Ryan is the most conservative Congressmember to be nominated as VP since 1900.

[retromike22]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/a-risky-rationale-behind-romneys-choice-of-ryan/

"Various statistical measures of Mr. Ryan peg him as being quite conservative. Based on his Congressional voting record, for instance, the statistical system DW-Nominate evaluates him as being roughly as conservative as Representative Michele Bachmann, the controversial congresswoman of Minnesota.

By this measure, in fact, which rates members of the House and Senate throughout different time periods on a common ideology scale, Mr. Ryan is the most conservative Republican member of Congress to be picked for the vice-presidential slot since at least 1900. He is also more conservative than any Democratic nominee was liberal, meaning that he is the furthest from the center. (The statistic does not provide scores for governors and other vice-presidential nominees who never served in Congress.)"

[Rhodie]

John Nance Garner was the more liberal than Mondale and Humphrey!?

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

This dudes more of a neo-con than Cheney. Chicago needs to use this and run this ad 2 million times a day from now til the convention. They need to define Ryan before Rove and Romney get the chance. Even I have a favorable opinion of him.

[The Mikado]

This is an inherently absurd chart.

(Also, Fairbanks was VP candidate in both 1904 and 1916, way to go Fivethirtyeight)

EDIT:  Would someone with a NYT login please go correct Nate Silver on the Fairbanks thing?  It's bugging me.

[bgwah]

Why isn't Wallace on the chart?

[The Mikado]

Why isn't Wallace on the chart?

Henry Wallace was never in Congress.

[minionofmidas]

This is an inherently absurd chart.

It's not the chart that is inherently absurd, but the threadheader spin. It is inherently absurd to treat 2012 Conservatism and 1900 Conservatism as equivalent or the term as meaning the same thing. What the chart is saying is that Paul Ryan is the vice presidential candidate with the voting record most deviant from the voting record of a generic congressman of the vpc's respective day. That makes him the "most extreme" vpc, or the "most partisan", or possibly just (unless the measure corrected for that) the one serving in the most polarized times among the extremeish/püartisanish ones. It doesn't make him "most conservative", that's something else entirely.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I thought Fairbanks was a progressive?

[bgwah]

Why isn't Wallace on the chart?

Henry Wallace was never in Congress.

Ha, good point.

[Jackson]

I'm sorry, the ideological classification of vice-presidents that you have posted is completely absurd. How exactly is John Nance Garner the most liberal vice-president on that list?

[minionofmidas]

I'm sorry, the ideological classification of vice-presidents that you have posted is completely absurd. How exactly is John Nance Garner the most liberal vice-president on that list?

It is quite conceivable that that is from his last term in Congress, when he was... uh... Speaker.

Of course, the chart was compiled to illustrate a point ("Ryan is a consciously non-moderate choice and this proves the Romney campaign knows it's got an outside chance at victory but no more"), not prove it.

[SteveRogers]

I'm sorry, the ideological classification of vice-presidents that you have posted is completely absurd. How exactly is John Nance Garner the most liberal vice-president on that list?

What part of the data do you take issue with? Those ideology scores aren't just pulled out of thin air. They're DW-NOMINATE scores which are used in political science as the gold standard for comparing the ideologies of legislators. Garner's score there is an objective measure based on his voting behavior relative to the rest of his congress (taking into account every roll call vote in a given congress).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I wouldn't have thought that Garner was the most liberal, and it leaves out those without Congressional experience, such as Palin, Agnew, and Wallace, but it is an objective ranking.

Ryan has a ranking of just to the left of Bachmann.

[Dereich]

I thought Fairbanks was a progressive?

Nah, Fairbanks was chosen to keep the old guard Republicans in line and balance out the progressiveness of Roosevelt.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm sorry, the ideological classification of vice-presidents that you have posted is completely absurd. How exactly is John Nance Garner the most liberal vice-president on that list?

What part of the data do you take issue with? Those ideology scores aren't just pulled out of thin air. They're DW-NOMINATE scores which are used in political science as the gold standard for comparing the ideologies of legislators. Garner's score there is an objective measure based on his voting behavior relative to the rest of his congress (taking into account every roll call vote in a given congress).

DW-NOMINATE does a very poor job of comparing people from different eras.  Also, they may label their axis as being Liberal-Conservative, but it really is more of a Democratic-Republican axis than Liberal-Conservative.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I'm sorry, the ideological classification of vice-presidents that you have posted is completely absurd. How exactly is John Nance Garner the most liberal vice-president on that list?

