The Public Trusts Doctors over Obama

Narmerguy · Jun 17, 2009

"On Healthcare, Americans Trust Physicians Over Politicians"

You can find the article here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/120890/Healthcare-Americans-Trust-Physicians-Politicians.aspx

I think this should be a little bit uplifting for the profession that the public still understands that the people delivering healthcare have the best idea of what to do to fix it and aren't a bunch of "greedy bastards" or anything like that (though I'm sure plenty still think it).

I'll quote it.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Nearly three-quarters of Americans (73%) say they are confident in doctors to recommend the right thing for reforming the U.S. healthcare system. That is significantly higher than the public confidence extended to President Barack Obama, as well as to six other entities that will be weighing in during the emerging healthcare reform debate.

While the public trusts the views of doctors the most, more than 6 in 10 Americans are also confident in university professors or researchers who study healthcare policy (62%) and in hospitals (61%).

At 58%, Obama fares better than congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle; however, the Democratic leaders in Congress have more credibility on healthcare reform than do the Republican leaders: 42% vs. 34%.

In terms of the major private-sector healthcare debate participants, confidence in what the pharmaceutical companies might advocate as the solution is only slightly higher than what health insurance companies might propose, 40% vs. 35%.

Medical Professionals Have Bipartisan Reach

Doctors, hospitals, and university researchers may not generally be viewed as political powerhouses. But when it comes to healthcare reform, all three entities have a potentially important advantage over government leaders. As the Gallup Poll results suggest, they are well-positioned to have bipartisan clout with the public.

Obama and the leaders of the two parties in Congress are trusted on healthcare by most of their own party's members, but are distrusted by most of the opposing party's. By contrast, large majorities of Republicans, independents, and Democrats say they have confidence in what doctors, hospitals, and university professors and researchers recommend on healthcare.

Obama stands out among elected officials on this issue because he not only enjoys the confidence of his own party members (Democrats), but he receives majority support from independents. The 53% of independents saying they are confident in Obama to recommend the right thing on healthcare contrasts with only 36% of independents confident in congressional Democratic leaders, and 27% confident in congressional Republican leaders.

Bottom Line

President Obama received a lukewarm response at his speech before the annual meeting of the American Medical Association on Monday in which he outlined his case for enacting comprehensive healthcare reform this year. While the members present reportedly welcomed some of his remarks, some also booed him for failing to endorse limits on medical malpractice awards.

Obama has yet to unveil a comprehensive plan for reforming healthcare; the administration is still sponsoring healthcare forums at the White House and around the country to gather information and ideas. However, given Americans' high regard for doctors' opinions on healthcare reform, Obama may find it important to keep trying to bring the AMA, and other professional doctors' groups, on board with his approach. Of course, public confidence in hospitals and academic experts on the issue is nothing to sneeze at, either; their support for any plan Obama submits could help him counter possible opposition from the medical profession.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,009 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted June 13-14, 2009, as part of Gallup Poll Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Note: These questions were asked of random half-samples for two nights of Gallup Poll Daily tracking, which interviews 1,000 U.S. adults each night.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

There are a couple other poll results of interest on there.

Lukkie · Jun 17, 2009

I think how "Healthcare professors/researchers" being below doctors is particularly telling about the way people think. In that regard, polls like this are useful when creating plans to advertise/promote reform.

But I'll admit I got a nice smirk when I saw "Democratic leaders in Congress" scored higher than "Republican leaders in Congress".

MossPoh · Jun 17, 2009

How about the public trusts doctors the most out of everything. Republicans don't seem to get very high marks in that chart.

Red Leader · Jun 17, 2009

Lukkie said:
But I'll admit I got a nice smirk when I saw "Democratic leaders in Congress" scored higher than "Republican leaders in Congress".

And why is that? 42% is nothing to cheer about.

Narmerguy · Jun 17, 2009

MossPoh said:
How about the public trusts doctors the most out of everything. Republicans don't seem to get very high marks in that chart.

Well I say this in light of the Obama vs AMA clash.

