(1) This analysis only concern the very limited two years (2007-2009) that Sanders and Clinton served in the senate together; (2) the 93% voting agreement only demonstrates agreement on bills presented to the senate for a vote. That does not necessarily imply similarity in platform. (which they differ greatly, and in the context of the presidency, I would expect Clinton and Sanders to behave VERY differently).
A more accurate comparison would've been analyzing Clinton's votes on important issues and comparing it to its companion versions that were presented in the House.
See: http://www.politifact.com/.../11-examples-hillary.../
Having said all of this, they are both democrats, so of course they're going to agree with each other on majority of the issues. And i'll vote for whoever is the nominee in November. But frankly, Clinton's vote for the Iraq war, and her stances on Libya, Israel, Iran, and Guantanamo really worry me.
A more accurate comparison would've been analyzing Clinton's votes on important issues and comparing it to its companion versions that were presented in the House.
See: http://www.politifact.com/.../11-examples-hillary.../
Having said all of this, they are both democrats, so of course they're going to agree with each other on majority of the issues. And i'll vote for whoever is the nominee in November. But frankly, Clinton's vote for the Iraq war, and her stances on Libya, Israel, Iran, and Guantanamo really worry me.
1
This is my mantra: SCOTUS, SCOTUS, SCOTUS. Vote Democratic in November. Take back the Senate.
1
That they voted the same way 93% of the time dispels much of the myth that Ms. Clinton is a Wall Street puppet - far from it. Consider the following:
The former Rep. Barney Frank, co-author of the Wall Street reform Dodd-Frank bill, and who is an ally of Senator Elizabeth Warren, REFUSES to endorse Mr Sanders and is vocally supportive of Ms. Clinton.
Senator Warren has NOT chosen to endorse Mr. Sanders, either. Yet all four of them desire to limit the power of Wall Street which endangers our economy.
The main problem is that Mr. Sanders' purist approach is unrealistic and alienating. The need for cooperation and rational persuasion is tantamount to creating meaningful policy change in Washington. His rigid methods and narrow strategy are his problem, not his vision or his character, not mainstream media, and not Ms. Clinton.
I admire his courage, but even as President, his 'lone wolf' posturing and lack of supportive relationships in Washington makes a foundation too weak to realistically achieve his goals.
The former Rep. Barney Frank, co-author of the Wall Street reform Dodd-Frank bill, and who is an ally of Senator Elizabeth Warren, REFUSES to endorse Mr Sanders and is vocally supportive of Ms. Clinton.
Senator Warren has NOT chosen to endorse Mr. Sanders, either. Yet all four of them desire to limit the power of Wall Street which endangers our economy.
The main problem is that Mr. Sanders' purist approach is unrealistic and alienating. The need for cooperation and rational persuasion is tantamount to creating meaningful policy change in Washington. His rigid methods and narrow strategy are his problem, not his vision or his character, not mainstream media, and not Ms. Clinton.
I admire his courage, but even as President, his 'lone wolf' posturing and lack of supportive relationships in Washington makes a foundation too weak to realistically achieve his goals.
1
I am personally voting for Clinton although will happily support the nominee regardless in November. All I ask is that people check their distain for Clinton. Where does it come from and is it truly deserved? I understand both candidates appeal but am having a hard time with the anti-Clinton sentiments. Sanders (and Trump) have changed the game and Clinton was certainly playing by the old rules. She has raised a lot of money — a lot from Wall Street, like Democrats before her. Her speaking fees are high but not much higher than other comparable figures. This talk about authenticity is tired — Sanders is a career politician too! Elected officials cannot do their jobs if they are not elected so of course they pander for votes. I appreciate a leader who is influenced by the electorate. And vote in November regardless who the Democratic candidate may be!
3
PRESCRIPTION DRUG USER FEE AMENDMENTS OF 2007
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) introduced an amendment to Dorgan's amendment. Cochran's provision would require the Department of Health and Human Services, of which FDA is a part, to approve all imported drugs. Due to the substantial burden the requirement would impose on the agency, the measure essentially nullifies Dorgan's amendment. The Dorgan amendment passed by voice vote, but only after the Senate attached the Cochran amendment by a vote of 49-40.
Several amendments the Senate failed to approve proposed expanding the scope of the bill. Moments before the final vote on the bill, Durbin introduced an amendment that would have inserted language making it more difficult for scientists with financial conflicts of interest to serve on FDA advisory panels. The Senate did not agree to the amendment in a 47-47 vote. Grassley introduced a provision which would have involved the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology in post-market safety reviews, a responsibility currently left to the Office of New Drugs. The amendment was rejected 47-46.
The Senate voted 93-1 on the final bill, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) voting "nay," citing dissatisfaction over the nullified drug importation provision. The House is in the early stages of developing companion PDFUA reauthorization legislation, which is expected to contain similar regulatory expansion measures.
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) introduced an amendment to Dorgan's amendment. Cochran's provision would require the Department of Health and Human Services, of which FDA is a part, to approve all imported drugs. Due to the substantial burden the requirement would impose on the agency, the measure essentially nullifies Dorgan's amendment. The Dorgan amendment passed by voice vote, but only after the Senate attached the Cochran amendment by a vote of 49-40.
Several amendments the Senate failed to approve proposed expanding the scope of the bill. Moments before the final vote on the bill, Durbin introduced an amendment that would have inserted language making it more difficult for scientists with financial conflicts of interest to serve on FDA advisory panels. The Senate did not agree to the amendment in a 47-47 vote. Grassley introduced a provision which would have involved the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology in post-market safety reviews, a responsibility currently left to the Office of New Drugs. The amendment was rejected 47-46.
The Senate voted 93-1 on the final bill, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) voting "nay," citing dissatisfaction over the nullified drug importation provision. The House is in the early stages of developing companion PDFUA reauthorization legislation, which is expected to contain similar regulatory expansion measures.
1
While it would be very attractive to Hillary to be seen as similar to Bernie, theyir positions differ in very important respects. Their funders also do. As voters, we should not fall for someone telling us not to worry about the differences using percentages. A small percentage can be very significant in this context. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/sep/02/11-examples-hil...
2
Contrariwise, it is absolutely critical for Bernie's campaign to be seen as the "different outsider" and it just isn't true. Bernie and Hillary are over 90% the same on the issues. Bernie has been in Congress for 34 of Congress' most shameful, lame duck years, and supported many of the worst acts of Congress, including the Patriot Act. Bernie wants to put Edward Snowden on trial.
Bernie represents the illusion of choice. Bernie has one of the worst attendance records in the Senate, and when he does show up to work, he mostly cares about pork for Vermont and ensuring funding for foreign wars. He voted against ending earmarks (the practice of attaching unrelated funding proposals to bills- it's a way of moving money around secretly so it looks like you are doing something else) in the exact same week he voted against funding for the FDA. THE FDA. He has voted against clean energy any and every time it has gone up against Big Ag. You know he has missed 95% of Senate votes in 2016 so far? I used to canvass for Bernie for Senate when I lived in Vermont. Not any more. You can confirm my claims by reading the information available on this website, (if facts matter to you). If you don't want to tow the Democratic party line, vote for Jill Stein.
Bernie represents the illusion of choice. Bernie has one of the worst attendance records in the Senate, and when he does show up to work, he mostly cares about pork for Vermont and ensuring funding for foreign wars. He voted against ending earmarks (the practice of attaching unrelated funding proposals to bills- it's a way of moving money around secretly so it looks like you are doing something else) in the exact same week he voted against funding for the FDA. THE FDA. He has voted against clean energy any and every time it has gone up against Big Ag. You know he has missed 95% of Senate votes in 2016 so far? I used to canvass for Bernie for Senate when I lived in Vermont. Not any more. You can confirm my claims by reading the information available on this website, (if facts matter to you). If you don't want to tow the Democratic party line, vote for Jill Stein.
3
As far as voting to end earmarks go I haven't seen this vote neither in this article nor on the hill. If you could give me a link so that I can research that further I'd appreciate it.
Bernie didn't vote against funding the FDA, that I could find, but he did vote against President Obama's nomination, which makes sense as he's got extensive ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
Bernie Sanders didn't vote against clean energy, in fact he's voted against fracking, big oil, and coal; contrary to HRC's voting, or lack of votes. He also wants to usher in solar and other green energy and is the only candidate to make the connection between terrorism and climate change, which many climate scientists agree with. He in fact introduced legislation (look up low income solar act), which is aimed at lower income families being able to participate in solar energy efficiency that's more affordable.
The irony that I have is why people don't see how much he's pushed the DNC and our POTUS to more comprehensive legislation. No-one talked about more affordable college or initial two year proposal before Bernie started his campaign. He is also the only president that doesn't want us to be policing the entire planet, and I completely agree, along with cutting the military defense budget which is completely overblown.
Bernie didn't vote against funding the FDA, that I could find, but he did vote against President Obama's nomination, which makes sense as he's got extensive ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
Bernie Sanders didn't vote against clean energy, in fact he's voted against fracking, big oil, and coal; contrary to HRC's voting, or lack of votes. He also wants to usher in solar and other green energy and is the only candidate to make the connection between terrorism and climate change, which many climate scientists agree with. He in fact introduced legislation (look up low income solar act), which is aimed at lower income families being able to participate in solar energy efficiency that's more affordable.
The irony that I have is why people don't see how much he's pushed the DNC and our POTUS to more comprehensive legislation. No-one talked about more affordable college or initial two year proposal before Bernie started his campaign. He is also the only president that doesn't want us to be policing the entire planet, and I completely agree, along with cutting the military defense budget which is completely overblown.
Karen, Bernie is an outsider, always has been and yes he votes 90% of the time with Democrats, but most of the time it's to prevent republicans (and some gems) from passing horrible legislation. Do you expect him to vote 90% of the time with republicans? We have a two party system so that would be the only other way to vote? Sanders is one congressman and you can't exactly blame him for our Congress as a whole being lame duck, which I wouldn't agree with, and actually I think they've become extremely lame since POTUS Obama came to office especially once they reclaimed the house. As far as Edward Snowden, no presidential candidate wants to bring him home and hold his hand. They all want him to be penalized, but Bernie does feel he deserves a fair trial. The only candidate that wants to bring him home without a penalty is Lincoln Chafee and he's no longer in the race.
You are also mistaken about the Patriot Act, in fact Bernie opposed it when it came to the floor, and again when it was up for reauthorization. Hillary voted in favor of it twice. As far as attendance goes, not one congressman has perfect attendance, and that's ridiculous to only point him out for 2016 when he's running for POTUS. He's missed 47 of 304 votes, but compared to others, he's fared better.
You are also mistaken about the Patriot Act, in fact Bernie opposed it when it came to the floor, and again when it was up for reauthorization. Hillary voted in favor of it twice. As far as attendance goes, not one congressman has perfect attendance, and that's ridiculous to only point him out for 2016 when he's running for POTUS. He's missed 47 of 304 votes, but compared to others, he's fared better.
4
Why weren't the times HRC abstained from voting (tantamount to a "no vote") included in this comparison?
3
Another interesting comparison to make is between the voting records of Senators Clinton and Obama. I did that during the 2008 primary elections. She was more progressive than he.
Now that we see Pres Obama joining forces with Paul Ryan, McConnell, and Boehner to try and get his dangerous TPP through Congress, that is not hard to believe.
Now that we see Pres Obama joining forces with Paul Ryan, McConnell, and Boehner to try and get his dangerous TPP through Congress, that is not hard to believe.
4
"Her positions on the votes that differed from Mr. Sanders represented policy differences but also political calculations by Mrs. Clinton, who was preparing for a presidential run in 2008." Unless you're a mind reader, how do you know this? This is what is meant by interjecting opinion into an article that's supposed to be focused on the news. I appreciate the actual rundown of the differences in votes; I don't appreciate opinion presented as fact.
6
If you don't think her Presidential run influenced her votes in the Senate, I have a bridge to sell you....
3
Regarding Sen. Sanders votes/positions on gun control: he got an F from the NRA and he represents a fairly rural state which actually uses guns for their fundamental purpose, hunting for food. I like the fact that he actually REPRESENTS his constituents unlike most of the corporate puppets in Congress. What he would do as president on gun control is not of much interest to me since it is largely a state issue.
4
Kimberly, no, they don't primarily use guns for hunting and food in VT. It's not the Yukon.
3
Kimberly,
Yes but even so, he voted as his constituents asked him to, which is why they elected him to congress. This is also closer in line with the 2nd amendment and I find this to be more admirable.
Yes but even so, he voted as his constituents asked him to, which is why they elected him to congress. This is also closer in line with the 2nd amendment and I find this to be more admirable.
Handguns are not used to hunt for food. And he also voted against extending background checks to three days.
Obviously effort went into providing extra clarity in the language of the charts rather than simple "For and Against". I appreciate this attention to detail and hope it continues.
The general confusion which exists around procedural votes in the Senate or votes which contain "poison pills" despite their titles can make any comparison of senatorial votes meaningless to an average voter. I hope future comparisons will continue to include explanations which help voters to understand complexities of votes.
Thank you again for devoting space and resources to this comparison. It will not be such an easy task for the current field of GOP senators!
The general confusion which exists around procedural votes in the Senate or votes which contain "poison pills" despite their titles can make any comparison of senatorial votes meaningless to an average voter. I hope future comparisons will continue to include explanations which help voters to understand complexities of votes.
Thank you again for devoting space and resources to this comparison. It will not be such an easy task for the current field of GOP senators!
5
Hillary = gun regulation. Bernie = no gun regulation. Hillary = support immigration laws Bernie = opposed immigration laws. Bernie has a one track mind focused on Wall Street... he doesn't seem to be able to multitask. Hillary is tackling many issues at once from economics to education to immigration to middle class family needs, etc. Hillary has my vote. No one on the republican side is credible for me.
11
THANK YOU for printing this.
I've been trying to explain to my old college buddies from the late 70's the difference between these two Presidential potentials.
Great to see it in B&W as it saves a LOT of arguing time. Let their Senatorial votes speak for themselves....THANKS AGAIN.
I've been trying to explain to my old college buddies from the late 70's the difference between these two Presidential potentials.
Great to see it in B&W as it saves a LOT of arguing time. Let their Senatorial votes speak for themselves....THANKS AGAIN.
5
The only mention of Senator Sanders in a NYTimes article with the word "immigration" from June 2007 is from June 28, 2007:
"Senator Bernard Sanders, a newly elected independent from Vermont who usually sides with Democrats, has been opposing the measure [immigration reform bill], arguing that it could be detrimental to American workers."
More recently, on June 24, 2013 the NYTimes described Senator Sanders as having become more sympathetic with immigration reform.
More recently, on February 2-5, 2015, Senator Sanders voted with Democrats to block a bill funding the Department of Homeland Security, which apparently would have somehow interfered with Obama's Executive Order on immigration (how I do not know).
Senator Sander's website does not clarify his current position on immigration.
"Senator Bernard Sanders, a newly elected independent from Vermont who usually sides with Democrats, has been opposing the measure [immigration reform bill], arguing that it could be detrimental to American workers."
More recently, on June 24, 2013 the NYTimes described Senator Sanders as having become more sympathetic with immigration reform.
More recently, on February 2-5, 2015, Senator Sanders voted with Democrats to block a bill funding the Department of Homeland Security, which apparently would have somehow interfered with Obama's Executive Order on immigration (how I do not know).
Senator Sander's website does not clarify his current position on immigration.
1
The bill would have completely defunded Obama's EO.
This is the kind of stuff we need to see. Though, it'd be great if we had more context of each vote, such as why exactly Bernie considered the National Institute of Standards and Technologies' Advanced Technology Program as wasteful.
For instance, the best I can find about that amendment is that it's summarized as "Amdt. No. 3294; To increase funding for the United States Marshals Service to ensure full funding for the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 and offset the increase by reducing funding for the Advanced Technology Program." which sounds more like nuance of a funding bill and completely different than "wasteful spending."
I can't find any comments on it from Bernie, and I worry that the "wasteful spending" bit may be some editorializing by the New York Times. If that's the case, what else in the voting comparison are they editorializing?
For instance, the best I can find about that amendment is that it's summarized as "Amdt. No. 3294; To increase funding for the United States Marshals Service to ensure full funding for the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 and offset the increase by reducing funding for the Advanced Technology Program." which sounds more like nuance of a funding bill and completely different than "wasteful spending."
I can't find any comments on it from Bernie, and I worry that the "wasteful spending" bit may be some editorializing by the New York Times. If that's the case, what else in the voting comparison are they editorializing?
1
If you were in favor of increasing funding for one thing 1, by using funds currently going to thing 2, you might say 'I think these funds would be of much better use for thing 1; if we continue to use them for thing 2, I consider that a waste of funds.' It seems to make sense.
All I have to say is: Go, Bernie, GO!!! He gives me hope again, something that had all but disappeared until he announced his run. I will NOT vote for another Clinton. Ever. I may be classified as low-income, but I will be donating to Bernie as much as I possibly can. GO, BERNIE, GO!!!
14
This was an excellent comparison all voters should read and study to make informed selections not paid slander of PACs
2
I will be re-registering back to Democrat to vote for Bernie. I registered Green as a protest, as Dems were complaining, very loudly, about Repubs taking corporate money, just as they were doing the same things themselves. In the over two years I have been a registered Green, few from the party have reached out to me, except when they want money.
10
You take corporate money because if you don't you get 0.5% of the vote, as the Green Party has demonstrated. In this world you play the field the way the field is designed, not the way you wish the field would be. Then, when you get in, you try to change the rules.
5
Yes the Green Party is the field of dreams.
This article can and will be misinterpreted. The 93% voting agreement only demonstrates agreement on bills presented to the senate for a vote. That does not necessarily imply similarity in platform. In the context of the presidency, I would expect Clinton and Sanders to behave very differently. A more accurate predictive analysis might be a qualitative study of bills sponsored or authored by each.
17
As s lifelong Democrat, I also feel Bernie is too far left to win more than 30% of the vote in a general election, but I would have "to hold my nose" to vote for Hillary. Wish there were some better choices out there for us Dems..
2
Hold your nose, and give her money too. You may not like her (I despise her husband for opening the door to the Yellow Rose of Texas in the 2000 election) but her Republican opponent will be far to the right of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Staying home is a vote for Citizens United, for repeal of Dodd Frank, and for another war in the middle east.
15
I like Sanders on most issues except trade and foreign policy - where he is careless. My heart is with him but my brain is with Clinton. Bernie would be our McCain - too far to one side to be electable. Clinton can win and we get 93% of what we want. Bernie can't win - we get 0% of what we want. No brainer. Still, Bernie can play an important role and have influence.
9
93%? Where is that number coming from? She is paying lip service to the middle class. As soon as she is elected, she will reveal her true Wall Street colors.
13
Yes, as Johnnie Walker keenly pointed out:
The 93% voting agreement only demonstrates agreement on bills presented to the senate for a vote. That does not necessarily imply similarity in platform. In the context of the presidency, I would expect Clinton and Sanders to behave very differently. A more accurate predictive analysis might be a qualitative study of bills sponsored or authored by each.
The 93% voting agreement only demonstrates agreement on bills presented to the senate for a vote. That does not necessarily imply similarity in platform. In the context of the presidency, I would expect Clinton and Sanders to behave very differently. A more accurate predictive analysis might be a qualitative study of bills sponsored or authored by each.
Fascinating - Clinton and Sanders voted together 93 percent of the time, even though Clinton is perceived as a pro-corporate moderate and Sanders is a self-described socialist. I'll bet that there is no Democrat-Republican pair of Senators who vote together anything close to 93 percent of the time.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
7
I have always held that Democrats are Democrats because they 'agree to disagree,' whereas Repubs are expected to line up behind their current leaders and share the same approach to everything.
1
I would like to see this analysis extended back to 2001. Key decisions were being made from 9/11 forward that should be contrasted as well.
5
The reason we didn't include back to 2001 is that Mr. Sanders was in the House through the end of 2006. There are some identical votes the two probably took while in different chambers, but more of the votes were not alike than alike.
6
Follow the money, and there you will find Hillary Clinton. I can't take her entitlement mentality - that she is now entitled to the presidency.
34
Sorry, but she has earned it,
3
Ethel, why do you think she has earned it? Why do you feel she has earned it more than any of the other Democratic candidates, or anyone else? I'm just curious why you think she's entitled to the presidency, thanks.
Entitlement mentality??!? Please rethink saying things like this. Only women and other minorities seem to get this type of criticism. When people say things like, "she thinks she is entitled", or "she will do anything to win", it really is a way of putting someone "in their place". As in, how dare this person think she should be president? As in, how dare she try to even pursue this? Don't all the candidates want to be president?!? Please ask yourself if you have ever actually said this about a white, male candidate. It would sound absurd.
4
I would like to know where Bernie Sanders stand on the Palestinian/Israel issue, particularly the two State solution. He is a Jewish American and I wonder if he is in favor of the illegal settlement in the West Bank by Israelis. Does he have a solution to the plight of the Palestinians and the aggressive and inhumane treatment of Palestinian civilians during the last Israel's bombing of Gaza? It is obvious in this article that this issue has been sidetracked.
3
This may be shocking to you Doris, but Jewish Americans -- since they are first and foremost Americans -- do not generally feel any special responsibility to answer for Israel's actions. Sanders, as a presidential candidate, should state his position on Israel, as any other candidate -- but I don't think that his Jewish heritage places any extra burden on him for this.
In short, it is not "obvious" that this issue has been sidetracked, except to someone who confuses Jews with Israeli citizens.
In short, it is not "obvious" that this issue has been sidetracked, except to someone who confuses Jews with Israeli citizens.
21
You are correct Dan - except that many Jewish politicians do confuse Jews with Israeli citizenship. Many act as if they had divided loyalties. Just listen to Ed Koch!
3
We, Americans may not feel responsible for Israel's actions, but our tax dollars are aiding them to foment their actions. Without it, the situation will clearly be different. And I won't be surprised that most Jewish Americans (not all) will use their heritage to influence political decisions whether they admit it or not. All I want is for Sanders to not delay to declare his foreign policy now that he has started his campaign. I am leaning on voting for him but he has to articulate everything for me to make that crucial decision.
3
HRC's events, so far, appear to be staged because they are staged. What's needed are actual debates between the 2 Dem candidates, each answering the other's Qs. And real HRC press conferences, less fakery with caefully screened small groups of 'everyday people.' Bernie isn't hiding.
25
The campaign has just started.
1
Poor Bernie Sanders is just finding out that the media cabal selected Hillary Clinton as our next president years ago. Good luck next time Bernie.
6
Clinton votes with the major money in American politics: that which speaks for the Military-Industrial-(Congressional) Complex, the financial system, and the profitability of large public corporations (lower taxes, less regulation, cheap and compliant labor).
Sanders does not. That's basically the difference: things as they are, versus things as they ought to be.
Sanders does not. That's basically the difference: things as they are, versus things as they ought to be.
45
Great observation!
Hillary seems much more interested in her own political career than she does in actually trying to lead. As this article points out, she tended to just go along with what others in the democratic party were doing. I am very sick of hearing how Hillary has so much experience and how this will make her a better president. Sadly, I think she is one of those people who looks great on a resume, but isn't actually great. Also, the media keeps focusing on her current efforts to learn from real americans. If she doesn't know what the issues are for "everyday' americans by now, she never will.
47
Hillary has a lot more idea than Bernie.
NY Times, thanks for this article. This is the kind of information we need to make an informed decision about the Democratic nominee.
51
They may have voted similarly but Bernie would love to vote on many many issues on which he and Hillary disagree. Those issues have never had a proper airing. If they had you would find their views vastly different. Also, she voted for the Iraq war and he voted against it. She'll never get my vote for that reason alone.
56
If Secretary Clinton is the Democratic nominee I shall vote for her. I dislike her pro-war AIPACy bellicose positions. I dislike her closeness to Goldman Sachs and the Wall Street crooks. That said I feel she'd make better nominations for the Supreme Court than any Republican. I shall vote for Bernie in the primary but my vote does not matter a whit because by the time we vote in the primaries in New York the nominee has already been selected.
4
If we don't break the corporate stranglehold on energy policy, it won't matter who's on the Supreme Court, we're on the road to ecocide. HRC is a tool of Wall Street and Big Oil. It's Bernie Sanders or I'm voting Green. No more "lesser of two evils." Peace and sustainability are the issues. It's the ECOLOGY, stupid!
19
No, stupid, its the Republicans, who don't believe in peace, sustainability, ecology, or any of the things you hope for. Vote for Ralph Nader again and you'll get another Bush.
5
Calling someone a "socialist" who is heavily pro gun and who voted with Clinton 93% of the time ... is ridiculous. Even if he uses that to ID hisself.
4
Senator Sanders is not what I define as extreme, ridiculous, or irately pro-gun, not in our current political climate wherein both sides regarding this issue tends to run to extremes, especially considering that his constituency lives in Vermont, a state where not only culturally, traditionally, but from necessity, there is a rural population that hunts for their food and livelihood:
Senator Sanders has a score of F by the NRA.
Senator Sanders voted No on decreasing gun waiting period from three days to one day.
Senator Sanders voted Yes on banning high capacity magazines over ten bullets.
Senator Sanders has a score of F by the NRA.
Senator Sanders voted No on decreasing gun waiting period from three days to one day.
Senator Sanders voted Yes on banning high capacity magazines over ten bullets.
27
Bernie is very much more to the right on gun control - which is HUGE......... That's mainly one reason I will not be voting for him. Being from Virginia and living where the Virginia Tech shootings happened, I won't be voting for anyone who isn't strict on gun laws. I'm willing to compromise on some things, but that is not one of them.
21
I haven't heard about his position on gun control. If that is the case, I'm with you. Wow. That saddens me.
3
He's not pro-gun; the NRA even rated him an F. See: http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Bernie_Sanders.htm
---Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains. (Apr 2009) - something that is legal for airports dealing with *checked* baggage for the transportation of firearms, including hunting rifles.
---Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007) - believes gun control is an American issue.
---Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005) - not allowing people to sue gun manufacturers for using a firearm improperly, just as we do not sue the car industry if we get in an accident after drinking and driving.
---Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003) - not allowing people to sue gun manufacturers if a criminal murders someone, just as we do not sue the car industry when we are hit by a drunk driver.
---Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999) - self-explanatory
---Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)
I fail to see how any of this is pro-gun. Liberals (an identification which I carry) are being persuaded by talking points rather than evidence and logic. Why should someone who is victim to a gun crime be allowed to sue the gun COMPANY? That is not allowed FOR ANY OTHER INDUSTRY IN THE WORLD. Why this one? It makes no sense, and Bernie understands that.
---Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains. (Apr 2009) - something that is legal for airports dealing with *checked* baggage for the transportation of firearms, including hunting rifles.
---Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007) - believes gun control is an American issue.
---Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005) - not allowing people to sue gun manufacturers for using a firearm improperly, just as we do not sue the car industry if we get in an accident after drinking and driving.
---Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003) - not allowing people to sue gun manufacturers if a criminal murders someone, just as we do not sue the car industry when we are hit by a drunk driver.
---Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999) - self-explanatory
---Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)
I fail to see how any of this is pro-gun. Liberals (an identification which I carry) are being persuaded by talking points rather than evidence and logic. Why should someone who is victim to a gun crime be allowed to sue the gun COMPANY? That is not allowed FOR ANY OTHER INDUSTRY IN THE WORLD. Why this one? It makes no sense, and Bernie understands that.
30
More Republican votes for him.
6
It looks like Sanders has a backbone and Hillary doesn't, and it's clear that Hillary is trying to please all her constituents and potential constituents (the illegal immigrants). Remember the old Aesop fable - in trying to please everybody you end up pleasing nobody?
I'm voting for Sanders or Paul. They're more genuine and I think have the "authenticity" and focus on the issues that are relevant to the average person in the US. I'm still wondering what Hillary stands for other than herself.
I'm voting for Sanders or Paul. They're more genuine and I think have the "authenticity" and focus on the issues that are relevant to the average person in the US. I'm still wondering what Hillary stands for other than herself.
50
Minh z, really? If Bernie has such a backbone then why is he so pro gun? Could it be that he is a politician who votes to please his pro gun constituents?
9
To Robert, Bernie is not pro gun. Please read Alex from NC's comment above. Just because Bernie doesn't think a victim of guns should be able to sue the company who makes the guns doesn't make him a gun nut, it makes him reasonable. Look at his whole voting record on guns. Also, as a representative of Vermont, it makes sense that Bernie was voting in a manner best for Vermonters. Vermont is a very rural state and the gun issues are different. Don't you expect your senators to represent the citizens of your state?
24
Or because he's pro-evidence? Liberals, again an identification I strongly carry, have provided no evidence that LEGAL gun ownership has any sort of causational relationship with increased crime. None! But the party just continues to maintain this position regardless because it's just become a dogmatic talking point.
Based on available evidence, people who are licensed to legally purchase firearms are not at a greater risk of committing violent crimes. Period. His voting history pertains to the behavior of LEGAL gun owners and LEGAL uses of guns. His state is indeed gun-friendly AND yet it has a very low crime rate. What gives? Why do liberals ignore this when formulating beliefs on gun legislation?
Aren't we supposed to be more science-based? We're more about evolution, climate change, homosexuality being a biological construct, stronger education, etc. Why is it that we abandon reason and science for this one issue? Why is it that we believe people who are harmed by guns have a right to sue the gun company which acts in accordance with the laws? This is so dogmatic and illogical it hurts that people don't think twice on this issue before just assuming the party's more popular position.
Based on available evidence, people who are licensed to legally purchase firearms are not at a greater risk of committing violent crimes. Period. His voting history pertains to the behavior of LEGAL gun owners and LEGAL uses of guns. His state is indeed gun-friendly AND yet it has a very low crime rate. What gives? Why do liberals ignore this when formulating beliefs on gun legislation?
Aren't we supposed to be more science-based? We're more about evolution, climate change, homosexuality being a biological construct, stronger education, etc. Why is it that we abandon reason and science for this one issue? Why is it that we believe people who are harmed by guns have a right to sue the gun company which acts in accordance with the laws? This is so dogmatic and illogical it hurts that people don't think twice on this issue before just assuming the party's more popular position.
7
This article fails to point out that on gun control Mr. Sanders is far to the right of Mrs. Clinton. He has been against any moderate measures of gun control while in congress. Most recently, Mr Sanders voted no to increasing the gun waiting period, voted yes to prohibit victims families of gun violence from suing gun manufactures when their products have been misused ( think Sandy Hook and the Colorado shooting), voted yes to allow passengers to bring checked guns on Amtrak trains. In 1993 as a U.S. rep., Mr. Sanders voted against the Brady Act, which mandated federal background checks and restricted felon's access to guns. In an era of mass shootings and gun violence this is a voting records that deserves more scrutiny and frankly does not square with progressive ideals on gun control.
18
Thank you for pointing out the dilemma - some might call it hypocrisy - for otherwise liberal politicians who represent mostly rural states. Anything that displeases the gun lobby will bring immediate, well-financed reaction that can mobilize legions of single-issue voters. No one wants to poke a stick in the NRA hornet's nest. These politicians rationalize that their compromise on this issue allows them to get elected in order to vote for other liberal causes. If you are going to characterize Clinton's votes as having an eye on elections, please do so for all others. This is the nature of politics; it's not religious orthodoxy. These detailed comparisons really do nothing to illuminate the discussion. It looks to me as if the legions of reporters who are assigned to cover Clinton need to have something to justify their existence. I love Bernie Sanders, but I'm supporting Hillary because she has the better combination of skills and experience to fill the complicated role of President, in addition to being able to win a national election. Remember how Obama has disappointed many of his rapturous supporters from 2008. I want the first female president to be a liberal Democrat, not a Tea Party darling.
2
I am so sorry to hear this. Count me out if he doesn't change his views on this one.
2
Elizabeth Warren deserves to be the first female president. She actually defends middle class America and the best interests of our country as a whole. Hillary has received millions from Wall Street and big corporations, and has voted (or not voted) accordingly. Wealth inequality will likely continue to grow under Hillary.
13
As much as the data is extremely interesting and useful, the opening line of the article creates confusion. What was the total number of votes? 31 votes out of how many and on what issues? I suspect one could also "prove" that Hillary voted with a tea party 100% of the time renaming post offices. Where is the editor in these kinds of articles?
4
Tom: Both voted on a total of 451 votes during their two years together in the Senate, which is how we got the 93 percent agreement rate mentioned in the piece.
5
Derek, thanks for the clarification.
IIRC, it's the House, not the Senate that wastes time renaming post offices. Don't most people refer to them as The Post Office?
Almost three decades of consistency in principles and actions. America -- don't let this opportunity pass you by. Sanders has the New Deal to truly take this country into the 21st century. Hillary is part of the Old Guard.
We can start by investing in infrastructure at home, rather than blowing up the infrastructure of a Middle Eastern country that is a non-threat to the United States.
We can start by investing in infrastructure at home, rather than blowing up the infrastructure of a Middle Eastern country that is a non-threat to the United States.
85
@Brian in Indiana: Ms. Clinton aligned with Mr. Sanders 93% of the time. showing her to be quite liberal. She is electable. Mr. Sanders is not. Plus, rebuilding infrastructure. although an excellent idea, is not the stuff of progressive politics. It is the common sense.
2
In that case, Bernie has more common sense than anybody else running.
For the record, the 93% is pretty misleading considering that so many of Bernie's issues were never even allowed to be voted on during his tenure as Senator.
For the record, the 93% is pretty misleading considering that so many of Bernie's issues were never even allowed to be voted on during his tenure as Senator.
5
That final vote on estate taxes may not be anything huge materially, but it sure is revealing ideologically. Since the beginning of political modernity, the progressive worldview has been based on countering entrenched, aristocratic power--which was largely perpetuated through inheritance, and all manner of rules related to entailment. From Paine to Jefferson, architects of American ideals would often say that the land belongs to the living, not to the dead.
Based on this criteria, it it fair to call Ms. Clinton a progressive? Because she would not have been so in the 1790s.
Based on this criteria, it it fair to call Ms. Clinton a progressive? Because she would not have been so in the 1790s.
59
We need more information to make this list more useful to us-- for example, what exactly were the exemptions for?
On some issues, it is clear that the difference between Clinton and Sanders is a result of representing the people of the state they are supposed to be representing as Senators. For example, Clinton, representing NY, voted to have homeland security funds distributed based upon risk, whereas Sanders, representing Vermont, voted to make sure even low risk places got a minimum amount. So, again, regarding estate tax exemptions or any other issue on this list, I would like more information as to what exactly the issue was.
On some issues, it is clear that the difference between Clinton and Sanders is a result of representing the people of the state they are supposed to be representing as Senators. For example, Clinton, representing NY, voted to have homeland security funds distributed based upon risk, whereas Sanders, representing Vermont, voted to make sure even low risk places got a minimum amount. So, again, regarding estate tax exemptions or any other issue on this list, I would like more information as to what exactly the issue was.
10
For the estate tax vote, here is the text of the amendment, sponsored by Ken Salazar, a Colorado Democrat: https://www.congress.gov/amendment/110th-congress/senate-amendment/4196/...
6
Derek-- thank you so much for the link to the text of the proposed legislation. Alas, I still can't figure out what the disagreement was about! It seems to say that the Chairman of the relevant Senate Committee, who at that point was a Democrat, could revise the figures as long as it was in a revenue neutral way.....
SA 4196. Mr. CONRAD (for Mr. Salazar) proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 70, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2009 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 and 2010 through 2013; as follows:
At the end of Title III, insert the following:
SEC. . ESTATE TAX REFORM INITIATIVE.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the aggregates, allocations and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that provides up to
$45,000,000,000 in tax relief over the period of the total of
the fiscal years 2008 through 2013 for additional estate tax
reforms that address the current flaws in the estate tax law,
by the amounts provided in such legislation for such purpose,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
SA 4196. Mr. CONRAD (for Mr. Salazar) proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 70, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2009 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 and 2010 through 2013; as follows:
At the end of Title III, insert the following:
SEC. . ESTATE TAX REFORM INITIATIVE.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the aggregates, allocations and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that provides up to
$45,000,000,000 in tax relief over the period of the total of
the fiscal years 2008 through 2013 for additional estate tax
reforms that address the current flaws in the estate tax law,
by the amounts provided in such legislation for such purpose,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
But bare-knuckle campaigner that he's always been, Bernie Sanders did his very best to call Sec. Clinton's liberal credentials into question. And as the NYT's resident basher of anyone named Clinton, Maureen Dowd is only too happy to jump on board. It's not a strong argument. Jonathan Cohn of the Huffington Post did a good job of rebutting it in a May 2016 piece. Here's an excerpt:
"If Sanders is the standard by which you’re going to decide whether a politician is a progressive, then almost nobody from the Democratic Party would qualify. Take Sanders out of the equation, and suddenly Clinton looks an awful lot like a mainstream progressive — firmly on the left side of the American ideological spectrum and maybe on the left side of the Democratic Party’s, as well."