one from his democratic rival;
And to one of McCain’s;
Both the Clinton and McCain bills address very specific issues; the more detailed the issue the easier it is to form a convincing argument and the more politically feasible it is. This fact is reflected in the bills themselves. Senator Obama’s Bill calls on;
“...the president to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.”
Certainly a noble aspiration, but not detailed enough to have political legs. The bill itself states the problem of global poverty and the promises made by the United States at the G8 summit to fight it. However, the bill does not name any specific measures that should be taken in order to realize this goal.
A better idea, would be to tackle smaller objectives of the same problem (like a bill promoting the increase of aid of a specific monetary value to a specified improvised nation for funding of a particular program). Although overworked, the cliché “Rome was not built in a day” is apt here.
Clinton bills characteristically contain a high level of detail and specificity. For example, in her previously mentioned bill, she not only calls for increased research into new HIV infection prevention, but she goes on to list 17 specific ways in which one could do so. She also uses such phrases as;
“Not later than 90 days after the enactment…”
which establishes a clear dealine for the completion of the proposed action in the bill.
Any successful president is one that works well with others. He or she needs to be able to reach across party boundaries and secure the support of his or her political agenda. Let us then consider which senator works best with others:
Senator Who Works Best With Others (determined by the normalized number of co-sponsored bills)
1st Place: Clinton (247.6)
2nd Place: Obama (185.0)
3rd Place: McCain (79.7)
Clinton again takes home top honors; and rather convincingly. Obama, is the big surprise here. He has constantly claimed that he is the best person to bring the country together, Black and White, Republican and Democrat. That is going to be a little hard to do if the Illinois senator doesn’t work well with his fellow senators.
Ron Fournier, Associated Press Writer, in a recent article entitled ON DEADLINE: Obama walks arrogance line makes a very interesting point;
“.. aides and associates of Obama tell stories about a boss who can be aloof and ungracious. He holds firmly to views and doesn't like to be challenged, traits that President Bush packaged and sold under the "resolute" brand in the 2004 election.”
These certainly are less than ideal qualities for a senator (and quite different from his public portrayal), but may explain his lower efficiency and his being out-shone by Clinton in the cooperation arena.
It would be remiss of me if I didn’t point out, that the above quotation could have easily been referring to McCain who is even more resolute and unwavering in his beliefs.
However, after eight years of a president who refused to acknowledged mistakes such as the “faulty” intelligence that lead to the invasion of Iraq; or more recently failing to acknowledge CIA reports that Iran is does not possess a nuclear weapon program , do we need another president who “holds firmly to views and doesn't like to be challenged”?
By now it should be clear who has statistically emerged as the better option. The best overall senator is:
Best Overall Senator (most awarded points)
1st Place: Clinton (10)
2nd Place: McCain (8)
3rd Place: Obama (7)
Whatever one’s feeling about the former First Lady, it’s hard to argue against her experience from her time in the senate. Indeed, if one considers the eight years Senator Clinton spent in the white house as first lady and her accomplishments there; her work on helping to pass the State Children's Health Insurance Program; her work on increasing funding for cancer and asthma research, her work on increasing immunization for children: the Senator’s record speaks for itself (thought her campaign would be greatly helped if she spoke about her record in more detail).
Did anyone notice that Barrack Obama did not win any of the categories? This is perhaps indicative of his lack of experience. Is he genuine? Even with the account of his personality presented above, I believe he is. But, is he ready to become president of this nation, inherit the mess that the Bush administration has created and work with both parties to clean it up? The answer to that question is doubtful. One thing for sure is certain though; there will be grave consequences should the next president fail.
Obviously, the question of who is better qualified to take guide America into the future is a complex issue. To answer that question based solely on statistics would be ill-advised at best. But the analysis presented here, certainly gives one something to think about!
Comments (8)
I appreciate the effort and time it must have taken to put this together.
However, I have a few questions to pin down exactly where these numbers are coming from.
You have listed the number of co-sponsored bills for each senator, but I'm curious to know if you distinguished between bills on which each was an original co-sponsor, or if they simply added their name on later after most of the leg work was done.
In addition, while the original version of a bill can go into committee and get stuck there, it is often the case that the proposals in said bill end up as part of a larger bill. So, for your numbers as to bills that made it out of committee, are these numbers for only bills that came out intact with their original titles, or do they also include bills that became part of larger legislation.
And finally, I think the award of "Works best with others" is a bit misleading. For one, I'm not sure we can judge who works best with others by the number of bills that have co-sponsors on them, without distinguishing who the co-sponsors are, and whether the legislation was for an issue that has been traditionally partisan.
April 1, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"However, after eight years of a president who refused to acknowledged mistakes such as the “faulty” intelligence that lead to the invasion of Iraq; or more recently failing to acknowledge CIA reports that Iran is does not possess a nuclear weapon program , do we need another president who “holds firmly to views and doesn't like to be challenged”?"
