[btomba_77]

Quote from DICOM_Dan

Democrat, and consummate loser Ted Strickland is also getting pummeled by Rob Portman (R) in Ohio.  Think Rob was up by 10pts.

The Stickland campaign is in chaos.
 
 
“Portman has run a damn fine race. The rest, Ill have to tell you over a drink.
DSCC Executive Director Tom Lopach, quoted by the Columbus Dispatch, on Ted Stricklands (D) weak challenge to Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH).

[btomba_77]

[url=https://www.siena.edu/news-events/article/clinton-41-trump-40-in-four-way-sunshine-state-race]Siena: Trump keeps Florida tight with big lead in white voters[/url]

Trump has as large a lead among Republicans (78 points) as Clinton does with Democrats (77 points) and independents are evenly split at 34 percent for Trump and 32 percent for Clinton with 18 percent for Johnson.  Women lean towards Clinton but men tend to support Trump, said Siena College Poll Director Don Levy. Trump leads in the North, Bay Area and Central portions of the state, while Clinton leads in the vote rich Southeast and the Southwest is a toss-up.
 
There is not only a significant gender gap in this race, but also large racial divides, Levy said. Trump is up 51 to 30 percent among white voters, while Clinton has a commanding 82-4 percent lead with African-Americans and 61-21 percent among Hispanics/Latinos.

Both candidates suffer from a majority of Florida voters having an unfavorable opinion of them.  Clinton is viewed favorably by 40 percent and unfavorably by 53 percent while Trumps numbers are 39 positive and 55 percent negative.  Equal percentages, 37 percent, view one of the candidates favorably and the other negatively while 15 percent view them both unfavorably and only 2 percent have a favorable opinion of both.  Majorities of Blacks and Latinos view Clinton favorably while half of white likely voters have a favorable opinion of Trump.  Of those with an unfavorable opinion of both, a third say they will vote for Johnson, 22 percent for Clinton and 17 percent for Trump, Levy said.

[btomba_77]

[url]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-won-the-debate-which-means-shes-likely-to-gain-in-the-polls/[/url]

Nate Silver says give 5-7 days for any debate bump to be reflected in the polling.

If she gets a couple of points that’s pretty good. If she is widely perceived as having won but gets no bounce that could spell real trouble.

[kaldridgewv2211]

Funny thing is Donald sent a message out about him winning the debate according to many polls.  That included Time but also Brietbart.   So Kind of an interesting mix.  He killed it on Fox news.

[btomba_77]

Quote from DICOM_Dan

Funny thing is Donald sent a message out about him winning the debate according to many polls.  That included Time but also Brietbart.   So Kind of an interesting mix.  He killed it on Fox news.

[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/27/no-matter-how-garbage-the-poll-if-it-shows-that-donald-trump-won-the-debate-hell-endorse-it/]Re: The garbage post-debate polls claiming Trump “won”[/url]
 

There were also a lot of garbage polls conducted after the debate. There was the poll at the Drudge Report, a survey that you can take right now, if you wish. According to that one, Trump was viewed as the victor by 82 percent of those who replied, with about 570,000-plus having weighed in. A who-do-you-think-won poll at Time gives it to Trump with 54 percent of the vote; the same sort of thing at CNBC mirrors the CNN poll in reverse, 2-to-1 for Trump.
…

These online polls are, again, garbage, no more representative of the population as a whole than is the crowd at a Trump rally. That comparison is very apt, in fact. The crowd at a Trump rally 1) is open to all comers, 2) is geographically isolated, meaning that while anyone can attend, it doesn’t include a huge swath of people who vote, and 3) it rewards enthusiasm in a way that tends to obscure actual interest. In other words, if 20,000 people in a state press into a Trump rally to cheer lustily for his stump speech, that’s still only a tiny fraction of the population of even our smallest states.

…
A poll you can organize people to participate in is not a poll that is worth citing as fact. Enthusiastic Trump backers will, and no doubt are, pressing people to go vote in these polls to show he won, in the same way they might fill a car with friends to fill a convention hall at a Trump rally. But casting your vote more loudly doesn’t make it worth more, and while enthusiasm may flood an online poll or fill a camera’s viewscreen, it doesn’t tell us much about who will actually win. (A fact to which Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul can attest.)
 
 
Summary: [i] any poll that used a non-scientific methodology and allowed anyone to weigh in to generate its results is nonsense that should be ignored.[/i]

[btomba_77]

Here are the latest state polls from the presidential race:
[blockquote] [b]North Carolina[/b]: Clinton 38%, Trump 35%, Johnson 6% ([link=http://www.meredith.edu/news/detail/the-meredith-poll-finds-key-races-close-in-north-carolina]Meredith College[/link])
[b]Ohio[/b]: Clinton 40%, Trump 37%, Johnson 8% ([link=http://wydaily.com/2016/09/28/first-wm-and-targetsmart-battleground-state-poll-shows-clinton-with-narrow-edge-in-ohio/]TargetSmart[/link])
[/blockquote]  
 
National: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/2016_Reuters_Tracking_-_Core_Political_9.27_.16__.pdf]Reuters/Ipsos] has Clinton +4 in 2-way, +6 in 4-way[/url]
 

[100574]

remember the Trump supporter that said NC was a welfare state..a gamma city like really
the governor is so unpopular there and he is GOP

[100574]

and Gary has another brain infarct–can’t name a single leader ..

[btomba_77]

[b]Colorado[/b]: Clinton 46%, Trump 40%, Johnson 6% ([link=http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/09/clinton-leads-in-key-battlegrounds-seen-as-big-debate-winner.html]PPP[/link])
[b]Florida[/b]: Clinton 45%, Trump 43%, Johnson 3% ([link=http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/09/clinton-leads-in-key-battlegrounds-seen-as-big-debate-winner.html]PPP[/link])
[b]North Carolina[/b]: Clinton 44%, Trump 42%, Johnson 7% ([link=http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/09/clinton-leads-in-key-battlegrounds-seen-as-big-debate-winner.html]PPP[/link])
[b]Pennsylvania[/b]: Clinton 45%, Trump 39%, Johnson 6% ([link=http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/09/clinton-leads-in-key-battlegrounds-seen-as-big-debate-winner.html]PPP[/link])
[b]Virginia[/b]: Clinton 46%, Trump 40%, Johnson 7% ([link=http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/09/clinton-leads-in-key-battlegrounds-seen-as-big-debate-winner.html]PPP[/link])
[b]South Carolina[/b]: Trump 42%, Clinton 38% ([link=http://www.winthrop.edu/winthroppoll/default.aspx?id=9804]Winthrop[/link])
 
 
And …
 
[url]http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now[/url]
NV, NC and  FL turn back to blue on the 538 map. …. It’s the palest of blues, but blue nonetheless

[btomba_77]

Harry Enten at 538: [url=http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-more-unpopular-than-clinton-is-and-that-matters/]Trump is more unpopular than Clinton. And that matters [/url]

[img]http://i2.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/enten-latefavs-11.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1[/img]

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the two most disliked presidential nominees in modern American history. That was true at the beginning of this campaign, and, as we sprint towards Election Day, its still true now. But [i]equating[/i] Clinton and Trumps popularity problems misses a meaningful part of the story. Sure, they both have terrible favorability ratings compared to past presidential candidates, but Clinton has consistently been more popular than Trump, and were now at the point in the campaign when that difference suggests Clinton has a clear advantage.
…

The trend in Trumps and Clintons net favorability ratings tracks with the horse-race polls and the overall trajectory of the race. Trumps likability improved right around the time of the Republican National Convention in mid-July, closing in on Clintons. Clintons edge in favorability expanded after the Democratic National Convention. And things slowly tightened after that.1 Yet, unlike the horse race, Trump has never truly moved to within striking distance of Clintons net favorability rating except for that brief moment after the GOP convention.

…
In every election, the candidate who was leading in net favorability ratings in late September won the Electoral College and the election. The campaign with the closest favorability margin, 2000, also featured the closest final result. This year, the net favorability differences arent anywhere near as small. Since mid-September, Clintons net favorability rating is 10 percentage points better than Trumps similar to the edges George W. Bush had in 2004 and Barack Obama had in 2008. Bush and Obama both won small but solid victories.

[btomba_77]

[img]http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Wave1Fig1-768×543.png[/img]

[img]http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Wave1Fig2-768×461.png[/img]

[img]http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Wave1Fig3-768×494.png[/img]

Latino Decisions tracking poll:
[url=http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2016/09/21/latino-voters-are-more-partisan-and-energized-in-2016-than-in-2012/]Latino Voters are more partisan and energized in 2016 than in 2012[/url]

In early September 2012, we asked respondents, If the election were held today who would you vote for, Mitt Romney or Barack Obama? Including leaners and supporters for each of the two candidates, 68 percent said Obama and 26 percent indicated Romney, a gap of 42 points. When we asked the same question this past week in the contest between Clinton and Trump, the gap was a whopping 53 points: 71 percent for Clinton to just 18 percent for Trump.

Not only is the gap in vote choice larger now than four years ago, overall Latino support for Clinton today is stronger than it was for Obama in 2012: 71 percent of Latinos support Hillary to 68 percent for Obama. The fact that Clinton is outperforming Obama disproves any claims that Clinton is not appealing sufficiently to Latino voters. (It is worth noting that during the 2008 Democratic primary Clinton beat Obama by a roughly 2-to-1 margin among Latino Democrats.)

When we examine the is hostile toward Latinos response option, we notice a dramatic difference in Latinos evaluations of the Republican Party between 2016 and 2012. In 2012, 19 percent said the Republican Party was being hostile toward Latinos. Today, there is a dramatic 24-point jump, with 43 percent saying the GOP is acting hostile toward Latinos. In short, Trumps brand damage is not limited to himself; rather, the entire Republican Party has been damaged by his campaign. This damage is likely to impact the outcome in many down ballot races.

[100574]

The Feds need to watch PA, FL etc..talk of Russian hacking and questionable loss black votes

[btomba_77]

Bunch of polls over last couple of days:
 
[url=http://view2.fdu.edu/publicmind/2016/161005/]Fairleigh Dickinson Public Mind poll[/url]: Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump by nine points nationally, 45% to 36%, with Gary Johnson at 11%.

Said pollster Krista Jenkins: The post-presidential debate landscape is clearly favoring Clinton. Trumps continued weight shaming of a former Miss Universe and the weekend disclosure of his 1995 tax returns are but a sample of difficult news coverage for the Republican candidate.
 
 
 
The latest [url=http://www.prri.org/research/prri-atlantic-october-2016-presidential-election-horserace-clinton-trump/]PRRI/Atlantic poll[/url] shows Hillary Clinton with a six point lead over Donald Trump nationally, 47% to 41%.
A week ago, before the first presidential debate, Clinton and Trump were tied among likely voters at 43%.
 
Michigan: Clinton 43%, Trump 32%, Johnson 10% ([url=http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/10/06/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-michigan/91611112/]Detroit Free Press[/url])
 
Pennsylvania: Clinton 50%, Trump 40%, Johnson 5%, (Monmouth University)
Pennsylvania: Clinton 47%, Trump 38%, Johnson 5% ([url=http://www.fandm.edu/uploads/files/222225192411477697-f-m-poll-release-september-2016.pdf]Franklin & Marshall[/url])
 
New Mexico: Clinton 46%, Trump 33%, Johnson 14% (SurveyUSA)
 
Nevada: Clinton 44%, Trump 41%, Johnson 8% (Hart Research)

North Carolina: Clinton 45%, Trump 39%, Johnson 9% (Elon)
 
[url]https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_OH_100516/[/url]
Monmouth: Ohio, Clinton +2
Ohio: Clinton 44%, Trump 42%, Johnson 8% (Anzalone)
That’s two Ohio poll of the same day at Clinton  +2
 
 
 
 

[ruszja]

Quote from dergon

Bunch of polls over last couple of days:

[link=http://view2.fdu.edu/publicmind/2016/161005/]Fairleigh Dickinson Public Mind poll[/link]: Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump by nine points nationally, 45% to 36%, with Gary Johnson at 11%.

Said pollster Krista Jenkins: The post-presidential debate landscape is clearly favoring Clinton. Trumps continued weight shaming of a former Miss Universe and the weekend disclosure of his 1995 tax returns are but a sample of difficult news coverage for the Republican candidate.

The latest [link=http://www.prri.org/research/prri-atlantic-october-2016-presidential-election-horserace-clinton-trump/]PRRI/Atlantic poll[/link] shows Hillary Clinton with a six point lead over Donald Trump nationally, 47% to 41%.
A week ago, before the first presidential debate, Clinton and Trump were tied among likely voters at 43%.

Michigan: Clinton 43%, Trump 32%, Johnson 10% ([link=http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/10/06/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-michigan/91611112/]Detroit Free Press[/link])

Pennsylvania: Clinton 50%, Trump 40%, Johnson 5%, (Monmouth University)
Pennsylvania: Clinton 47%, Trump 38%, Johnson 5% ([link=http://www.fandm.edu/uploads/files/222225192411477697-f-m-poll-release-september-2016.pdf]Franklin & Marshall[/link])

New Mexico: Clinton 46%, Trump 33%, Johnson 14% (SurveyUSA)

Nevada: Clinton 44%, Trump 41%, Johnson 8% (Hart Research)

North Carolina: Clinton 45%, Trump 39%, Johnson 9% (Elon)

[link=https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_OH_100516/]https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_OH_100516/[/link]
Monmouth: Ohio, Clinton +2
Ohio: Clinton 44%, Trump 42%, Johnson 8% (Anzalone)
That’s two Ohio poll of the same day at Clinton  +2 

 
I expect that a good number of people who say ‘Johnson’ when asked by a pollster will hold their nose and vote Trump come election day.

[btomba_77]

Quote from fw

 
  
 
  
I expect that a good number of people who say ‘Johnson’ when asked by a pollster will hold their nose and vote Trump come election day.

Actually, it looks like Clinton is finally starting to call home the Johnson voters.
 
Johnson’s numbers have been pretty steadily falling, now just around 7% nationally, which seem to correlate fairly closely to Clinton’s recent rise.
 
A bit of bad Trump debate/post-debate, a few too many “Aleppo moments”, and the fact that third party voting usually does fall off in the latter days of the campaign as voter wake up all favors Clinton.
 
I think the fact that the polls have shown Johnson taking slightly more votes from Clinton than from Trump probably means that this shift is a net plus for Hillary.

[tdetlie_105]

For the record thought Bush was pretty bad, too far right/hawkish, it felt like Cheney and Rumsfeld ran the show behind closed doors….but also think Obama is too far left, someone moderate like Kaisich seems reasonable, who knows what HRC will turn out to be….overall point though is the concept of partisan tribal politics is getting absurd, seems like some of you guys simply cannot praise a republican or criticize a democrat

[ruszja]

Quote from dergon

Johnson’s numbers have been pretty steadily falling, now just around 7% nationally, which seem to correlate fairly closely to Clinton’s recent rise.

I don’t think the numbers allow that conclusion. It is just as likely that blue collar voters who thought that trump had a trade policy now realize that he doesn”t.

[btomba_77]

Virgina: [url=http://cnu.edu/cpp/pdf/oct%203%202016%20report-final.pdf]Clintons lead in Virginia edges up after debate, 42-35,gaining support among Independents and Millennials.[/url]

[b]Summary of Key Findings: [/b]
 
1. Clinton leads Trump 42-35 percent on the full five-candidate ballot, indicating a very slight 1 point debate bump.

2. Support for Clinton among Millennial voters increased by 7 percentage points, while their support for Trump was unchanged.

3. Independents significantly shifted support to Clinton from Trump and Johnson following the Sept. 27 debate.

4. Only 73 percent of Republicans indicate they plan to vote for Trump, a 5-point drop from the September survey. Clinton gained a point among Democrats, to 88 percent.

5. Among voters in military households, where Trump had a 7-point lead over Clinton in the September survey, Trump and Clinton are now within 1 percent (37-36 percent).

[btomba_77]

[link=http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct03]http://www.rasmussenrepor…hite_house_watch_oct03[/link]
Rasmussen shows a signficant increase for Clinton over the last week, now +3.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds the Democratic nominee with 43% support to Republican candidate Donald Trumps 40%. It was Clinton 43%, Trump 42% on Friday. Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson now earns eight percent (8%) of the vote, while Green Party candidate Jill Stein holds steady at two percent (2%).

Clinton has edged ahead since the presidential candidates first debate last week after trailing Trump by five points the week before.

(538 gives Rasmussen a C+ with 2.0% Republican bias … so Silver would call this a Clinton +5 poll)

[btomba_77]

Polito/Morning Consult: [url=http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-clinton-poll-politico-morning-consult-229038]Clinton +6[/url]

Clinton leads Trump 42-36 in the four-way race for the White House. Gary Johnson garnered 9 percent, Jill Stein got 2 percent and 10 percent remain undecided. It’s a dramatic bump for Clinton: Trump led by one point before the debate, and in a POLITICO/Morning Consult survey conducted immediately after the debate, Clinton led by four points.

In a head-to-head race between Trump and Clinton, Clinton leads by seven points, 46 percent to 39 percent.

Clinton’s lead comes at the tail end of a particularly tough week for Trump. His debate performance was uneven and widely panned by Republicans and Democrats alike. He then spent a few days chiding Alicia Machado, a former Miss Universe, for gaining weight nearly two decades ago. The episode broke through 74 percent heard of Trumps comments about Machado and it appears to have hurt Trump’s standing with women. Fifty-five percent of women said it gives them a less favorable view of Trump, and 43 percent of voters said the incident makes them less likely to support Trump.

[100574]

I don’t know what was up with Trump in that first debate but let’s just say he is unfit..forget the let’s just blow the place apart
saw on Lawrence O ‘Donnell who had a guest who reported that Trump’s dad had repeatedly bailed him out with in total over 16 mill and that HRC was generous with the 15 mill initial give..he said dad in his ho when he saw Fred was not working out was like ok to continue the bizness I will help Don and maybe he felt that I shunted him away into this military school and wrecked with guilt repeatedly bail Don out even to the point of illegally buying chips for one casino–the bottom line was that he said Trump was a terrible bizness man

Quote from dergon

Bunch of polls over last couple of days:

[link=http://view2.fdu.edu/publicmind/2016/161005/]Fairleigh Dickinson Public Mind poll[/link]: Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump by nine points nationally, 45% to 36%, with Gary Johnson at 11%.

Said pollster Krista Jenkins: The post-presidential debate landscape is clearly favoring Clinton. Trumps continued weight shaming of a former Miss Universe and the weekend disclosure of his 1995 tax returns are but a sample of difficult news coverage for the Republican candidate.

The latest [link=http://www.prri.org/research/prri-atlantic-october-2016-presidential-election-horserace-clinton-trump/]PRRI/Atlantic poll[/link] shows Hillary Clinton with a six point lead over Donald Trump nationally, 47% to 41%.
A week ago, before the first presidential debate, Clinton and Trump were tied among likely voters at 43%.

Michigan: Clinton 43%, Trump 32%, Johnson 10% ([link=http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/10/06/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-michigan/91611112/]Detroit Free Press[/link])

Pennsylvania: Clinton 50%, Trump 40%, Johnson 5%, (Monmouth University)
Pennsylvania: Clinton 47%, Trump 38%, Johnson 5% ([link=http://www.fandm.edu/uploads/files/222225192411477697-f-m-poll-release-september-2016.pdf]Franklin & Marshall[/link])

New Mexico: Clinton 46%, Trump 33%, Johnson 14% (SurveyUSA)

Nevada: Clinton 44%, Trump 41%, Johnson 8% (Hart Research)

North Carolina: Clinton 45%, Trump 39%, Johnson 9% (Elon)

[link=https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_OH_100516/]https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_OH_100516/[/link]
Monmouth: Ohio, Clinton +2
Ohio: Clinton 44%, Trump 42%, Johnson 8% (Anzalone)
That’s two Ohio poll of the same day at Clinton  +2

[kayla.meyer_144]

Surgeons and radiologists are probably republicans while psychiatrists, pediatricians and oncologists are probably democrats. Why? Money and earnings a factor? Do they treat patients differently based on politics? Maybe.
 
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/upshot/your-surgeon-is-probably-a-republican-your-psychiatrist-probably-a-democrat.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…obably-a-democrat.html[/link]

There is no way to know exactly why certain medical specialties attract Democrats or Republicans. But researchers who have studied the politics of physicians offered a few theories.

One explanation could be money. Doctors tend to earn very high salaries compared with average Americans, but the highest-paid doctors earn many times as much as those in the lower-paying specialties. The fields with higher average salaries tended to contain more doctors who were Republican, while the comparatively lower-paying fields were more popular among Democrats. That matches with national data, which show that, for people with a given level of education, richer ones are more likely to lean Republican (possibly because of a concern over the liberal policy goal of taxing the wealthiest at a higher rate).
 
The sorting may also reflect the changing demographics of medicine. As more women have become doctors in recent years, they have tended to cluster in certain specialties more than others. The data showed that female physicians were more likely to be Democrats than their male peers, mirroring another trend in the larger American population. So as women enter fields like pediatrics, obstetrics/gynecology and psychiatry, they may be making those fields more liberal.

Over all, the partisanship of doctors looks very different from a generation ago, when most physicians identified as Republicans.
 
Should you care if your doctor is a Democrat or a Republican? Maybe. Professor Hersh and Dr. Goldenberg used their data on doctors partisan identification to conduct a study of primary care physicians, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week.

They asked the doctors to consider a group of hypothetical patients: one who smoked, one who drank, one who was overweight, and so on. They found that doctors viewed most of their patients health with similar seriousness and would advise similar responses. But for three of the hypothetical patients, they found differences. Those patients were devised to have health problems closely tied to hot-button political issues: One used marijuana, one owned guns, and one had a history of abortions. For those patients, Republican and Democratic doctors registered different levels of concern and said they would respond differently.
 

 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Readers’ comments to the article are telling too.
 
 

meb boulder colorado
As an RN for over 30 years, I can say that the Surgeons and Anesthesiologists that I work with are primarily Republican. The conversations revolve around money . . . toys, cars, vacations, houses and those damn Democrats that want to “tax the hell out of us.” The lower paid specialties, the more caring specialties lean liberal. Your article is telling.

E C New York City
The irony, of course, is much of their medical school and ALL of their residency training were funded by Medicare. Medicare gives a specified amount of money per resident to training hospitals to pay for residency and its attached costs.

Next time the doctor says the government should get out of medicine, remind him/her that he likely couldn’t have become a doctor without direct government funding.

 

Aaron of London London, UK
I am a urologist, white male, over 65 and ex-military. I came from a dirt poor family. Were it not for the largess of the US government I never would have been able to go to college or to medical school. I benefited from Federal scholarships and an Air Force grant that paid for me to go to medical school. Between me working full time during summers and the Feds help I was able to complete my education with less than $5,000 of debt.

For nearly thirty years of working as a urologist, I ANNUALLY paid more in Federal taxes than the total investment the government made in me for both undergraduate and medical school. I would say that the government got a great ROI on their investment in me. It made me a Democrat for life.

Most of my partners who were Republicans had rich parents who paid for their education. If they worked during the summers it was for fun money. It always puzzled me that they were the ones who claimed that they were self made men/women and that the government support of “takers” just bred dependency. As such, they supported the party of self made independent successful people – Republicans. It convinced me that most of them suffered from the disease of “irony deficiency”.

Even with Brexit, I am happier to spend my later years in a country where the conservatives are a little more sane and sensitive to the plight of people less fortunate than them.

 
 

priceofcivilization Houston TX
Another difference they should study: academic medicine (including teaching hospitals) vs. private practice. I’d bet that is an even bigger difference.

 
 

Fred Norman Monterey, CA
I am a retired geriatrician who worked in a non profit HMO. I’ve always believed that physicians were overpaid, the surgical specialties even more so.
Compare their incomes to school teachers ( my wife, for example.) adjusting for vacation and summer breaks, the difference is astonishing. I know heart surgeons who make close to $800,000 a year annually. While I believe we should be compensated more than a unionized garbage collector, we should go into medicine for altruistic reasons, not to get rich. A comparison of US physicians’ income to that of European physicians would be a start.
 

 

[tdetlie_105]

Quote from Frumious

Surgeons and radiologists are probably republicans while psychiatrists, pediatricians and oncologists are probably democrats. Why? Money and earnings a factor? Do they treat patients differently based on politics? Maybe.

[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/upshot/your-surgeon-is-probably-a-republican-your-psychiatrist-probably-a-democrat.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…obably-a-democrat.html[/link]

There is no way to know exactly why certain medical specialties attract Democrats or Republicans. But researchers who have studied the politics of physicians offered a few theories.

One explanation could be money. Doctors tend to earn very high salaries compared with average Americans, but the highest-paid doctors earn many times as much as those in the lower-paying specialties. The fields with higher average salaries tended to contain more doctors who were Republican, while the comparatively lower-paying fields were more popular among Democrats. That matches with national data, which show that, for people with a given level of education, richer ones are more likely to lean Republican (possibly because of a concern over the liberal policy goal of taxing the wealthiest at a higher rate).

The sorting may also reflect the changing demographics of medicine. As more women have become doctors in recent years, they have tended to cluster in certain specialties more than others. The data showed that female physicians were more likely to be Democrats than their male peers, mirroring another trend in the larger American population. So as women enter fields like pediatrics, obstetrics/gynecology and psychiatry, they may be making those fields more liberal.

Over all, the partisanship of doctors looks very different from a generation ago, when most physicians identified as Republicans.

Should you care if your doctor is a Democrat or a Republican? Maybe. Professor Hersh and Dr. Goldenberg used their data on doctors partisan identification to conduct a study of primary care physicians, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week.

They asked the doctors to consider a group of hypothetical patients: one who smoked, one who drank, one who was overweight, and so on. They found that doctors viewed most of their patients health with similar seriousness and would advise similar responses. But for three of the hypothetical patients, they found differences. Those patients were devised to have health problems closely tied to hot-button political issues: One used marijuana, one owned guns, and one had a history of abortions. For those patients, Republican and Democratic doctors registered different levels of concern and said they would respond differently.

So in other words docs who are brighter, harder working (eg. higher paid specialists like derm/ortho etc) tend to be republican?!  What is their conclusion? Let me guess (given the objective news source and its unbiased readers) republicans are evil, democrats are angels, Trump is deplorable so vote for crooked HRC and keep the status quo!  Everywhere I look online from yahoo, CNN, MSN, Aunt Minnie etc its all negative about Trump. You guys are cultish/tribal about your disdain for Trump/Repub and your devotion to HRC/dem…how did you survive the Bush years? 
 

[btomba_77]

The Bush years were rough.

I survived by hanging out in blue enclaves of American urban centers and by using lots of Canadian flag lapel pins and luggage tags when traveling internationally. 🙂

[btomba_77]

If I can survive eight years of Bush, you can survive eight years of Obama and 4 to 8 of Clinton easily.

[Unknown Member]

When I finish fellowship, I’ll make more in 3 years than both my parents made in their entire careers combined. However, that doesn’t mean I need to be a democrat because I came from lower middle class background, nor am I. The stupidity of partisan voters is astonishing. It’s not the income of doctors or any other high paid field that is the cause of income inequality. It’s really allowing those few thousand people that control the majority of industry to get away with criminal behavior that’s supported by people like Trump and Clinton. I have no reason to vote for massive cuts to education or social benefits, but I also will not vote for tax increases as the only solution to a bloated and very inefficient government.

[Unknown Member]

It’s funny how Democrats talk a big game about “paying your fair share” as if doctors pay nothing in taxes. When it comes to really leveling the playing field, it’s all nonsense. Perfect example is Warren Buffet. A lot of talk about paying more than his secretary in taxes. In real life, the IRS is after his company for taxes, he uses every deduction for his charitable donations. The worst though is his huge stake in Wells Fargo and his lack of any public declaration against them even after they’ve been caught screwing the little guy. All lip service. A lot of bark about paying equal taxes when it doesn’t actually affect you, but no bite when it comes to selling off your Wells Fargo stock to show you truly support equality and fairness.

[Unknown Member]

It’s unfortunate there’s no party for people like me who wants to be more financially responsible, decrease our wasteful military spending so we don’t have to cut social security or medicare, and believe in a socially liberal but fiscally slightly conservative policy.

[Unknown Member]

You want some advice

Take the emotion out of your economic philosophy

The difference in tax rates between Clinton and Trump for people at our income rate is not all that big of a deal

You make more money period….. Job , investments, real estate holdings and other ventures when everybody is happy, at peace and there is no threat of someone turning things upside down

You already understand that all politicians are sheet…… But your too hung up on tax policy and too emotional about it

Tax policy has some importance…… But a lot of other things have importance too

[kayla.meyer_144]

Interesting cigar/falala, that you seem to fit the stereotype stated by meb,RN below. The article, however, mentions the word “taxes” only once outside of the comments.
 

meb boulder colorado
As an RN for over 30 years, I can say that the Surgeons and Anesthesiologists that I work with are primarily Republican. The conversations revolve around money . . . toys, cars, vacations, houses and those damn Democrats that want to “tax the hell out of us.”

[Unknown Member]

See how easy it will be to make money when there is a trade war and a currency war…… When the market goes down or is stagnant or when interest rates go up and I nflation gets real

You will see the beatchin and the finger pointing then

[Unknown Member]

Quote from kpack123

See how easy it will be to make money when there is a trade war and a currency war…… When the market goes down or is stagnant or when interest rates go up and I nflation gets real

You will see the beatchin and the finger pointing then

 
I’m not talking about Trump vs Clinton. I’m talking about democrat or republican. Clearly you think Democrat automatically means good economy and republican means bad even though I’ve already linked a paper written by Princeton economists that strongly suggests it has nothing to do with which party is president and everything to do with new technologies/productivity gains and the price of energy. I’ll bow out of this nonsense conversation like I did the other one.

[tdetlie_105]

Bet that Boulder RN is union with a big fat pension just waiting for her!

[btomba_77]

Florida: Clinton +3 (Gravis)
National: Clinton +5 (Quinnipiac)
National 4-way: Clinton +1 Rasmussen
National LA Times tracking: Trump +2
‘

All of the moves this afternoon’s 538 to the left … 79.6% Clinton (polls) and 86.5% Clinton (now-cast)

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from jd4540

Bet that Boulder RN is union with a big fat pension just waiting for her!

“Big fat pension?”
 
That’s an oxymoron. Exactly how fat is “fat?” $40k per year?
 
The real test is how big is whether you’d happily accept that “big fat pension” fund rather your own based on the “higher income” of the pension fund. Unless you’re not saving at all.

[afazio.uk_887]

kpack has the right idea — the tax you pay when there is a R president vs. D president is really not that big a change.  I believe I paid around 29-30% effective rate when GWB was prez vs 31-32% with obama.  There is only so much they can hike tax rates anyway, given it is politically unpopular.
 
Much more important is stability of the economy and financial markets when it comes to building long-term wealth.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Tax cuts are the universal cure for every ailment or no ailment is losing steam & being recognized as pure unadulterated quackery.

[btomba_77]

[url]http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/clinton-adds-to-her-electoral-college-edge/[/url]

Larry Sabato skips the “toss-up” phase and moves Ohio from leans Republican to leans Dem.
Nevada goes from toss-up to leans Dem.
Michigan and PA go from leans Dem to likely Dem.

[img]http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/content/images//2016_10_09_pres_600.png[/img]
 
Some of this morning’s polls:

Rasmussen: Hillary +7
NBC News: [2-way] Hillary +7
LATimes: Trump +3
Economist: Hillary +6

Ohio: Hillary +4 [CBS]
Wisconsin: Hillary +4 [CBS]
Florida: Hillary +3 [NBC]
Pennsylvania: Hillary +12 [NBC]

RCP Average: Hillary +5
HuffPost/Pollster.com Average: Hillary +6.3
538.com [polls-plus, polls-only, now-cast] Hillary +78.2, +82.3, +86.8
Sam Wang: 95% chance [near the mathematical maximum] Hillary will win at least 270 EVs.

Only the NBC poll was in the field [for 2 out of 7 days] after the Access Hollywood tape
 

[kaldridgewv2211]

they should color Ohio as mostly red, and just put some blue highlights around Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Toledo.  

[btomba_77]

WSJ poll just out now.

Clinton +11 in a 4-way and +14 head to head.

Ouch

[100574]

over 19,00 show up tonight for HRC at Columbus, Ohio rally

Quote from DICOM_Dan

they should color Ohio as mostly red, and just put some blue highlights around Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Toledo.  

[jquinones8812_854]

Even if Trump somehow managed to win Ohio, he is still toast.

[btomba_77]

Quote from DICOM_Dan

they should color Ohio as mostly red, and just put some blue highlights around Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Toledo.  

 
The entire country is like that.   Dan Savage wrote a great piece after 2004 election titled [url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-urban-archipelago/Content?oid=19813]The Urban Archipelago[/url].  
 
In it he noted that when you look at a county by county break down, the idea of Red State/Blue State falls apart.  It’s actually urban rural that makes the divide.  Even in the blueest of states on the coasts the counties turn very red as soon as you leave urban areas.
 
[img]http://www.thestranger.com/imager/b/original/23652172/2966/feature-21939.jpeg[/img]

[jquinones8812_854]

Another poll showing double digit lead for Hillary this morning.

Trump is toast, and a landslide is not probable, but definitely possible.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from dergon

The entire country is like that.   Dan Savage wrote a great piece after 2004 election titled [link=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-urban-archipelago/Content?oid=19813]The Urban Archipelago[/link].  

In it he noted that when you look at a county by county break down, the idea of Red State/Blue State falls apart.  It’s actually urban rural that makes the divide.  Even in the blueest of states on the coasts the counties turn very red as soon as you leave urban areas.

Lines in the sand. And why is that? With Nixon, there was bi-partisanship, even during Reagan & Bush, both Bushes. Then Obama gets elected and the lines become a wall.

[btomba_77]

PRRI/Atlantic: (National)Clinton leading Donald Trump nationally by 11 points, 49% to 38%, with Gary Johnson at 2%.
Politico/Morning Consult: (National) Clinton leading by five points, 42% to 37%, followed by Johnson at 10%.
LATimes at Trump +2

State level:
Virginia: Clinton 45%, Trump 36%, Johnson 7% (Roanoke)
Pennsylvania: Clinton 44%, Trump 40%, Johnson 4% (Susquehanna)
Wisconsin: Clinton 43%, Trump 35%, Johnson 8% (Loras)

[btomba_77]

Quote from MISTRAD

Another poll showing double digit lead for Hillary this morning.

Trump is toast, and a landslide is not probable, but definitely possible.

 
Getting more and more likely.   Clinton +10 has a good chance of flipping the house.
 
NBC poll had generic congressional ballot at +7 the other day.  Might be an outlier but if accurate that’s also close to house-flipping range.

[jquinones8812_854]

Democrats lose the House if Hillary gets anything less.

Shows what a huge advantage GOP has there.

I think races will narrow a little..Hillary wins by 5-7, Dems win Senate close, lose House.

[btomba_77]

Quote from MISTRAD

Democrats lose the House if Hillary gets anything less.

Shows what a huge advantage GOP has there.

I think races will narrow a little..Hillary wins by 5-7, Dems win Senate close, lose House.

Yep.  The way the house districts are structured Dems need to be around +8 to get to 50% of the seats.

[jquinones8812_854]

Quote from dergon

Quote from MISTRAD

Democrats lose the House if Hillary gets anything less.

Shows what a huge advantage GOP has there.

I think races will narrow a little..Hillary wins by 5-7, Dems win Senate close, lose House.

Yep.  The way the house districts are structured Dems need to be around +8 to get to 50% of the seats.

Larry Sabato yesterday said has to be 10 points before he even considers they have a chance. 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Dems getting the House is not going to happen short of a divine intervention.

[afazio.uk_887]

That’s good – gridlock is better in DC.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Why is doing nothing better than something accomplished? It’s not as if the country has no needs from Congress.
 
That said, it’s not likely the Conservative extremists in the House are going to agree to anything. Nor is McConnell.

[Unknown Member]

Quote from Frumious

Dems getting the House is not going to happen short of a divine intervention.

 
heh.  how about Satanic invertention?  Trump is doing his best…

[afazio.uk_887]

Having one party control Congress and the WH is a disaster.  Too many ideologues.  Much better to have gridlock / checks and balances where both sides know they have to compromise to get anything accomplished.

[Unknown Member]

Quote from yesterdaysnews

Having one party control Congress and the WH is a disaster.  Too many ideologues.  Much better to have gridlock / checks and balances where both sides know they have to compromise to get anything accomplished.

 
The problem with that is, neither side is willing to compromise anymore.