Red Leader said:
And why is that? 42% is nothing to cheer about.

Can't expect much of the republic's opinion of Congress. The only group that seems to get hated on more is lawyers. But then again, so many members of Congress are both...

Red Leader · Jun 17, 2009

Narmerguy said:
Can't expect much of the republic's opinion of Congress. The only group that seems to get hated on more is lawyers. But then again, so many members of Congress are both...

42% is sad considering we the people vote them in. Just sayin.

Evergrey · Jun 17, 2009

Hopefully the public trusts doctors more than the AMA, too.

VneZonyDostupa · Jun 17, 2009

Red Leader said:
42% is sad considering we the people vote them in. Just sayin.

Each person polled only elected 2% of the senators (assuming they voted for the current office-holders) and an even smaller percent of the representatives. Even if you're completely happy with "your guys/gals" in Congress, you may still be very unhappy with the Congress as a whole. I've heard the opinion echoed quite a bit lately.

Forthegood · Jun 17, 2009

Health insurance companies 35% confident? Pharma companies 40% confident? Hospitals 61% confident?

People are really really f***ing stupid. The hospitals, the vast majority of pharma companies, and insurance at this point exist only for the benefit of themselves.

So no, this doesn't make doctors look good, it just makes them look respectively less bad. All of this healthcare reform talk, useless polling, and ridiculous interviews are really starting to wear me thin.

Looks like everyone knows it's broken, and nobody knows how to fix it. Dems want to try the newest pathetic gadget and pray it works, and Pubs want to put a small bandage over it and wait for the problem to either bleed out or for a bigger problem to come along and be pushed aside.

ANF1986 · Jun 17, 2009

Lukkie said:
But I'll admit I got a nice smirk when I saw "Democratic leaders in Congress" scored higher than "Republican leaders in Congress".

Interesting. What I get a nice smirk from is the fact that Democrats parade as the party of the 'average working man' when Democrats in Congress outweigh Republicans 2:1 in net worths.

The Republican bashing is really getting old. What the critics fail to recognize, or maybe they recognize it but get a kick out of sensationalising the nonsense, is that Neo-Conservatives have hijacked the party, people like Karl Rove, Dick Cheyney, Condi Rice, George Bush, and Lindsay Graham. These people are war mongering, big government, bafoons.

TRUE principled Conservatives like myself who are registered Republican(but identify more Libertarian) have to get lumped into the group of *****s that have infested the Republican party like a festering disease.

Red Leader · Jun 17, 2009

VneZonyDostupa said:
Each person polled only elected 2% of the senators (assuming they voted for the current office-holders) and an even smaller percent of the representatives. Even if you're completely happy with "your guys/gals" in Congress, you may still be very unhappy with the Congress as a whole. I've heard the opinion echoed quite a bit lately.

This is true, but the survey did not ask about Congress as a whole. It split it up between dems/gop so you would think dem voters would stick with the dems and gop voters with gop.

In any case, I don't see why people think its better that one party has a slightly less abysmal approval rating than another.

VneZonyDostupa · Jun 17, 2009

Red Leader said:
This is true, but the survey did not ask about Congress as a whole. It split it up between dems/gop so you would think dem voters would stick with the dems and gop voters with gop.

In any case, I don't see why people think its better that one party has a slightly less abysmal approval rating than another.

I can see your point, definitely, about the poll falling down party lines. I think it's good to note, though, that even many strict democrats vomit in their mouth a bit any time Nancy Pelosi steps up to the microphone. She gives every liberal thinker a bad name.

NotAndrew · Jun 17, 2009

ANF1986 said:
Interesting. What I get a nice smirk from is the fact that Democrats parade as the party of the 'average working man' when Democrats in Congress outweigh Republicans 2:1 in net worths.

Citation Please. Plus does it really matter if you are worth 5 million or 50 million? You are still out of touch with the people.

ANF1986 said:
TRUE principled Conservatives like myself who are registered Republican(but identify more Libertarian) have to get lumped into the group of *****s that have infested the Republican party like a festering disease.

True conservatives are the conservatives/republicans whereas the people who identify Libertarian are libertarian. Looks like you have a bit of an identity crisis.

BTC · Jun 17, 2009

NotAndrew said:
True conservatives are the conservatives/republicans whereas the people who identify Libertarian are libertarian. Looks like you have a bit of an identity crisis.

I'm going to need a citation on that one too.

There is nothing conservative about much of the neo-con religious right.

Is a conservationist allowed to be called conservative?

Forthegood · Jun 17, 2009

BTC said:
I'm going to need a citation on that one too.

There is nothing conservative about much of the neo-con religious right.

Is a conservationist allowed to be called conservative?

I've got to agree here. The recent republican "conservatism" is anything but conservative. The past 8 years were bigger and bigger government.

Pelosi sucks. And I am a liberal. Every party has sour patches.

And the 5 million to 50 million thing is the truth. But that is still a gross underestimate. A better guess would be 50 million and 100 million. 5 million isn't what it used to be...

Narmerguy · Jun 17, 2009

ANF1986 said:
The Republican bashing is really getting old. What the critics fail to recognize, or maybe they recognize it but get a kick out of sensationalising the nonsense, is that Neo-Conservatives have hijacked the party, people like Karl Rove, Dick Cheyney, Condi Rice, George Bush, and Lindsay Graham. These people are war mongering, big government, bafoons. .

I believe there is a book "It's My Party Too" Or something along those lines that approaches this entire polarity with the Republican party and how it's gravitated towards the religious right or something along those lines. Perhaps you should check it, I never read it.

ANF1986 · Jun 17, 2009

NotAndrew said:
Citation Please. Plus does it really matter if you are worth 5 million or 50 million? You are still out of touch with the people.

It's on one of my old lectures, I will look for it. For now, I can tell you that 6 of the 10 wealthiest in Congress are Democrats.

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) - $230.98 Million

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) - $225.96 Million

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) - $160.62 Million

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) - $80.4 Million

Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC) - $78.96 Million

Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) - $65.49 Million

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) - $55.33 Million

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) - $52.34 Million

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) - $47.62 Million

Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) - $28.65 Million

50. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) - $5.02 Million

True conservatives are the conservatives/republicans whereas the people who identify Libertarian are libertarian. Looks like you have a bit of an identity crisis.

Are you a Republican? Quite plainly, you have no idea what you are talking about. There is a clear distinction between Neo-Conservatism and true Conservatism. Ronald Reagan who is regarded as one of the best Republicans to have ever lived said himself that,

"I[SIZE=-1]f you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."- Ronald Reagan, March 22, 1986. [/SIZE]

My responses are in bold. I find it funny that the people who champion these large initiatives which will raise everyones taxes, or force people to accept government run healthcare, will never actually be affected by these things themselves. We would expect since Democrats champion themselves as the advocates of the average working class American, that they might descriptively represent these people. Instead, we find that much like the Republicans cater their message to the religious right to get votes, Democrats cater their message to the working class to get votes, without actually having anything in common with the working class.

Omni · Jun 18, 2009

What we need to have is a doctor, politician, and economist all in one body. If there is a person with expertise in those three areas, we might have a go-to guy to get us out of this lol

ANF1986 · Jun 18, 2009

Omni said:
What we need to have is a doctor, politician, and economist all in one body. If there is a person with expertise in those three areas, we might have a go-to guy to get us out of this lol

http://libertymaven.com/wp-content/uploads/ron_paul.jpg

Col Kurtz · Jun 18, 2009

Red Leader said:
42% is sad considering we the people vote them in. Just sayin.

No, we don't vote "them" in we vote 3 of 535 in. That is why national polls usually show low congressional ratings--we're hostile to other representatives, but not necessarily our own. Couple that with a country that was until recently evenly split between the major parties (and still pretty damn close to an even split) you will get polls like that.

rockaction · Jun 18, 2009

ANF1986 said:

But that guy doesn't believe in evolution...

Col Kurtz · Jun 18, 2009

ANF1986 said:
My responses are in bold. I find it funny that the people who champion these large initiatives which will raise everyones taxes, or force people to accept government run healthcare, will never actually be affected by these things themselves. We would expect since Democrats champion themselves as the advocates of the average working class American, that they might descriptively represent these people. Instead, we find that much like the Republicans cater their message to the religious right to get votes, Democrats cater their message to the working class to get votes, without actually having anything in common with the working class.

This is a rather shortsighted view. The President grew up poor, but if you were to put his net worth up there now, you could make it look the same way you did by putting the otehr names up there. Yes, Kennedy grew up wealthy. But do you know the personal histories of all those you put up there? I highly doubt it. And wow 6 of 10 are Dems...that's a clock cleaning. Did you really think you were proving a point with that chart?

And you know what...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php

1 Jane Harman (D-Calif) $236,280,153 $397,412,077 $558,544,002
2 Darrell Issa (R-Calif) $160,615,042 $343,457,521 $526,300,001
3 John Kerry (D-Mass) $284,157,594 $336,224,883 $388,292,172
4 Mark Warner (D-Va) $60,591,195 $237,843,092 $415,094,990
5 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $149,443,028 $200,545,512 $251,647,996
6 Jared Polis (D-Colo) $97,374,113 $175,875,556 $254,377,000
7 Robin Hayes (R-NC) $74,576,347 $173,409,173 $272,241,999
8 Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla) $-69,659,542 $165,748,714 $401,156,971
9 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $43,821,041 $103,560,020 $163,298,999
10 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $59,897,019 $93,715,011 $127,533,003
11 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $53,326,179 $89,509,099 $125,692,020
12 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $52,344,301 $84,171,162 $115,998,023
13 Michael McCaul (R-Texas) $23,931,154 $64,073,077 $104,215,000
14 Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) $-19,038,894 $62,468,047 $143,974,989
15 James E. Risch (R-Idaho) $19,929,058 $56,350,027 $92,770,996
16 Bob Corker (R-Tenn) $11,194,043 $54,682,020 $98,169,998
17 Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) $17,009,100 $50,297,547 $83,585,994
18 Cynthia Marie Lummis (R-Wyo) $13,038,030 $48,417,014 $83,795,998
19 Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) $22,414,184 $47,350,092 $72,286,000
20 Gordon H. Smith (R-Ore) $28,358,029 $46,127,014 $63,895,999
21 Alan Mark Grayson (D-Fla) $29,026,043 $45,361,021 $61,696,000
22 Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) $16,929,476 $43,716,445 $70,503,415
23 Gary Miller (R-Calif) $14,494,042 $39,978,021 $65,462,000
24 Tom Petri (R-Wis) $10,631,037 $38,761,518 $66,891,999
25 Ben R. Lujan (D-NM) $25,050,002 $37,642,500 $50,234,999

13-12 in favor of Dems. Try a different tact please.

ANF1986 · Jun 18, 2009

Col Kurtz said:
13-12 in favor of Dems. Try a different tact please.

As soon as you guys stop trying to use figures like Cheyney, Bush, and Rove to disparage the entire Republican party. It wouldn't matter if the Dems and Republicans were absolutely equal in net worths. The point is that the idea that the Dems are somehow connected to the working class is a farse. How are they connected? I'll tell you how, the Dems tell these people what they want to hear. They promise them entitlements, in exchange for votes. I could easily use figures like Nancy Pelosi, Frank Lautenberg, and Hillary Clinton to make the Democratic party look terrible, but I dont. There are Democrats who I think are excellent representatives, like Dennis Kucinich.

VneZonyDostupa · Jun 18, 2009

ANF1986 said:
As soon as you guys stop trying to use figures like Cheyney, Bush, and Rove to disparage the entire Republican party. It wouldn't matter if the Dems and Republicans were absolutely equal in net worths. The point is that the idea that the Dems are somehow connected to the working class is a farse. How are they connected? I'll tell you how, the Dems tell these people what they want to hear. They promise them entitlements, in exchange for votes. I could easily use figures like Nancy Pelosi, Frank Lautenberg, and Hillary Clinton to make the Democratic party look terrible, but I dont. There are Democrats who I think are excellent representatives, like Dennis Kucinich.

In all fairness, every party/politician does what you have bolded in your post.

Democrats toss freebies and entitlements to the middle class for votes.

Republicans toss freebies and entitlements to corporations, the wealthy, and the hyper-religious for votes.

Even the Libertarian party does it. You don't think people jumped on that little bandwagon when they heard "no taxes"? I would wager that at least a slim majority of people at the "tea parties" and Ron Paul pseudo-conventions have no understanding that the idea of no taxes is tied to the idea of private charity and community investment being a necessity to fill the public sector gap that privatisation would create.

Col Kurtz · Jun 18, 2009

Oh yeah, one more thing I didn't mention. if you go to the same website that I cited above. You can go here http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2007&filter=C&sort=A and find the "poorest" (ie lowest net worth) people in Congress. 20 of 25 of them are Dems.

Look I respect your political views, but you should seriously consider checking your "evidence" before posting. Not only was your evidence at best inconclusive, but a quick check revealed that you're way off base if you look at the top and the bottom. Plus, this was from 07 which means the parties were barely in favor of the Dems, but not by the same margin as today. For the sake of credibility, just be careful. I enjoy our posts, but had to get you on this one.

And FTR Ron Paul is not an economist--having economist friends and reading lots of books is not the same as being a working economist. I respect Paul's intellect and agree with some of his positions, but calling him an economist is a stretch. And no being on a committee does not make you an economist.

Col Kurtz · Jun 18, 2009

ANF1986 said:
As soon as you guys stop trying to use figures like Cheyney, Bush, and Rove to disparage the entire Republican party. It wouldn't matter if the Dems and Republicans were absolutely equal in net worths. The point is that the idea that the Dems are somehow connected to the working class is a farse. How are they connected? I'll tell you how, the Dems tell these people what they want to hear. They promise them entitlements, in exchange for votes. I could easily use figures like Nancy Pelosi, Frank Lautenberg, and Hillary Clinton to make the Democratic party look terrible, but I dont. There are Democrats who I think are excellent representatives, like Dennis Kucinich.

Um, last I checked, I haven't used those guys to disparage the party. So let's no jump to conclusions. You're engaging in the same behavior. Why the defensiveness? Look, you're a smart person, it comes through in your posts. But just forget about this one. You got your clock cleaned on your chart, and VneZonyDostupa just knocked you out on "entitelements" argument. If anything, we all have a reason to despise most of Congress. For a dissident Republican, you sure come across as someone towing the party line.

Col Kurtz · Jun 18, 2009

VneZonyDostupa said:
In all fairness, every party/politician does what you have bolded in your post.

Democrats toss freebies and entitlements to the middle class for votes.

Republicans toss freebies and entitlements to corporations, the wealthy, and the hyper-religious for votes.

Even the Libertarian party does it. You don't think people jumped on that little bandwagon when they heard "no taxes"? I would wager that at least a slim majority of people at the "tea parties" and Ron Paul pseudo-conventions have no understanding that the idea of no taxes is tied to the idea of private charity and community investment being a necessity to fill the public sector gap that privatisation would create.

This is pure speculation, but many of these people probably were quite moved by the disdain shown by conservatives toward Obama because he started as a community organizer.

VneZonyDostupa · Jun 18, 2009

Col Kurtz said:
This is pure speculation, but many of these people probably were quite moved by the disdain shown by conservatives toward Obama because he started as a community organizer.

True, it is speculation. I was just working off of the libertarians I know personally, as well as their versions of "Joe the Plumber" that always seemed to pop up on CNN and Fox, always screaming "NO TAXES LOLWTFOMG!", but never explaining the rest of their stance. Obviously, this is because the idea of "no taxes" is mean to attract the lower and middle classes.

ANF1986 · Jun 18, 2009

Col Kurtz said:
Um, last I checked, I haven't used those guys to disparage the party. So let's no jump to conclusions. You're engaging in the same behavior. Why the defensiveness? Look, you're a smart person, it comes through in your posts. But just forget about this one. You got your clock cleaned on your chart, and VneZonyDostupa just knocked you out on "entitelements" argument. If anything, we all have a reason to despise most of Congress. For a dissident Republican, you sure come across as someone towing the party line.

I dont see how the chart disproved what I was trying to point out. My point simply was that when Democrats campaign on advocating for the average working person, many of them are nowhere near being an average working person. Wouldn't it be slightly less hypocritical of Republicans since they are the ones usually seen as being friendly to corporations and the "rich." If the Democrats want to push salary caps on CEO's and national healthcare for all, why dont the richer (D) representatives start unloading some of that net worth, maybe redistribute it. I mean, if doctors salary's are overinflated, surely a public servant and representative of the people doesnt "NEED" anymore than X amount. I think there is more inherent hypocrisy among rich Democrats than rich Republicans. I dont see how that is getting my clock cleaned. Your spot on that I am quite displeased with the Republican party, and certainly would not like to be accused of towing the line. You may or may not be aware that the establishment Republicans are being quite hostile to the libertarian movement within the Republican party right now, the neo-cons are pissed! lol... Look, as far as the charts go, I'm not JUST persecuting Dems here, I think that our representatives as a whole are so completely out of touch with "the people" that it is sickening. Charts like this for instance...

Nancy Pelosi (CA-8)

Avg. Net Worth in 1995 $27,720,300 (Range: -$77,922 to $55,518,523)
Avg. Net Worth in 2006 $38,539,554 (Range: -$9,292,881 to $86,371,990)

Average Net Worth Growth Comparison (Lawmaker vs. Avg. American Family)

Steve Threet · Jun 18, 2009

ANF1986 said:
I dont see how the chart disproved what I was trying to point out. My point simply was that when Democrats campaign on advocating for the average working person, many of them are nowhere near being an average working person. Wouldn't it be slightly less hypocritical of Republicans since they are the ones usually seen as being friendly to corporations and the "rich." If the Democrats want to push salary caps on CEO's and national healthcare for all, why dont the richer (D) representatives start unloading some of that net worth, maybe redistribute it. I mean, if doctors salary's are overinflated, surely a public servant and representative of the people doesnt "NEED" anymore than X amount. I think there is more inherent hypocrisy among rich Democrats than rich Republicans. I dont see how that is getting my clock cleaned. Your spot on that I am quite displeased with the Republican party, and certainly would not like to be accused of towing the line. You may or may not be aware that the establishment Republicans are being quite hostile to the libertarian movement within the Republican party right now, the neo-cons are pissed! lol... Look, as far as the charts go, I'm not JUST persecuting Dems here, I think that our representatives as a whole are so completely out of touch with "the people" that it is sickening. Charts like this for instance...

Nancy Pelosi (CA-8)

Avg. Net Worth in 1995 $27,720,300 (Range: -$77,922 to $55,518,523)
Avg. Net Worth in 2006 $38,539,554 (Range: -$9,292,881 to $86,371,990)

Average Net Worth Growth Comparison (Lawmaker vs. Avg. American Family)

Always glad to see a fellow Ron Paul supporter.

Col Kurtz · Jun 18, 2009

VneZonyDostupa said:
True, it is speculation. I was just working off of the libertarians I know personally, as well as their versions of "Joe the Plumber" that always seemed to pop up on CNN and Fox, always screaming "NO TAXES LOLWTFOMG!", but never explaining the rest of their stance. Obviously, this is because the idea of "no taxes" is mean to attract the lower and middle classes.

Yeah, I didn't see anyone articulate at any of those, but I am sure that the media was looking for the ones who were clearly looney to discredit the whole shebang. I thought that tea party thing was self aggrandizing and inane. In fact, as someone who would support a significant decrease in spending, if targeted correctly, I found it to be worthless if only because it more than likely turned moderates off. No party, whether libertarian, conservative, or Republican is going to win without appealing to moderates.

Forthegood · Jun 18, 2009

Right... so people with money can't possibly understand what the working man goes through.

That's the dumbest thing I have heard on SDN in almost a day.

BTW, Ron Paul isn't exactly poor either.

Col Kurtz · Jun 18, 2009

ANF1986 said:
I dont see how the chart disproved what I was trying to point out. My point simply was that when Democrats campaign on advocating for the average working person, many of them are nowhere near being an average working person. Wouldn't it be slightly less hypocritical of Republicans since they are the ones usually seen as being friendly to corporations and the "rich." If the Democrats want to push salary caps on CEO's and national healthcare for all, why dont the richer (D) representatives start unloading some of that net worth, maybe redistribute it. I mean, if doctors salary's are overinflated, surely a public servant and representative of the people doesnt "NEED" anymore than X amount. I think there is more inherent hypocrisy among rich Democrats than rich Republicans. I dont see how that is getting my clock cleaned. Your spot on that I am quite displeased with the Republican party, and certainly would not like to be accused of towing the line. You may or may not be aware that the establishment Republicans are being quite hostile to the libertarian movement within the Republican party right now, the neo-cons are pissed! lol... Look, as far as the charts go, I'm not JUST persecuting Dems here, I think that our representatives as a whole are so completely out of touch with "the people" that it is sickening. Charts like this for instance...

Nancy Pelosi (CA-8)

Avg. Net Worth in 1995 $27,720,300 (Range: -$77,922 to $55,518,523)
Avg. Net Worth in 2006 $38,539,554 (Range: -$9,292,881 to $86,371,990)

Average Net Worth Growth Comparison (Lawmaker vs. Avg. American Family)

Look, this was your original post:

Interesting. What I get a nice smirk from is the fact that Democrats parade as the party of the 'average working man' when Democrats in Congress outweigh Republicans 2:1 in net worths.

The Republican bashing is really getting old. What the critics fail to recognize, or maybe they recognize it but get a kick out of sensationalising the nonsense, is that Neo-Conservatives have hijacked the party, people like Karl Rove, Dick Cheyney, Condi Rice, George Bush, and Lindsay Graham. These people are war mongering, big government, bafoons.

TRUE principled Conservatives like myself who are registered Republican(but identify more Libertarian) have to get lumped into the group of *****s that have infested the Republican party like a festering disease.

That rads like an anti Democrat argument. I understand you broadened it after I posted, but that doesn't affect what your original post on the matter was. Secondly, the bottom of the chart I posted answers your reinterpretation anyway--a 'poor' Congressperson is more likely to be a Dem. Further, those poor Congress persons are not just slightly less rich, if you look at the chart, most of their net worths are in the negative. One of whom is now VP Biden. My original post was about how it was a stretch to say that six of ten are dems, so they are sooooo much richer than Republicans, so they are hypocrites--that was the character of your post.

When investigated further, that characterization was wrong, so yes that is you getting your clock cleaned. I am clearer on your position now and I won't bug you about it anymore, but yes, you shifted it quite a bit between the two posts.

ANF1986 · Jun 18, 2009

Col Kurtz said:
Look, this was your original post:

That rads like an anti Democrat argument. I understand you broadened it after I posted, but that doesn't affect what your original post on the matter was. Secondly, the bottom of the chart I posted answers your reinterpretation anyway--a 'poor' Congressperson is more likely to be a Dem. Further, those poor Congress persons are not just slightly less rich, if you look at the chart, most of their net worths are in the negative. One of whom is now VP Biden. My original post was about how it was a stretch to say that six of ten are dems, so they are sooooo much richer than Republicans, so they are hypocrites--that was the character of your post.

When investigated further, that characterization was wrong, so yes that is you getting your clock cleaned. I am clearer on your position now and I won't bug you about it anymore, but yes, you shifted it quite a bit between the two posts.

Well I'll give it to you Col...You're a worthy adversary. I certainly enjoy debating with you, it is.......enlightening. You force me to examine my own bias's which is a good thing. I apologize for the partisanship, I must admit that I only dislike Republicans less than Democrats. I am in a pretty tough position, I agree with Republicans on monetary issues, yet agree with Democrats on social issues.

To address Forthegoods response to my assertions. It is not that rich people cant identify with the working middle class and poor, it is that there is a difference in the political capitol that they posess when they are descriptively represented versus substantively represented. What we find when we examine these relationships is that, when a group is substantively represented, meaning representation by someone other than ones own group (this referrs to race & SES mostly), then the people within that group often become disenfranchised from the political process, and thus the representative becomes much less accountable to the people of that group. Interestingly, when there is descriptive representation, meaning a member of ones own group represents them (in this case a middle class person would be representing a mostly middle class district), the group within that district is much more involved and is more apt to voice their concerns to that representative, they posess a feeling that the representative understands "us," because they see that representative as one of "them."

So one of the theorys is that descriptive representation involves more of the electorate than substantive representation. For instance, in districts where it is common for people to vote Democrat, they will often vote Democrat regardless of whether that person is a member of their group or not. That is fine, except that their level of political involvement goes down significantly when they are substantively represented.

Col Kurtz · Jun 18, 2009

ANF1986 said:
Well I'll give it to you Col...You're a worthy adversary. I certainly enjoy debating with you, it is.......enlightening. You force me to examine my own bias's which is a good thing. I apologize for the partisanship, I must admit that I only dislike Republicans less than Democrats. I am in a pretty tough position, I agree with Republicans on monetary issues, yet agree with Democrats on social issues.

I agree with you more than you think, I guarantee it. Perhaps we should try to clone Dwight Eisenhower.

To address Forthegoods response to my assertions. It is not that rich people cant identify with the working middle class and poor, it is that there is a difference in the political capitol that they posess when they are descriptively represented versus substantively represented. What we find when we examine these relationships is that, when a group is substantively represented, meaning representation by someone other than ones own group (this referrs to race & SES mostly), then the people within that group often become disenfranchised from the political process, and thus the representative becomes much less accountable to the people of that group. Interestingly, when there is descriptive representation, meaning a member of ones own group represents them (in this case a middle class person would be representing a mostly middle class district), the group within that district is much more involved and is more apt to voice their concerns to that representative, they posess a feeling that the representative understands "us," because they see that representative as one of "them."

So one of the theorys is that descriptive representation involves more of the electorate than substantive representation. For instance, in districts where it is common for people to vote Democrat, they will often vote Democrat regardless of whether that person is a member of their group or not. That is fine, except that their level of political involvement goes down significantly when they are substantively represented.

this is interesting...

Forthegood · Jun 18, 2009

ANF1986- Oh. Agreed... it just didn't look like that is what you were getting to in your earlier posts.

And you are very right about the representation effects as well. It is unfortunate that money decides these things and also is necessary for political campaigns. Poor people simply don't get elected. The closest one can come is previous poverty.

Besides, after the religious right took aim in the late 90s, the dems lost a substantial portion of the poor vote. Now the dems mainly reside in the poor minority, but even at that, it is not a base, but an illusion of a base.

The Public Trusts Doctors over Obama

Full Member

Membership Revoked

Textures intrigue me

Red Leader

Full Member

Red Leader

Full Member

PGY-6 (ID Fellow)

ProcrastinationAficionado

Full Member

Red Leader

PGY-6 (ID Fellow)

Loves Jesus, America Too

Full Member

ProcrastinationAficionado

Full Member

Full Member

Full Member

Full Member

Full Member

casemed'14

Full Member

Full Member

PGY-6 (ID Fellow)

Full Member

Full Member

Full Member

PGY-6 (ID Fellow)

Full Member

Full Member

Full Member

ProcrastinationAficionado

Full Member

Full Member

Full Member

ProcrastinationAficionado

Similar threads