Interest Group Ratings & Presidential Candidates

[CARLHAYDEN]

Using the ratings of candidates seeking their party's nomination for the Presidency by ideological interest groups for candidates who have served/are serving in Congress, to determine whether the candidate is/is not a conservative or liberal is an old (Kennedy used the ACA ratings in 1960 to counter Johnson's charges) and potentially valid exercise, which is subject to a number of problems.

Due to  limitations of space, I will merely touch upon three of those problems, but will be delighted to elaborate in subsequent posts for those who don't fully comprehend those points.

First, for members of Congress who have served for more than a decade, cumulative averages can be very misleading. 

A candidate can have a very conservative voting record for the first few years, then shift to a rather liberal record in the last few years, with a resulting "moderate" rating, which does NOT accurately reflect a candidate's real position today.

Second (and related), Members of Congress (particularly in the House, but to lesser extent in the Senate as well) tend to some extent to reflect the preferences of their constituency, especially in the first few years of their service.  They recognize that whatever their personal views, if they stray too far from the preferences of their constituents (particularly if they don't feel "entrenched" in the seat), they will be defeated when seeking reelection.

Third, Members of Congress to some extent vote the party line.  This is quite understandable as they recognize that if they vote too often against their party they may endanger their chances of getting assigned to "good" committees and/or chairmanships of said committees.

If one adjusts for the three factors, then ideological interest group ratings of Presidential candidates who have served/are serving in Congress can be reasonably accurate.