I'm not sure how much stock to put in this, but I thought it was interesting and worth passing along:...Progressive Punch has placed every state and Congressional district into one of five categories: strong D, lean D, swing, lean R, and strong R. Each Congress-critter's "crucial vote" score is then compared to the political lean of the district or state. In the right-hand column on the "Select by Score" pages, every member of Congress now has a rating from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most progressive...In other words, this is a weighted rating for every member of Congress (except for those freshmen who haven't cast many votes yet) based not only on their absolute progressive scores, but just as importantly on their RELATIVE score based on what type of district or state - "strong R" to "strong D" - they represent. Thus, a representative who votes highly progressive from a progressive district is fine, but a representative who votes highly progressive from a swing or even conservative district is superb. The opposite is the case as well; if you're from a progressive district and you STILL don't vote progressive, that's not good at all.
With that, here are the progressive rankings for Virginia's congressional delegation, with 5 the superstars, 4 the "worthy of support" folks, 3 the "acceptable" members, 2 the "tolerable" ones, and 1 the "intolerable."
Mark Warner: 5
Bobby Scott: 3
Jim Webb: 3
Jim Moran: 1
Rick Boucher: 1
Frank Wolf: 1
Rob Wittman: 1
Bob Goodlatte: 1
James Forbes: 1
Eric Cantor: 1
*******************************
Gerry Connolly: N.A.
Glenn Nye: N.A.
Tom Perriello: N.A.
As you can see, only one member of Virginia's congressional delegation, Mark Warner, gets a superstar 5 rating from Progressive Punch. Two others - Bobby Scott and Jim Webb - get "acceptable" 3 ratings. The rest, both Democrats and Republicans, get "intolerable" 1 ratings. Obviously, I'm not surprised that the Republicans, including so-called "moderate" Frank Wolf, get horrible ratings from Progressive Punch. Wolf is particularly egregious because his district is "swing," trending Democratic. I'm a bit surprised that "radical centrist" Mark Warner is ranked as a progressive superstar, but he hasn't cast many votes yet and I expect him to move back towards the center. Jim Webb doesn't surprise me, although I actually think he's been more progressive than is indicated here.
That leaves Rick Boucher - low progressive score in a "leaning Republican" district - and Jim Moran, who Progressive Punch rates a 1 for not being progressive enough in the super-blue district of Arlington and Alexandria. One possible explanation for Jim Moran's surprising "intolerable" rating is that Progressive Punch uses the "lifetime crucial votes" score, which in Jim Moran's case obviously must be lower than his overall progressive score of 82.25. Also, Jim Moran's current year score is much more progressive, at 97.62, than his lifetime score, indicating that he's become more progressive with age and experience. Other than that, it's a bit difficult to see - except for a few DLC-style votes (bankruptcy reform, NAFTA, CAFTA, restrictions on class action lawsuits) - how Jim Moran could get an "intolerable" ranking on his voting record from Progressive Punch.
Again, I'm not sure how much validity to place on these scores, especially since the "lifetime crucial votes" are opaque (at least as far as I can tell). Still, I like the general concept of comparing a representative's voting record with his district, as opposed to simply giving an absolute score (e.g., progressive in a progressive district, conservative in a conservative district) that may not be particularly revealing.
h/t to MyDD