In addition, I'm not really sure what the Fournier article had to do with your overall analysis of their legislative records. It seems we could all find a negative view of any candidate, but should it be passed by as truth? I might also add that Fournier has written several such pieces, which come across as thinly-cloaked op-ed pieces passing as AP news.
And finally, while Fournier may "cite" unnamed aides and associates in describing Obama, what does it say about Clinton herself who has never admitted to making a mistake in voting for the Iraq War, or in not reading the NIE when making her decision? It has also been noted by some that one of the reasons for the failure of the health care program she worked on in the 90s was as a result of her refusal to concede or consider other points of view.
April 1, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting analysis. Thanks.
April 1, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
"what does it say about Clinton herself who has never admitted to making a mistake in voting for the Iraq War"
Clinton did admit her mistake in voting for the war, but drew attention to all the votes made on the war since the initial one.
"one of the reasons for the failure of the health care program she worked on in the 90s was as a result of her refusal to concede or consider other points of view"
Clinton's failure with the health care plan could have been because of her refusal to concede or consider other points of view. I think it was mostly because she assumed that something as "obviously" beneficial as universal health-care could not possibly be opposed.
She has admitted that part of the reason for that failure was due to political in-experience. It's one thing to have an idea and quite another to put it in a political framework (as I explained in the article). Skip ahead 14 or so years, the Clinton you see today is much more mature and much more experience than the Clinton of the 90's. That's the point. When she talks about lack of experience in Obama she does it from a personal point of view; she knows full well the consequences.
April 1, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I'll concede the point that she may have learned from her mistakes. Indeed, I hope she did. I still have my doubts as to whether she really demonstrates the ability to consider various points of view, but aside from that...
"Did anyone notice that Barrack Obama did not win any of the categories? This is perhaps indicative of his lack of experience. Is he genuine? Even with the account of his personality presented above, I believe he is. But, is he ready to become president of this nation, inherit the mess that the Bush administration has created and work with both parties to clean it up? The answer to that question is doubtful. One thing for sure is certain though; there will be grave consequences should the next president fail."
No one disputes the fact that Senator Obama has spent less time in the U.S. Senate. If we are to judge experience, should we not also try to take into account the entirety of their experience? Personally, I'm of the crowd that doesn't think legislative experience necessarily translates to the vision, judgment, and understanding that will be necessary to try to right the wrongs of the past administration. But even assuming it is, how will we win that argument against McCain? Despite the fact that you have ranked Clinton as Best Overall Senator, the majority of people in this country believe McCain to be the most experienced of all the candidates. I think making the claim that this type of experience is the most important thing in choosing a President backs us into a corner for the general election.
And also, could you answer my questions that I made in my first comment about the numbers? I really am curious about this. I've done a lot of digging around in Thomas and whatnot and have found it to be harder than I expected in terms of judging which pieces they authored, co-authored, originally co-sponsored, and so on. I had not been familiar with the govtrack site, but am playing around on it now...
April 1, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think making the claim that this type of experience is the most important thing in choosing a President backs us into a corner for the general election."
I did not make this claim. I said "Obviously, the question of who is better qualified to take guide America into the future is a complex issue. To answer that question based solely on statistics would be ill-advised at best."
"And also, could you answer my questions that I made in my first comment about the numbers?"
I didn't differentiate between original co-sponsorship and the senators just attaching their name on the bill at the end. Or which ones were incorporated into other bills. That would involve a detailed bill-by-bill analysis of the few hundred bills that I don't have the time or interest to attempt.
Like I said, this article just gives one something to think about. I think it raises important questions. Some of which I intend to further explore in subsequent blog posts.
April 1, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the update. Yeah, wouldn't it be nice if there was some user-friendly way of searching through Thomas to figure out exactly what any given legislator accomplished?
And I did not mean to imply that you made the claim about experience being tantamount, you were quite clear in stating it is a complex issue. I should have clarified: I think Senator Clinton has made the case that experience is tantamount. I think she could have emphasized her experience differently throughout this campaign that would not have created such an obvious attack for the Republicans, should she get the nomination. But yes, it is something to think about and thanks for doing the leg work!
April 1, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting summary. I think you've made a great case for where Mrs. Clinton's strength lies--detailed, policy work. Senatorial work agrees with her, and she can look forward to furthering a fine career in the senate, perhaps becoming majority leader, if she doesn't blow her chances with a changing Democratic party. The way she has tackled large projects -- health care, her own presidential campaign -- shows a lack of judgement, cluelessness about the long-range plan, and an arrogance that is embarrassing to watch. Her recent pandering to right-wing publications shows how rudderless she is. I do not see the qualities present to lead this country anywhere but down. I think her effectiveness lessens each day her campaign continues.
April 1, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment