Study shows AOC one of least effective members of congress

[MR DARK BRANDON]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/aoc-one-of-the-least-effective-members-of-congress-study-says/ar-BB1fheEZ

Gee, I wonder why? It Wasn’t like she was blocking Biden’s bold agenda just so she could have some insta live where she says “see? Establishment bad!”

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

The types of people "Establishment" Democrats defend are the ones derailing Biden's agenda. Also, this is from April.

[jojoju1998]

The one thing I can garner from this is that the democrats as a whole are ineffective.

[Bootes Void]

Aren't most people in congress ineffective anyway

[PSOL]

Can’t do much when you have only 15 allies in Congress

[MABA 2020]

She's not the one who killed Biden's agenda, that was Manchin/Sinema

[jojoju1998]

Can’t do much when you have only 15 allies in Congress

That being said, it makes me wonder why Democrats don't develop the personal relationships that are needed in politics ? Policy does matter, but when it comes down to it, all politics are personal.

The relationships matter. I have no seen any effort by Manchin to even talk with progressive lawmakers or hang out with them like the Good old days of Tip O Neill and Ted Kennedy where they were friends with republicans, sparred with them, but in the end, were able to be lawmakers.

There isn't that right now.

[JM1295]

The funny thing is Rashida Tlaib ranks pretty decent (#92 out of 240) and she's even more of a firebrand progressive from the Squad. Chrissy Houlahan, a centrist to moderate Democrat also ranks pretty low at #229 out of 240. I wouldn't take much out of this from an ideological standpoint as far as progressives, liberals, or moderates being more effective.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

She's not the one who killed Biden's agenda, that was Manchin/Sinema

but that goes against the narrative you see

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

The funny thing is Rashida Tlaib ranks pretty decent (#92 out of 240) and she's even more of a firebrand progressive from the Squad. Chrissy Houlahan, a centrist to moderate Democrat also ranks pretty low at #229 out of 240. I wouldn't take much out of this from an ideological standpoint as far as progressives, liberals, or moderates being more effective.

It's really just based on how many bills they passed. Tlaib got one bill she wrote passed, and that's enough to catapult her up there. It's a very limited metric.

[NYSforKennedy2024]

Didn't she win this last year, too?

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

This appears to describe how the study ranked legislators. Good reading if you are in the mood for a laugh.

The high priests of our national religion have spoken.

Someone should get on the phone with AOC's manager and ask why she isn't meeting the benchmarks for her KPIs.

my guy I have no idea what that even means and I just passed diff-e

[WV222]

This appears to describe how the study ranked legislators. Good reading if you are in the mood for a laugh.

The high priests of our national religion have spoken.

Someone should get on the phone with AOC's manager and ask why she isn't meeting the benchmarks for her KPIs.

My opinion? Don't trust a political metric that is made off of five equations that would take a college math major to understand.  

[Blue3]

I question the way they could measure "effectiveness"

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

This appears to describe how the study ranked legislators. Good reading if you are in the mood for a laugh.

The high priests of our national religion have spoken.

Someone should get on the phone with AOC's manager and ask why she isn't meeting the benchmarks for her KPIs.

My opinion? Don't trust a political metric that is made off of five equations that would take a college math major to understand.  

I'm a math minor. I have no idea what is going on, at all, in this

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

I question the way they could measure "effectiveness"

Shh. You're hurting The Narrative.

[Ancestral Republican]

Uh huh. It's all AOC's fault. Now, stay silent while Manchin takes a wicked sh**t over his yacht railing onto a pile of dead diabetes patients who couldn't afford their medication.

[S019]

This appears to describe how the study ranked legislators. Good reading if you are in the mood for a laugh.

The high priests of our national religion have spoken.

Someone should get on the phone with AOC's manager and ask why she isn't meeting the benchmarks for her KPIs.

This is unnecessarily complex, but from my reading of their methodology, the alpha, betas, and gammas represent a "substantiveness" score which weights legislation. The "LAW," "BILL," etc. terms refer to a specific category of bill. The summation in the denominator indicates all bills of this category and substantiveness, while the numerator indicates bills of this category and substantiveness by that specific representative. This is unnecessarily complex, but its basic form seems to be: ((substantiveness score)(number of bills in that category by 1 Rep))/((substantiveness score)(number of bills in that category by all reps))

[President Johnson]

Aren't most people in congress ineffective anyway

Yeah, especially those with the loudest mouth.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Aren't most people in congress ineffective anyway

Yeah, especially those with the loudest mouth.

We were supposed to have a bigger majority especially no Fillibuster in the Senate in 20, NC, ME and IA or MT or KS to get a 52/48 Senate even without GA is but it didnt happen but let's remind forum users since they forget that we got 2 Stimulus checks infrastructure and we had a year of CDC momemtorim on Evictions that's why Biden in IPSOS not Gallup is at 48 percent and we won't lose like the compiled map says  PA, MI, and WI and the blue wall

The only thing voters disapprove of is the border but that would be fixed with immigration reform

[coloradocowboi]

This is unnecessarily complex, but from my reading of their methodology, the alpha, betas, and gammas represent a "substantiveness" score which weights legislation. The "LAW," "BILL," etc. terms refer to a specific category of bill. The summation in the denominator indicates all bills of this category and substantiveness, while the numerator indicates bills of this category and substantiveness by that specific representative. This is unnecessarily complex, but its basic form seems to be: ((substantiveness score)(number of bills in that category by 1 Rep))/((substantiveness score)(number of bills in that category by all reps))

To be clear, it's not just the unnecessary complexity that I find funny. It's the idea that this is a meaningful measure, and that there is any merit in reducing our judgment of a legislator to a number.

There's an additional layer of ridiculousness to this in that the complexity seems intended not to add meaning but to intimidate a lay audience into accepting the output without arguing with the methods that produced it.

You see this everywhere these days - in business, in government, in popular media, in journalism. I won't claim to possess much mathematical sophistication beyond intermediate statistics, but it doesn't take a lot to recognize how much of what poses as "performance measurement" or "evaluation" is little more than obscurantist rituals that can be tweaked to justify almost any conclusion demanded by those with the power to make substantive decisions.

This study isn’t even peer reviewed, which means that it’s basically meaningless for anybody besides internet ideologues. Its authors decided to quantify “effectiveness” using arbitrary math, and now we are proceeding as if it’s a scientific fact instead of what it really is—a convoluted means to scientifically prove something that science itself cannot prove. Neoliberals love this kind of stuff, because it seems to always suggest that their ideology—a cold, quantified accounting of the good life—is wise or whatever but it’s so dumb imo. If I come up for a complex formula that determines who is the cutest care bear, did I just do science? Or sophistry?

[Sestak]

The statisticians are at it again!

[SWE]

The obsession with turning things that can't be objectively quantified into an incoherent mathematical formula and then pretending it means something is why nobody takes political science seriously. Well, that and every else about political science

[sg0508]

I'll try to simplify it - she's there for "Gen Z" and she's made it clear she's not going anywhere.  She feels like she's their voice and because of her age, they connect with her, as do younger Millennials.