What part of the data do you take issue with? Those ideology scores aren't just pulled out of thin air. They're DW-NOMINATE scores which are used in political science as the gold standard for comparing the ideologies of legislators. Garner's score there is an objective measure based on his voting behavior relative to the rest of his congress (taking into account every roll call vote in a given congress).

DW-NOMINATE does a very poor job of comparing people from different eras.  Also, they may label their axis as being Liberal-Conservative, but it really is more of a Democratic-Republican axis than Liberal-Conservative.

Hence the argument that the chart is a useful measure of partisanship rather than anything else. I think Silver's point regarding Ryan stands if we're talking about partisanship rather than ideology per se, though.

[retromike22]

I'm sorry, the ideological classification of vice-presidents that you have posted is completely absurd. How exactly is John Nance Garner the most liberal vice-president on that list?

What part of the data do you take issue with? Those ideology scores aren't just pulled out of thin air. They're DW-NOMINATE scores which are used in political science as the gold standard for comparing the ideologies of legislators. Garner's score there is an objective measure based on his voting behavior relative to the rest of his congress (taking into account every roll call vote in a given congress).

DW-NOMINATE does a very poor job of comparing people from different eras.  Also, they may label their axis as being Liberal-Conservative, but it really is more of a Democratic-Republican axis than Liberal-Conservative.

Hence the argument that the chart is a useful measure of partisanship rather than anything else. I think Silver's point regarding Ryan stands if we're talking about partisanship rather than ideology per se, though.

In that case, Ryan is the vp choice who was least likely to vote against his party.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm sorry, the ideological classification of vice-presidents that you have posted is completely absurd. How exactly is John Nance Garner the most liberal vice-president on that list?

What part of the data do you take issue with? Those ideology scores aren't just pulled out of thin air. They're DW-NOMINATE scores which are used in political science as the gold standard for comparing the ideologies of legislators. Garner's score there is an objective measure based on his voting behavior relative to the rest of his congress (taking into account every roll call vote in a given congress).

DW-NOMINATE does a very poor job of comparing people from different eras.  Also, they may label their axis as being Liberal-Conservative, but it really is more of a Democratic-Republican axis than Liberal-Conservative.

Well, according to them, the second most conservative member of Congress from 1937-2002 was ultimate DINO Larry McDonald, so obviously what party you claim to be a member of doesn't determine your score.

[© tweed]

we need another Aaron burr

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

we need another Aaron burr

Well, Dick Cheney shot someone while Vice President. Is that close enough?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I'm sorry, the ideological classification of vice-presidents that you have posted is completely absurd. How exactly is John Nance Garner the most liberal vice-president on that list?

What part of the data do you take issue with? Those ideology scores aren't just pulled out of thin air. They're DW-NOMINATE scores which are used in political science as the gold standard for comparing the ideologies of legislators. Garner's score there is an objective measure based on his voting behavior relative to the rest of his congress (taking into account every roll call vote in a given congress).

DW-NOMINATE does a very poor job of comparing people from different eras.  Also, they may label their axis as being Liberal-Conservative, but it really is more of a Democratic-Republican axis than Liberal-Conservative.

Well, according to them, the second most conservative member of Congress from 1937-2002 was ultimate DINO Larry McDonald, so obviously what party you claim to be a member of doesn't determine your score.

Your positioning relative to the rest of your party seems to, and I can't think of anything McDonald voted with most House Democrats on.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Dims like to pretend he was a republican.

Also, no Palin?

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Dims like to pretend he was a republican.

No we don't.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Dims like to pretend he was a republican.

Also, no Palin?

She was never in Congress.

[Mechaman]

On Garner:

I think it's a little dishonest not to mention that Garner's congressional record was pre-New Deal.  There were a number of Democrats who were once labeled "progressive" during the Wilson era who became "conservatives" during FDR's first two terms.  Of note, Garner was a known supporter of the Federal Income Tax, rural investments, and an opponent of most tariffs (except those that he believed benefitted his Texas base), positions that at the time he was in Congress (March 4th, 1903-March 4th, 1933) were considered quite liberal.  He was also one of the most anti-Prohibition Congressmen in the country, holding secret alcohol drinking sessions with fellow congressmen in the middle of Prohibition that he called a "board of education", which he considered "striking a blow for liberty".
Considering that his Congressional record went up to 1932, before FDR was elected President, it's probably not that insane to consider his record would be considered quite liberal.  As wikipedia itself notes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It wasn't until the second term or so of FDR's presidency that Garner and others (including the likes of David Walsh and Thomas Gore) were thought of as "conservative Democrats".