According to this article: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/20/obamacare-seeks-to-segregate-patients-doctors-by-race/ Obamacare is going to try to force people to go to doctors of their own race, thereby giving substandard care to people who have fewer choices in doctors.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Tea Party is back in business! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
More from that bogus survey you are trying to discredit:
link to the survey
About the Survey
The survey was conducted by fax and online from April 18 to May 22, 2012. DPMAF obtained the office fax numbers of 36,000 doctors in active clinical practice, and 16,227 faxes were successfully delivered. Doctors were asked to return their completed surveys by fax, or online at a web address included in the faxed copy. Browser rules prevented doctors from filing duplicate surveys, and respondents were asked to provide personal identification for verification. The response rate was 4.3% for a total of 699 completed surveys. Raw survey data and full comments are available at http://www.dpmafoundation.org/physician-attitudes-on-medicine.html.
So you are claiming 36,000 doctors have signed up with this new organization as members to protest the ACA?!?
link to the survey
About the Survey
The survey was conducted by fax and online from April 18 to May 22, 2012. DPMAF obtained the office fax numbers of 36,000 doctors in active clinical practice, and 16,227 faxes were successfully delivered. Doctors were asked to return their completed surveys by fax, or online at a web address included in the faxed copy. Browser rules prevented doctors from filing duplicate surveys, and respondents were asked to provide personal identification for verification. The response rate was 4.3% for a total of 699 completed surveys. Raw survey data and full comments are available at http://www.dpmafoundation.org/physician-attitudes-on-medicine.html.
So you are claiming 36,000 doctors have signed up with this new organization as members to protest the ACA?!?
Last edited by a moderator:
Maelstrom
Footballguy
The study quoted by that article does not make the claim that Obamacare will try to force people to go to doctors of the same race, and Obamacare itself does not do that either. That article is extremely misleading, trying to take innoculous wording and make it seem like it is saying something that it isn't. It's a really bad article, and a really bad attempt to make the claim you list.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
So the results are that 573 of 16227 were upset enough with ACA that they chose to respond to the survey that they are considering quitting medicine? So 3% give or take?ETA: With 95% overall too indifferent to respond at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
Another poll, 70 percent of doctors said, even back in 2011, that they disagreed with the AMA’s position on health reform, while only 13 percent agreed with it.
Coincidentally (I'm sure) here are the grades the respondents from the first poll I posted gave the AMA when asked to "grade the job the AMA has done to represent you and your concerns as a physician:"
A: 3%
B: 9%
C: 14%
D: 17% (74% gave the AMA either a D or F)
F: 57%
Yet another..60% said Obamacare would have a negative impact on patient care, only 22% thought it would be positive.
Forbes article...
The article makes some great points, from the 2nd page:
Coincidentally (I'm sure) here are the grades the respondents from the first poll I posted gave the AMA when asked to "grade the job the AMA has done to represent you and your concerns as a physician:"
A: 3%
B: 9%
C: 14%
D: 17% (74% gave the AMA either a D or F)
F: 57%
Yet another..60% said Obamacare would have a negative impact on patient care, only 22% thought it would be positive.
Forbes article...
The article makes some great points, from the 2nd page:
Last edited by a moderator:
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
Unless they say things like "Obama is a Kenyan Socialist Muslim". Those polls works a lot differently.Oh is that how polls work?
timschochet
Footballguy
Do you think JoJo even reads what he posts? Or has the slightest understanding of statistics?
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
Are you really trying to say you take the number of people attempted to be reached via fax (which not too many are going to bother to respond by) to calculate an accurate percentage? Go ahead and ignore the other polls I linked. I assume you are not going to remove your blinders.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
What blinders? It wouldn't surprise me at all if a majority of doctors disapproved of Obamacare. Quite naturally, they fear that it will eventually lead to reduced earning potential, which happens anytime government involves itself with private enterprise. That's a very reasonable concern and its one of the main reasons I remain opposed to both Obamacare and single payer.Are you really trying to say you take the number of people attempted to be reached to calculate an accurate percentage? Go ahead and ignore the other polls I linked. I assume you are not going to remove your blinders.
So I don't doubt any of your other polls. Only your poll that claimed that 83% of all doctors are seriously considering quitting their profession because of Obamacare. That's laughable. You're laughable for posting it. Your explanation of how the "survey" was done is a complete failure, as anyone with even the most basic knowledge of statistics would know. But carry on.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
the moops
Footballguy
In my experience this was the response to managed health care as a whole to some extent. Quite a few doctors complained about it and some even chose to retire. I think it limited their ability to offer and charge for services that they wanted quite a bit and many were against it. I'm no expert in the area, just what I heard from a number of doctors when I was supporting medical billing software. ACA is like an even worse version of that, so I'm sure there's plenty that are near the end that will say dealing with the new laws isn't worth the headache anymore and hang it up.
And much like all government programs of this kind, ACA primarily deals with demand and not supply. If it ends up hurting supply it will drive costs up even further.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
I assume the below as well as the increased risk of losing money due to having to try to collect from patients with high deductibles among other reasons:How will you respond to lower Medicare/Medicaid payments? (check all that apply)
49% Stop taking new Medicaid patients
42% Stop taking new Medicare patients
33% Stop practicing medicine or retire
31% Opt out of Medicare completely
27% Restrict services to current Medicare
15% Seek employed position with hospital
10% Seek a partnership/affiliation
10% Increase patient load
10% Unsure
9% No Change
timschochet
Footballguy
I tend to agree with all of this. But it also applies to Medicare. And I'm betting that when Medicare was first enacted, a few doctors quit over that- but only a few.
It's not absurd to think that doctors would disapprove of Obamacare. But it's absurd to believe they'd quit over it. Like liberals threatening to leave the country if Bush was re-elected- remember that? How many of them carried through on that threat? Stop wasting our time with this nonsense.
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
There's a quite a difference between "makes me think about quitting" and "seriously considering quitting", so you can stop your spin. You have no evidence the poll was not a random sampling of doctors and the other polls linked support the claims in the original poll even if the questions were not exactly the same.What blinders? It wouldn't surprise me at all if a majority of doctors disapproved of Obamacare. Quite naturally, they fear that it will eventually lead to reduced earning potential, which happens anytime government involves itself with private enterprise. That's a very reasonable concern and its one of the main reasons I remain opposed to both Obamacare and single payer.So I don't doubt any of your other polls. Only your poll that claimed that 83% of all doctors are seriously considering quitting their profession because of Obamacare. That's laughable. You're laughable for posting it. Your explanation of how the "survey" was done is a complete failure, as anyone with even the most basic knowledge of statistics would know. But carry on.Are you really trying to say you take the number of people attempted to be reached to calculate an accurate percentage? Go ahead and ignore the other polls I linked. I assume you are not going to remove your blinders.
It's not absurd to think that it will hasten their retirement or cause them to respond in other ways that end up being a detriment to providing the best care they can.
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
How's Universal Healthcare working out in the UK?
link
In Decline: How bad are things in Great Britain's national health care system? Bad enough that officials are now recruiting cheaper foreign doctors to save money.
According to the Press Trust of India, "Britain's cash-strapped National Health Service is planning to strike up a series of health care deals in India, including inviting Indian doctors to treat patients in the U.K., in a bid to boost its coffers.
"The proposals center around NHS doctors being flown to India to treat patients in a bid to raise cash for British hospitals and less-expensive Indian doctors coming to the U.K. to perform operations."
The British health care system, the one that Americans are supposed to be jealous of, is itself in poor financial health. It is projected to have a nearly $47 billion deficit in 2020 — a huge sum in a country whose economy is one-sixth the size of the U.S. economy.
link
In Decline: How bad are things in Great Britain's national health care system? Bad enough that officials are now recruiting cheaper foreign doctors to save money.
According to the Press Trust of India, "Britain's cash-strapped National Health Service is planning to strike up a series of health care deals in India, including inviting Indian doctors to treat patients in the U.K., in a bid to boost its coffers.
"The proposals center around NHS doctors being flown to India to treat patients in a bid to raise cash for British hospitals and less-expensive Indian doctors coming to the U.K. to perform operations."
The British health care system, the one that Americans are supposed to be jealous of, is itself in poor financial health. It is projected to have a nearly $47 billion deficit in 2020 — a huge sum in a country whose economy is one-sixth the size of the U.S. economy.
timschochet
Footballguy
There's a quite a difference between "makes me think about quitting" and "seriously considering quitting", so you can stop your spin. You have no evidence the poll was not a random sampling of doctors and the other polls linked support the claims in the original poll even if the questions were not exactly the same.What blinders? It wouldn't surprise me at all if a majority of doctors disapproved of Obamacare. Quite naturally, they fear that it will eventually lead to reduced earning potential, which happens anytime government involves itself with private enterprise. That's a very reasonable concern and its one of the main reasons I remain opposed to both Obamacare and single payer.So I don't doubt any of your other polls. Only your poll that claimed that 83% of all doctors are seriously considering quitting their profession because of Obamacare. That's laughable. You're laughable for posting it. Your explanation of how the "survey" was done is a complete failure, as anyone with even the most basic knowledge of statistics would know. But carry on.Are you really trying to say you take the number of people attempted to be reached to calculate an accurate percentage? Go ahead and ignore the other polls I linked. I assume you are not going to remove your blinders.
The end game of this whole thing is clear. It's going to be a disaster and single payer will be an even bigger disaster if that happens. Truth is we're going to need the Tea Party to wage all out war to stop it though, because you're going to have a pile of tims and other misc extremists that will demand a transition with no negative consequences whatsoever and no possibility that anyone might suffer. We'll need to find a way to "grow out of it".
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
Just goes to show you didn't bother to read the survey, and you twisted it to the extreme which is par for the course for you.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
The evidence is your post. The 16,227 successful faxes were very likely a random sampling. The 699 that responded were not.There's a quite a difference between "makes me think about quitting" and "seriously considering quitting", so you can stop your spin. You have no evidence the poll was not a random sampling of doctors and the other polls linked support the claims in the original poll even if the questions were not exactly the same.What blinders? It wouldn't surprise me at all if a majority of doctors disapproved of Obamacare. Quite naturally, they fear that it will eventually lead to reduced earning potential, which happens anytime government involves itself with private enterprise. That's a very reasonable concern and its one of the main reasons I remain opposed to both Obamacare and single payer.So I don't doubt any of your other polls. Only your poll that claimed that 83% of all doctors are seriously considering quitting their profession because of Obamacare. That's laughable. You're laughable for posting it. Your explanation of how the "survey" was done is a complete failure, as anyone with even the most basic knowledge of statistics would know. But carry on.Are you really trying to say you take the number of people attempted to be reached to calculate an accurate percentage? Go ahead and ignore the other polls I linked. I assume you are not going to remove your blinders.
Right, and this is how pretty much every poll works. Unless it's some mandatory poll where they fine you or throw you in jail for not participating, like they'll soon do for health care.The evidence is your post. The 16,227 successful faxes were very likely a random sampling. The 699 that responded were not.There's a quite a difference between "makes me think about quitting" and "seriously considering quitting", so you can stop your spin. You have no evidence the poll was not a random sampling of doctors and the other polls linked support the claims in the original poll even if the questions were not exactly the same.What blinders? It wouldn't surprise me at all if a majority of doctors disapproved of Obamacare. Quite naturally, they fear that it will eventually lead to reduced earning potential, which happens anytime government involves itself with private enterprise. That's a very reasonable concern and its one of the main reasons I remain opposed to both Obamacare and single payer. So I don't doubt any of your other polls. Only your poll that claimed that 83% of all doctors are seriously considering quitting their profession because of Obamacare. That's laughable. You're laughable for posting it. Your explanation of how the "survey" was done is a complete failure, as anyone with even the most basic knowledge of statistics would know. But carry on.Are you really trying to say you take the number of people attempted to be reached to calculate an accurate percentage? Go ahead and ignore the other polls I linked. I assume you are not going to remove your blinders.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
I used to work in the oil industry. I don't think wanting good gas mileage for a cheap price makes me a Republican. Does it? If it does, than I may have been lying to myself. Maybe I've been a Republican all along.I thought you said you weren't a Republican.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Sammy3469
Footballguy
Yup...Ted Cruz speaks for all Americans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/10/22/National-Politics/Polling/question_12182.xml?uuid=0VRwOjrOEeOw53FheaLCxw
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/10/22/National-Politics/Polling/question_12182.xml?uuid=0VRwOjrOEeOw53FheaLCxw
timschochet
Footballguy
They really don't care. Like any populist movement, they are as committed to getting rid of the heretics as they are to pursuing policy. And they'll never believe you that they're not really popular anyhow. They'll blame the press, the moderates, the Democrats, everyone but themselves.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
We're going to be right back here in a few months, right?
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
Most of us will probably just stay here and wait. But, yeah, if you need to go somewhere, we'll be back here in a few months when you get back.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
badmojo1006
Footballguy
American Debt, Chinese Anxiety
By MENZIE D. CHINN
Madison, Wisconson — Last week, the United States once again walked up to the precipice of a debt default, and once again the world wonders why any country, much less the world’s largest economy, would endanger its financial reputation and thus its ability to borrow.
Though a potential global financial crisis was averted at the last minute, one notable development has been a string of warnings by Chinese officials. Prime Minister Li Keqiang told Secretary of State John Kerry that he was “highly concerned” about a possible default. Yi Gang, deputy governor of China’s central bank, warned that America “should have the wisdom to solve this problem as soon as possible.” An opinion essay in Xinhua, the state-run media agency, called “ for the befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanized world.”
These statements, unusually blunt coming from the Chinese, show that repeated, avoidable crises threaten the privileged position of the U.S. as issuer of the world’s main reserve currency and (until now) risk-free debt.
It is unlikely that China would provoke a sudden, international financial calamity — for instance, by unloading U.S. Treasury securities and other government debt. Nonetheless, the process of repeated crises and temporary reprieves will only solidify the Chinese government’s determination to diversify its holdings away from dollar-denominated assets. Moreover, these crises provide ammunition to advocates within the Chinese government for expanding the role of the renminbi in international markets. Both of these trends will erode the ability of the United States to issue debt at super-low interest rates, and accelerate the ascent of China’s currency.
Foreign entities — governments, companies and individuals — hold nearly half of the publicly held debt owed by the United States. Of China’s $3.6 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, about 60 percent is estimated to be held in U.S. government securities.
As foreign exchange reserves have soared over the last decade, Chinese monetary authorities have attempted to diversify away from dollar-denominated assets, with limited success. The motivation for diversification is understandable: Since July 2005, the Chinese currency has been appreciating against the U.S. dollar, so that in terms of local purchasing power, dollar-denominated holdings have been losing value.
In addition, the fiscal battles in Washington have made the Chinese authorities more anxious. The overarching problem is that over the longer term, U.S. government finances are not sustainable, in the absence of enhanced tax revenues and restrained spending.
However, Chinese policy makers have fairly limited room for maneuver. First, they are locked into a development model that relies heavily on exports as a source of growth. It’s well recognized that adjustment to a new, more domestically oriented growth model is required. But that process will take a long time, and progress thus far has been halting. Hence, it’s likely that China will continue to accumulate large foreign exchange reserves.
Second, most of the earnings received by Chinese exporters are in dollars, so that currency is what the People’s Bank of China accumulates. In principle, the dollars could be exchanged for other convertible currencies, like the euro or the Swiss franc. But any move to sell dollars in large-enough amounts to make a dent in dollar-denominated holdings would likely drive down the value of the dollar in such a way as to diminish the value of the securities held by the central bank.
Third, even if the Chinese could diversify their holdings away from dollars without realizing capital losses, the question would be — as always — what is the alternative? Government bonds issued by Germany, Switzerland and Britain are safe, but there just aren’t sufficiently large amounts of those securities available for purchase.
China can move away from the dollar in other ways — namely by way of its sovereign wealth fund, the China Investment Corporation (with over $500 billion under management). But again, the question is what can be purchased, and how much. Political resistance to Chinese acquisition of foreign-owned companies, particularly when issues of national security are at stake, have highlighted the dilemma.
Does that mean we Americans can rest easy? The answer is no.
To begin with, the fact that fiscal policy is partly in the hands of individuals who don’t believe that debt default is a serious issue understandably makes foreign investors uneasy. Within China, advocates of economic reform have a big argument for accelerating the policy shift that de-emphasizes exports and promotes domestic private consumption to shrink China’s trade surplus.
Moreover, China has been encouraging the invoicing of trade in renminbi, with some success (albeit starting from very low levels). In addition, China is loosening restrictions on renminbi-related financial transactions, with an eye to increasing the Chinese currency’s role in international finance. Eventually, this will mean a reduced demand for the dollar.
Over the longer term, both of these outcomes might be positive from China’s — and the world’s — perspective. However, if timed poorly, they would mean that demand for U.S. Treasury securities would decline at exactly the moment when interest rates on U.S. government debts rose. The resulting strain on government finances is not not be an outcome that patriotic Americans of any stripe should welcome.
Menzie D. Chinn, a professor of public affairs and economics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, is the author, with Jeffry A. Frieden, of “Lost Decades: The Making of America’s Debt Crisis and the Long Recovery.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/opinion/21iht-edchinn21.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1382477287-1s2RE8idFthIW4H/dwk48w
By MENZIE D. CHINN
Madison, Wisconson — Last week, the United States once again walked up to the precipice of a debt default, and once again the world wonders why any country, much less the world’s largest economy, would endanger its financial reputation and thus its ability to borrow.
Though a potential global financial crisis was averted at the last minute, one notable development has been a string of warnings by Chinese officials. Prime Minister Li Keqiang told Secretary of State John Kerry that he was “highly concerned” about a possible default. Yi Gang, deputy governor of China’s central bank, warned that America “should have the wisdom to solve this problem as soon as possible.” An opinion essay in Xinhua, the state-run media agency, called “ for the befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanized world.”
These statements, unusually blunt coming from the Chinese, show that repeated, avoidable crises threaten the privileged position of the U.S. as issuer of the world’s main reserve currency and (until now) risk-free debt.
It is unlikely that China would provoke a sudden, international financial calamity — for instance, by unloading U.S. Treasury securities and other government debt. Nonetheless, the process of repeated crises and temporary reprieves will only solidify the Chinese government’s determination to diversify its holdings away from dollar-denominated assets. Moreover, these crises provide ammunition to advocates within the Chinese government for expanding the role of the renminbi in international markets. Both of these trends will erode the ability of the United States to issue debt at super-low interest rates, and accelerate the ascent of China’s currency.
Foreign entities — governments, companies and individuals — hold nearly half of the publicly held debt owed by the United States. Of China’s $3.6 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, about 60 percent is estimated to be held in U.S. government securities.
As foreign exchange reserves have soared over the last decade, Chinese monetary authorities have attempted to diversify away from dollar-denominated assets, with limited success. The motivation for diversification is understandable: Since July 2005, the Chinese currency has been appreciating against the U.S. dollar, so that in terms of local purchasing power, dollar-denominated holdings have been losing value.
In addition, the fiscal battles in Washington have made the Chinese authorities more anxious. The overarching problem is that over the longer term, U.S. government finances are not sustainable, in the absence of enhanced tax revenues and restrained spending.
However, Chinese policy makers have fairly limited room for maneuver. First, they are locked into a development model that relies heavily on exports as a source of growth. It’s well recognized that adjustment to a new, more domestically oriented growth model is required. But that process will take a long time, and progress thus far has been halting. Hence, it’s likely that China will continue to accumulate large foreign exchange reserves.
Second, most of the earnings received by Chinese exporters are in dollars, so that currency is what the People’s Bank of China accumulates. In principle, the dollars could be exchanged for other convertible currencies, like the euro or the Swiss franc. But any move to sell dollars in large-enough amounts to make a dent in dollar-denominated holdings would likely drive down the value of the dollar in such a way as to diminish the value of the securities held by the central bank.
Third, even if the Chinese could diversify their holdings away from dollars without realizing capital losses, the question would be — as always — what is the alternative? Government bonds issued by Germany, Switzerland and Britain are safe, but there just aren’t sufficiently large amounts of those securities available for purchase.
China can move away from the dollar in other ways — namely by way of its sovereign wealth fund, the China Investment Corporation (with over $500 billion under management). But again, the question is what can be purchased, and how much. Political resistance to Chinese acquisition of foreign-owned companies, particularly when issues of national security are at stake, have highlighted the dilemma.
Does that mean we Americans can rest easy? The answer is no.
To begin with, the fact that fiscal policy is partly in the hands of individuals who don’t believe that debt default is a serious issue understandably makes foreign investors uneasy. Within China, advocates of economic reform have a big argument for accelerating the policy shift that de-emphasizes exports and promotes domestic private consumption to shrink China’s trade surplus.
Moreover, China has been encouraging the invoicing of trade in renminbi, with some success (albeit starting from very low levels). In addition, China is loosening restrictions on renminbi-related financial transactions, with an eye to increasing the Chinese currency’s role in international finance. Eventually, this will mean a reduced demand for the dollar.
Over the longer term, both of these outcomes might be positive from China’s — and the world’s — perspective. However, if timed poorly, they would mean that demand for U.S. Treasury securities would decline at exactly the moment when interest rates on U.S. government debts rose. The resulting strain on government finances is not not be an outcome that patriotic Americans of any stripe should welcome.
Menzie D. Chinn, a professor of public affairs and economics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, is the author, with Jeffry A. Frieden, of “Lost Decades: The Making of America’s Debt Crisis and the Long Recovery.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/opinion/21iht-edchinn21.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1382477287-1s2RE8idFthIW4H/dwk48w
Doug B
Footballguy
Was kind of thinking that going forward, government shutdowns and debt-ceiling fights were more or less considered off the table as legitimate means of getting things done. If it didn't work this time, why would it work in a few months? Closer to mid-term elections, yet?
timschochet
Footballguy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/22/gop-tea-party-unfavorability_n_4145358.html
Unfavorable ratings for both the Republican Party and the tea party have ticked up to record highs, according to a CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday evening.
Sixty-four percent of Americans view the Republican Party unfavorably, and 56 percent view the tea party unfavorably. Both are all-time highs in CNN's polling, although in each case, it's only a 2-point increase from a survey taken Sept. 27 through 29.
Prominent Republicans have also taken a hit.
House Speaker John Boehner's (Ohio) unfavorable rating is at 55 percent, up from 48 percent just before the shutdown, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (Ky.) unfavorables rose to 42 percent from 39 percent before the shutdown. Members of their own party are also increasingly rating them negatively, according to polling. Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas), one of the most vocal supporters of the shutdown, saw his unfavorable rating climb 6 points to 42 percent.
While top Democrats are still viewed more negatively than positively, they've seen their numbers improve, according to the poll. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (Nev.) unfavorable rating is at 40 percent, down from 45 percent at the end of September, while House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's (Calif.) unfavorable rating is at 47 percent, down from 51 percent. The Democratic Party's unfavorable rating remains effectively unchanged at 51 percent, a point below where it stood in September.
Previously released results from the same poll found that a majority of Americans now consider GOP control of the House a bad thing, and want Boehner to be replaced. Other post-shutdown polls have also found Republicans suffering from the political aftereffects.
The CNN poll surveyed 841 Americans between Oct. 18 and Oct. 20, using live phone
interviews.
Unfavorable ratings for both the Republican Party and the tea party have ticked up to record highs, according to a CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday evening.
Sixty-four percent of Americans view the Republican Party unfavorably, and 56 percent view the tea party unfavorably. Both are all-time highs in CNN's polling, although in each case, it's only a 2-point increase from a survey taken Sept. 27 through 29.
Prominent Republicans have also taken a hit.
House Speaker John Boehner's (Ohio) unfavorable rating is at 55 percent, up from 48 percent just before the shutdown, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (Ky.) unfavorables rose to 42 percent from 39 percent before the shutdown. Members of their own party are also increasingly rating them negatively, according to polling. Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas), one of the most vocal supporters of the shutdown, saw his unfavorable rating climb 6 points to 42 percent.
While top Democrats are still viewed more negatively than positively, they've seen their numbers improve, according to the poll. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (Nev.) unfavorable rating is at 40 percent, down from 45 percent at the end of September, while House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's (Calif.) unfavorable rating is at 47 percent, down from 51 percent. The Democratic Party's unfavorable rating remains effectively unchanged at 51 percent, a point below where it stood in September.
Previously released results from the same poll found that a majority of Americans now consider GOP control of the House a bad thing, and want Boehner to be replaced. Other post-shutdown polls have also found Republicans suffering from the political aftereffects.
The CNN poll surveyed 841 Americans between Oct. 18 and Oct. 20, using live phone
interviews.So people hate the Republicans more than the Tea Party. Hmmm....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/22/gop-tea-party-unfavorability_n_4145358.html
Unfavorable ratings for both the Republican Party and the tea party have ticked up to record highs, according to a CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday evening.
Sixty-four percent of Americans view the Republican Party unfavorably, and 56 percent view the tea party unfavorably. Both are all-time highs in CNN's polling, although in each case, it's only a 2-point increase from a survey taken Sept. 27 through 29.
Prominent Republicans have also taken a hit.
House Speaker John Boehner's (Ohio) unfavorable rating is at 55 percent, up from 48 percent just before the shutdown, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (Ky.) unfavorables rose to 42 percent from 39 percent before the shutdown. Members of their own party are also increasingly rating them negatively, according to polling. Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas), one of the most vocal supporters of the shutdown, saw his unfavorable rating climb 6 points to 42 percent.
While top Democrats are still viewed more negatively than positively, they've seen their numbers improve, according to the poll. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (Nev.) unfavorable rating is at 40 percent, down from 45 percent at the end of September, while House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's (Calif.) unfavorable rating is at 47 percent, down from 51 percent. The Democratic Party's unfavorable rating remains effectively unchanged at 51 percent, a point below where it stood in September.
Previously released results from the same poll found that a majority of Americans now consider GOP control of the House a bad thing, and want Boehner to be replaced. Other post-shutdown polls have also found Republicans suffering from the political aftereffects.
The CNN poll surveyed 841 Americans between Oct. 18 and Oct. 20, using live phone
Dr Oadi
Footballguy
The republicans should be less like the tea party so Americans will like them more.
timschochet
Footballguy
Yeah I noticed that too. But both are at record levels of dislike.So people hate the Republicans more than the Tea Party. Hmmm....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/22/gop-tea-party-unfavorability_n_4145358.html
Unfavorable ratings for both the Republican Party and the tea party have ticked up to record highs, according to a CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday evening.
Sixty-four percent of Americans view the Republican Party unfavorably, and 56 percent view the tea party unfavorably. Both are all-time highs in CNN's polling, although in each case, it's only a 2-point increase from a survey taken Sept. 27 through 29.
Prominent Republicans have also taken a hit.
House Speaker John Boehner's (Ohio) unfavorable rating is at 55 percent, up from 48 percent just before the shutdown, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (Ky.) unfavorables rose to 42 percent from 39 percent before the shutdown. Members of their own party are also increasingly rating them negatively, according to polling. Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas), one of the most vocal supporters of the shutdown, saw his unfavorable rating climb 6 points to 42 percent.
While top Democrats are still viewed more negatively than positively, they've seen their numbers improve, according to the poll. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (Nev.) unfavorable rating is at 40 percent, down from 45 percent at the end of September, while House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's (Calif.) unfavorable rating is at 47 percent, down from 51 percent. The Democratic Party's unfavorable rating remains effectively unchanged at 51 percent, a point below where it stood in September.
Previously released results from the same poll found that a majority of Americans now consider GOP control of the House a bad thing, and want Boehner to be replaced. Other post-shutdown polls have also found Republicans suffering from the political aftereffects.
The CNN poll surveyed 841 Americans between Oct. 18 and Oct. 20, using live phone
First off, these polls are stupid. But even presuming they aren't stupid, people hating Republicans more than the Tea Party as their own distinct entity certainly doesn't play to the narrative you've been trying to sell here.Yeah I noticed that too. But both are at record levels of dislike.So people hate the Republicans more than the Tea Party. Hmmm....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/22/gop-tea-party-unfavorability_n_4145358.html
Unfavorable ratings for both the Republican Party and the tea party have ticked up to record highs, according to a CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday evening.
Sixty-four percent of Americans view the Republican Party unfavorably, and 56 percent view the tea party unfavorably. Both are all-time highs in CNN's polling, although in each case, it's only a 2-point increase from a survey taken Sept. 27 through 29.
Prominent Republicans have also taken a hit.
House Speaker John Boehner's (Ohio) unfavorable rating is at 55 percent, up from 48 percent just before the shutdown, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (Ky.) unfavorables rose to 42 percent from 39 percent before the shutdown. Members of their own party are also increasingly rating them negatively, according to polling. Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas), one of the most vocal supporters of the shutdown, saw his unfavorable rating climb 6 points to 42 percent.
While top Democrats are still viewed more negatively than positively, they've seen their numbers improve, according to the poll. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (Nev.) unfavorable rating is at 40 percent, down from 45 percent at the end of September, while House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's (Calif.) unfavorable rating is at 47 percent, down from 51 percent. The Democratic Party's unfavorable rating remains effectively unchanged at 51 percent, a point below where it stood in September.
Previously released results from the same poll found that a majority of Americans now consider GOP control of the House a bad thing, and want Boehner to be replaced. Other post-shutdown polls have also found Republicans suffering from the political aftereffects.
The CNN poll surveyed 841 Americans between Oct. 18 and Oct. 20, using live phone
