Power rankings

Posted at 3:11 PM on May 16, 2006 by Bob Collins (7 Comments)

Congress.org is out with its Power Rankings. Sometimes, the most well-known aren't the most powerful, you know. Sometimes they are.

Here's the rankings for Senate:

Sen. Frist (R-TN) 96.75 1
Sen. Specter (R-PA) 82.31 2
Sen. McCain (R-AZ) 80.94 3
Sen. Grassley (R-IA) 78.50 4
Sen. Reid (D-NV) 71.06 5
Sen. Domenici (R-NM) 69.25 6
Sen. McConnell (R-KY) 64.56 7
Sen. Stevens (R-AK) 61.56 8
Sen. Hatch (R-UT) 56.75 9
Sen. Cochran (R-MS)

And for the House:

Rep. Hastert (R-IL-14) 97.25 1
Rep. DeLay (R-TX-22) 63.50 2
Rep. Lewis (R-CA-41) 60.57 3
Rep. Young (R-AK-AL) 55.00 4
Rep. Sensenbrenner (R-WI-5) 48.00 5
Rep. Barton (R-TX-6) 45.56 6
Rep. Thomas (R-CA-22) 42.13 7
Rep. Pelosi (D-CA-8) 41.89 8
Rep. Obey (D-WI-7) 40.00 9
Rep. Regula (R-OH-16) 38.38 10

But I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "what about our people?"

As a group, Minnesota ranks on the weak side of "average." Figures.

Specifically, it goes like this:

Senate:
Name Rank in State Score Rank in Senate
Sen. Coleman (R-MN) 1 23.81 74
Sen. Dayton (D-MN) 2 15.75 91

House:
Name Rank in State Score Rank in House
Rep. Sabo (D-MN-5) 1 22.88 61
Rep. Oberstar (D-MN-8) 2 16.63 167
Rep. Kline (R-MN-2) 3 16.12 176
Rep. Kennedy (R-MN-6) 4 15.87 181
Rep. Ramstad (R-MN-3) 5 14.50 226
Rep. Gutknecht (R-MN-1) 6 14.00 233
Rep. Peterson (D-MN-7) 7 10.00 304
Rep. McCollum (D-MN-4) 8 4.00 429

I think the most surprising one -- to me -- is actually Kline ranking higher than Kennedy, but maybe that's just because of all the publicity Kennedy has generated with his Senate run, and Kline's tendency to be a little more low-key on the homefront. Peterson ranking so low, but that may be Democratic payback for the fact he's sort of not a Democrat while he sort of is.

What's interesting about Kline is that most of his ranking comes from the position he holds. But he gets 0 points for influence. Huh?

Kennedy gets -1 for influence, and points for position. And a low number of legislation.

Peterson gets nothing for influence, nothing for legislation. And McCallum McCollum (where'd that come from?) gets nothing for influence, nothing for legislation, and not much for position.

In the Senate, Dayton ranks 91 out of 100. Coleman 74 out of 100. Neither score is a heck of a lot to write home about.

But check that map. I'd have guessed that the South would be the one to have the most influence. But it's not. It's the mountain states and -- get this -- North Dakota.

How do you like that, Minnesota? You just got whacked by North Dakota.

Comments (7)

I suspect Minnesota's power ranking will rise considerably if party control changes in the House. Rep. Oberstar would chair Transportation and Rep. Peterson would chair Agriculture. Rep. Sabo would have made three had he stayed.

Posted by David Lillehaug | May 16, 2006 7:07 PM

At the CD 5 Independence Party convention I had an opportunity to address the attendees. I suggested that a vote for this campaign for the U.S. Senate was a "smart choice" since individual members of the body build their influence via seniority. So the smartest thing for a state to do is elect a young person and keep re-electing them!

Of course there are other factors regarding an individual senator's influence. An independent senator from Minnesota will have considerable influence for a number of reasons. From coalition building to deciding votes to a voice of integrity, an independent senator from Minnesota in Washington, D.C. is in our state's best interest. Granted, I might be a bit biased on this point.

FWIW, Joe Biden (28th on the list) was elected to the U.S. Senate at age 29.

Posted by rmf | May 16, 2006 11:09 PM

I think you are missing the point Bob.

It is has little to do with individuals and A LOT to do with party.

Democrats aren't in power, so they dont have a lot of influence (unless they have been there for quite sometime and can earn a seat on the Rules or Appropriations Committee). This is basic American Government. You are overanalyzing it while at the same time misinterpreting the data.

Posted by DFLer22 | May 17, 2006 11:18 AM

just a nitpicky correction- it's "McCollum", not "McCallum".

Posted by atom | May 17, 2006 11:27 AM

Steve Benen of The Carpetbagger Report weighs in on what he says is a bogus ranking:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7440.html

Posted by anonymous | May 17, 2006 2:31 PM

"Power" is an interesting term. As near as I can tell, it involves a lot of pork. So on the one hand, people are campaigning against wasteful spending, send out press releases which tout some award of a gazillion dollars for their district, and then watching their "power rankings" go up, so that the next time they campaign against wasteful spending, they'll be able to talk about their power and influence.

Kinda makes your head hurt, doesn't it?

Posted by Bob Collins | May 17, 2006 3:00 PM

"And McCollum gets nothing for influence"

Guess that shows how influential being a Regional Whip for the minority party is.

Posted by DI | May 18, 2006 3:44 PM

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories