Monday, April 1, 2019

Poll: Republicans think Ocasio-Cortez is 'bad' for Democrats but Dem voters and independents haven't decided

Poll: Republicans think Ocasio-Cortez is 'bad' for Democrats but Dem voters and independents haven't decided

Volume 90%
 
3/29/2019
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hurts the Democratic Party more than she helps it, according to a Hill-HarrisX poll released Friday that also found many voters are undecided when it comes to the first-term New York Democrat.
In the survey, 25 percent of respondents said the self-described "democratic socialist" was good for her party, and 35 percent said she was bad for it. Forty percent said they had no opinion.
Among Democratic voters with an opinion about Ocasio-Cortez, 83 percent said she was good for their party. Eighty-seven percent of Republicans said she was bad for Democrats.
While almost half of independent voters had no opinion on the matter, 72 percent of those who did said Ocasio-Cortez is bad for the Democratic Party. Twenty eight percent said she was good for Democrats.
GOP-leaning respondents were much more likely than independents and Democrats to have an opinion of Ocasio-Cortez. Only 28 percent of Republican respondents said they had no opinion of her, compared to 42 percent of Democrats and 48 percent of independents who said the same.
Ocasio-Cortez has been mentioned 766 times this year on Fox News, more than all of the most popular Democrats who are running or considering running for president in 2020, according to closed caption transcripts collected by the Internet Archive.
By comparison, Fox News has mentioned Sen. Kamala Harris(D-Calif.) 689 times, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) 687 times, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) 667 times, former Vice President Joe Biden 528 times, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) 420 times and former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas) 375 times during the same time period.
Polling conducted by Gallup indicates that awareness of Ocasio-Cortez has increased dramatically in recent months, especially among people who favor the GOP. In a September survey, 43 percent of Republicans said they had no opinion of her. Only 22 percent said the same in a February poll.
"Both parties need to have a foil, they need to identify who is going to be the villain in the story for the next election," B.J. Martino, a GOP pollster affiliated with the Tarrance Group, said Friday on Hill.TV's "What America's Thinking."
"And for Republicans, it's been [Speaker] Nancy Pelosi [D-Calif.] for well over a decade. That storyline has sort of played itself out now. And so you know why Fox News is beginning to focus on some presidential candidates, beginning to focus on AOC more, because we need to identify who's going to be that lightning rod going forward," he added, referring to Ocasio-Cortez's initials.
The Hill-HarrisX survey also found that men were much more likely than women to have an opinion on whether Ocasio-Cortez is good for her party. Seventy-seven percent of men had an opinion of her, compared to 50 percent of women.
"I do think that AOC's race and gender are large part of the specific reaction to her, even more so than her policies that she shares with a lot of other Democratic politicians," Pia Nargundkar, a senior associate at the ALG Research political strategy firm told "What America's Thinking" host Jamal Simmons.
The poll also found that younger voters were more likely to view Ocasio-Cortez favorably. Sixty-one percent of respondents between the ages of 18 and 34 who had an opinion of the lawmaker said she is good for Democrats, a view shared by 57 percent of respondents between 35 and 49.
Twenty-nine percent of voters between 50 and 64 with an opinion of her said that Ocasio-Cortez is good for Democrats, with only 20 percent of respondents older than 65 agreeing.
—Matthew Sheffield
at

TO YOUR HEALTH

WHAT IF THE GOVERNMENT IS YOUR DOCTOR?

Dr. Jane M. Orient warns of system where medical 'tools' include battering rams, assault rifles

image: https://www.wnd.com/files/2014/10/jorient_avatar.jpg
author-image JANE M. ORIENT, M.D. About | Email | Archive

 244
Print Print
 
 
People used to know who their doctor was. His name and phone number were on the wall or the refrigerator next to the telephone. He was there for you and could manage most of your problems.
When I was about 13, my mom took me to our pediatrician for belly pain. He was on his way out the door, but he stopped to take care of me. He diagnosed appendicitis based on history and physical examination. He called his favorite surgeon (“Billy,” a Tucson legend), who came from the golf course to meet me in the emergency room. Within hours, my red-hot appendix was in a jar. My parents paid the hospital bill ($150 – 10 days’ pay for a construction laborer) as I was discharged a few days later.
Today, the patient with abdominal pain could wait for hours to see the ER provider – possibly a nurse practitioner or physician assistant who had never seen a case of acute appendicitis. She’ll probably get a CT scan, after another wait. Eventually, Dr. On-call may take her to the operating room, hopefully before the appendix ruptures. And the bill will be beyond the means of ordinary people.
I used to be able to direct-admit patients from my office and send them with a set of orders to the hospital admitting office. For years, this has been impossible. The hospital is decidedly unfriendly to independent doctors. There’s now a gatekeeper in the emergency room, and most patients are under the control of a hospitalist.
This hospital, still Catholic at least in name, is now owned by a huge national conglomerate. Recently, it thwarted all efforts to keep it from dehydrating a patient to death despite lack of an advance directive or permission from next of kin. The patient’s mother disputed the diagnosis of brain death. The gastroenterologist of her choice was willing and able to place a feeding tube, needed in order to transfer the patient to a skilled nursing facility, but the hospital would not permit it. An outside physician on whom the mother had called was removed from the patient’s room by security, when she was merely praying with the mother. The mother could not get a phone call returned from an attending physician. Who was the doctor? Apparently, the hospital system.
Recently, a physician called me about her mother, who was seemingly a captive in a world-renowned hospital. She was concerned about her mother’s nutritional status and falling oxygen level. She could not speak to the attending physician. “They play musical doctors.”
Largely driven by government policy, the System is increasingly in control. A new level of intrusion is being proposed in California in a bill (SB 276) that would outlaw all medical exemptions for vaccines, unless a public health officer approves each one, based on the very narrow list of contraindications accepted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Doctors traditionally swore an oath not to harm patients, and are liable if they do. But government officials are immune from liability, even if they overrule a physician’s judgment that a particular patient faces an unacceptable risk of harm from a vaccine.
If you disagree with your private doctor, you can fire him or simply decline to follow his advice. But what if the government is your doctor?

 


In Arizona, law enforcement officers in tactical gear broke down the door to a home where children were sleeping, entered with guns drawn, and took three little children away from their parents. The stated reason: the mother had decided not to follow a doctor’s advice to take her two-year-old to the emergency room for a fever, because the fever broke and the child got much better soon after leaving the office. The main concern seemed to be that the child was not vaccinated.
Americans need to defend their right to have an independent physician, to choose their physician and type of care, and to give or withhold informed consent to medical treatments. Otherwise, their “doctor” will be a protocol in a system staffed by interchangeable automatons. Treatments will be inaccessible or required, tailored to meet the needs and beliefs of the system.
If the government is the ultimate authority on your “health care,” remember that its tools for checking whether a child has a life-threatening disease such as meningitis include battering rams and assault rifles.

at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *