View Full Version : Benched: Schultz MIA in Dems' media blitz
BMT (RIP)
10-07-2012, 07:44
Have you noticed that we've seen a lot less of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz recently?
Read more: http://times247.com/articles/benched-schultz-mia-in-dem-s-media-blitz#ixzz28cXc8wUB
BMT
Peregrino
10-07-2012, 08:54
Even the fringe lunatics know when it's time to hide the moonbats.
The Reaper
10-07-2012, 16:20
I hope to see her soon in a new SAW movie.
TR
The repulsive is strong in that one.
The repulsive is strong in that one.
Man you got that right.....I think she and Pelosi are actually sisters....I've never seen stupid and energy so eagerly entwined...well, beyond stupid to simply evil.
From the article in the OP....[S]he seems to have been relegated to the back bench. . . . She'll appear on Bloomberg TV this Sunday and she has a new profile in Vogue of all places....
However, this dismissive statement overlooks the fact that Vogue has a total U.S. audience of 11.398 million readers, 89% of whom are women. The median household income of its readership is about $63K, and 64% of its readers have attended (if not graduated) college (source is here (http://www.condenast.com/brands/vogue/media-kit/print)).
Dozer523
10-07-2012, 21:18
From the article in the OP.
However, this dismissive statement overlooks the fact that Vogue has a total U.S. audience of 11.398 million readers, 89% of whom are women. The median household income of its readership is about $63K, and 64% of its readers have attended (if not graduated) college (source is here (http://www.condenast.com/brands/vogue/media-kit/print)). Yeah, but they write about shoes and stuff.
right?
Yeah, but they write about shoes and stuff.
right?The 2012 fall fashion issue of Vogue had an in-depth, well-written profile of Chelsea Clinton that also warmly discussed the secretary of state.
Or so I heard.
TXGringo
10-07-2012, 22:30
From the article in the OP.
However, this dismissive statement overlooks the fact that Vogue has a total U.S. audience of 11.398 million readers, 89% of whom are women. The median household income of its readership is about $63K, and 64% of its readers have attended (if not graduated) college (source is here (http://www.condenast.com/brands/vogue/media-kit/print)).
"but these are not the sort of prime communications assignments she has had in the past. ..."
This might be the point of the article and the OP.
What's yours?
"but these are not the sort of prime communications assignments she has had in the past. ..."
This might be the point of the article and the OP.
What's yours?There are a few discussions on this BB about the trend in which American political bypass traditional media outlets in favor of various "new media" formats, and how political discourse often takes place in various forms of cultural practice. These conversations arc back a few years.
My point was in reference to those ongoing conversations.
TXGringo
10-07-2012, 23:05
There are a few discussions on this BB about the trend in which American political bypass traditional media outlets in favor of various "new media" formats, and how political discourse often takes place in various forms of cultural practice. These conversations arc back a few years.
My point was in reference to those ongoing conversations.
Point taken. However, I have to wonder how much political discourse will take place in a Vogue profile.
Point taken. However, I have to wonder how much political discourse will take place in a Vogue profile.Is your POV based upon supposition or a combination of research and experience? <<LINK (http://www.vogue.com/magazine/article/from-the-archives-political-powerhouses-in-vogue/#1)>>.While many may see Vogue as just a fashion magazine, throughout the years, we’ve consistently profiled influential female figures in politics. In fourteen administrations, only one first lady hasn’t been featured in our pages and our current First Lady, the dynamic and stylish Michelle Obama, even appeared on the cover in March 2009, mere months after her husband was historically elected into office. While we’ve always covered the biggest names on Capitol Hill (Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton) we also have an eye on rising stars—Sarah Palin was profiled in our pages well before she was thrown into the national spotlight as John McCain’s VP choice. In honor of May’s story on South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, we looked back through our archives to bring you a slideshow of twenty-first century political powerhouses in Vogue.
Also. Obama Remains Women's Presidential Pick; Romney, Men's (http://www.gallup.com/poll/156848/obama-remains-women-presidential-pick-romney-men.aspx)
And then there was the stir caused by the pillbox Mrs. Kennedy wore to her husband's inauguration, and the ensuing impact on American culture, commerce, and gender relations.
ZonieDiver
10-08-2012, 10:12
If only the R's could find a way to relegate those within their ranks who frequently "entwine stupid and energy" to the pages of Field and Stream, we might have a better chance in a month... though my ballot should arrive any day now.
TXGringo
10-08-2012, 12:25
Is your POV based upon supposition or a combination of research and experience?
Brief observation.
"The profile says Wasserman Schultz personifies the checkbook- and gender-equity issues that Democrats need to stress this election year.
One criticism emerged from an otherwise glowing portrait: “Wasserman Schultz failed to display much political courage on issues like Cuba, where she supports the futile embargo and travel ban.”
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/dcblog/2012/10/fashionable_wasserman_schultz.html
That's not political discourse. That's a report card.
ETA: IMO
Brief observation.
"The profile says Wasserman Schultz personifies the checkbook- and gender-equity issues that Democrats need to stress this election year.
One criticism emerged from an otherwise glowing portrait: “Wasserman Schultz failed to display much political courage on issues like Cuba, where she supports the futile embargo and travel ban.”
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/dcblog/2012/10/fashionable_wasserman_schultz.html
That's not political discourse. That's a report card.TXGringo--
Bluntly, I think you would profit greatly if you were to step away from your implicit position that others are going to read things you think they should if not also your assumption that you know what is going on when it comes to political discourse in contemporary America.
The article you quote provides motivation for you to both.The article recounts her battle against breast cancer, including seven surgeries, while raising three children and serving in Congress. President Obama's adviser David Axelrod makes clear he relies on her to get the Democratic message across to working mothers.
What’s most impressive, the mag says, “is that Wasserman Schultz juggles so many responsibilities while functioning as a kind of Jewish mother to Congress.”In the balance of things, which issues do you think many Americans (and not just women) are going to find more important? Relations with Cuba? Or breast cancer and balancing the modern-day Kobayashi Maru of work/life/family? (In regards to the former, did you watch any part of any NFL games yesterday (http://www.nfl.com/pink)?)
In 2008, the political landscape exploded during the primary season because of the response then-senator Clinton received from her party and then the rough handling Governor Palin received from many quarters. These intertwined issues were the subjects of intense conversations-- especially here and over at a BB that was started to support Mrs. Clinton's candidacy (and then evolved--and then devolved--into a BB centered around American politics more generally).
Might it be possible that the Democratic Party is dimly aware of the notion that political discourse isn't just about policy preferences and checking off items on a "to do" list but also addressing those issues that people encounter in their everyday lives?
TXGringo
10-08-2012, 20:48
*
TXGringo
10-08-2012, 21:28
entire post
We're obviously not on the same page. My point with that post is that a "profile" that fails to address two recent incidents of blatant dishonesty in the public eye is itself dishonest. It was a report card on Democrat talking points, not an honest political discussion. I disagree with your assertion that this profile will have some effect on anything.
Paragrouper
10-08-2012, 21:29
From the article in the OP.
However, this dismissive statement overlooks the fact that Vogue has a total U.S. audience of 11.398 million readers, 89% of whom are women. The median household income of its readership is about $63K, and 64% of its readers have attended (if not graduated) college (source is here (http://www.condenast.com/brands/vogue/media-kit/print)).
Actually, you would expect Conde Nast to talk up one of their own magazines. If you review a more unbiased source (Audit Bureau of Circulations, Link (http://www.ask.com/wiki/List_of_magazines_by_circulation#United_States)), you will discover that Vogue ranks 70th in circulation. Mabye the story posted by the OP has a point. She has been mentioned a few times recently in 'American Rifleman (43rd),' but not in a flattering manner.
In any case, I see it as good news--every time she opens her mouth it's like nails on a chalkboard.
Actually, you would expect Conde Nast to talk up one of their own magazines. If you review a more unbiased source (Audit Bureau of Circulations, Link (http://www.ask.com/wiki/List_of_magazines_by_circulation#United_States)), you will discover that Vogue ranks 70th in circulation. Mabye the story posted by the OP has a point. She has been mentioned a few times recently in 'American Rifleman (43rd),' but not in a flattering manner.
In any case, I see it as good news--every time she opens her mouth it's like nails on a chalkboard.FWIW, the numbers for Vogue are for audience which includes circulation (subscription and single issue sales) and the number of visits it gets on the Internet. (The number in your link, 1,222,373, was self reported and is not far off the number on Vogue's website, 1,248,121.)
(By comparison, my favorite newspaper claims to have circulation base of 766K but an audience of 12.4 million, source is here (http://www.economistgroupmedia.com/planning-tools/circulation/?circ_id=2&productid=1).)I disagree with your assertion that this profile will have some effect on anything.What is the basis of your disagreement?
Are you aware of the saying among feminists that the personal is political? Do you have experience living/working with women in which this frame of mind has come into play? (Ever make the mistake of offering a disparaging opinion of Ms. Winfrey in front of a woman you were 100% absolutely sure didn't like her? Ever spend a day shopping with a woman? Ever get invited to a viewing party of Sex and the City by a bunch of party girls?)
(Ever talk to women who belong to the Teamsters about their male counterparts? Do you ever sit through long conversations in which women talk about their workday? Ever listen a rape victim talk about her frustration with the judicial process? Have you kept any women company while they wait for members of their family to die after long illnesses? Or talk to single mothers about raising their kids?)
(Do you talk to women regarding their views on pr0n--and not just viewers? Ever listen to women talk about sexual politics with their SOs? Or have conversations with women who are trying to figure out if they do or do not like the rough stuff?)
(My point is that there are different spheres of power in America. What works in some spheres doesn't always work in others. Sometimes, 2+2=5. [Be certain of one thing -- "no" always means "no" and nothing else but "no."] Figuring out how these spheres work is easier when one takes off the blinders, shelves one's preconceived notions, and does what one can to learn how others view the world in their own terms.)
One last question that I've been meaning to ask for some time now. What is the deal with your reluctance to use the search button and to look at existing conversations/debates on PS.COM?
I mean, if you want to continue this back and forth where I offer a POV and you disagree without really saying why, that's your prerogative. It is no big deal to write a post while also drafting a reply to your reply. That is, at least until kick off of the Texas vs. Oklahoma game. At which point--especially if Texas loses--it may get a bit more difficult to filter out the snark. (This isn't to say that I'd be bitter over the outcome of a college football game.)
However, I do think it would be more profitable for you if you were to jump into the archives and to see how many of these issues--including gender relations--have been discussed over the years.
But then, YMMV.
Paragrouper
10-09-2012, 06:09
FWIW, the numbers for Vogue are for audience which includes circulation (subscription and single issue sales) and the number of visits it gets on the Internet. (The number in your link, 1,222,373, was self reported and is not far off the number on Vogue's website, 1,248,121.)
(By comparison, my favorite newspaper claims to have circulation base of 766K but an audience of 12.4 million, source is here (http://www.economistgroupmedia.com/planning-tools/circulation/?circ_id=2&productid=1).)What is the basis of your disagreement?
I do understand how audience is derived. However, You can reasonably expect that many of the 69 other magazines that have a greater circulation, likely also have a greater overall audience--as in the case of 'People' or 'Better Homes and Gardens.'
Source (http://www.foliomag.com/2009/aarp-shows-largest-readership-growth-people-largest-audience)
You disagree with the article's premise that Vogue magazine is 'less than prime time.' I beleive the article makes a fair case.
TXGringo
10-09-2012, 07:51
entire post
The basis of my disagreement is that it's a Vogue profile, not a front-pager in the NYT.
You seem to think this profile is going to be disseminated throughout the ranks and across the globe and will have resounding effects for ages to come. Women everywhere will unite behind this champion of working mothers. You don't offer any concrete support to show that this is possible, other than the obvious, that women's politics are different than men's. Oh, and Vogue's outstanding readership numbers. I mean, their profile accomplished a whole lot for Mrs. Palin.
I think a few million people are going to read it, most of whom are already Dims, then flip to the next page to check out the capris. I think this because the working mothers I know, several who have fought and defeated breast cancer, don't give a damn about some liberal Rep. from South Florida, and this little fluff piece in Vogue wouldn't do anything to change that.
That's funny, I've been meaning to ask as well. What's the deal with your constant need to push new guys toward the search button? I've read the stickies. I've been shot down before. I know how this works. You're not a QP or a Mod, and your name ain't green. I don't need to know what everyone else here thinks to be able to form my own opinion.
ETA: http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/08/romneys-strong-debate-performance-erases-obamas-lead/
"While shifts are evident across many demographic groups, there has been a notable change among women voters: In September, just 42% viewed Romney favorably, while 60% had positive impressions of Obama. Today, about half view each of the candidates favorably (51% Obama, 48% Romney)." I stand corrected on the effectiveness of this Vogue profile.
Dozer523
10-09-2012, 09:46
The basis of my disagreement is that it's a Vogue profile, not a front-pager in the NYT.
You seem to think this profile is going to be disseminated throughout the ranks and across the globe and will have resounding effects for ages to come. Women everywhere will unite behind this champion of working mothers. You don't offer any concrete support to show that this is possible, other than the obvious, that women's politics are different than men's. Oh, and Vogue's outstanding readership numbers. I mean, their profile accomplished a whole lot for Mrs. Palin.
...
That's funny, .
I'm pretty sure it will be "disseminated" amount discerning women cuz my daughter reads Vogue. Thank God she hasn't decided to dress like Vogue. Where was I? Oh yeah, The Bright Center of My Universe - BCMU -also happens to be an editor for her school paper. BFD? Did I mention its a University newspaper? Big Whoop? One of the best Schools of Journalism in the nation. And she has Big Plans. And she reads the NYT and WSJ and PS.Com ("OMGosh Daaaaa-d! I searched BCMU and you're posting about me again!) and a number of other dailies and periodical as well as stuff that reviews the stuff she doesn't read herself. Why, you ask? Of course you wouldn't ask cuz she's just a girl. . . But so she is informed and she is always looking for ideas for good articles . . That might entertain, enlighten, inform and call one to action.
Based on your experience, what makes you an expert on women their reading habits and the effect on America based on the two in combination?
And before you answer, frame your ruminations taking into account some fat, black woman who just likes to talk in Chicago. You can dismiss, discount and disrespect anyone you want but history and good manners shows one does so at their own peril.
I've followed your few posts and I'm unimpressed. You don't read.
As for the Search button, and pushing NEW GUYS toward it. (I shouldn't even have to finish this sentence.... Maybe guys like you who are new should realize we haven't been just sitting around waiting for you to find us, enlighten us and set us straight. Arrogance.
As for Ms Palen, you can't make chicken salad out of chicken sh!t.
......As for Ms Palen, you can't make chicken salad out of chicken sh!t.
Well, for a fact if you give her chicken shit she can't make chicken salad - but give her a live Moose and she can sure turn it into Moose Burgers.
Stargazer
10-09-2012, 11:04
I believe the intent of the profile is to redeem or make her more 'relatable' to women. In other words, an image makeover. Further, I think the impact or ability of this 'profile makeover' to persuade 'undecided female voters' will be marginal.
This is based upon my experience as a female, occasional Vogue reader, professional business woman, head of household, raised 4 children on my own, have two 22 year old daughters (who read Vogue occasionally), have several friends who are or have battled breast cancer, lost a family member to breast cancer.... However, I confess, I consider myself an independent self-sufficient female but far from a feminist.
Dozer523
10-09-2012, 13:11
Well, for a fact if you give her chicken shit she can't make chicken salad - but give her a live Moose and she can sure turn it into Moose Burgers.i like moose burgers. :D
TXGringo
10-09-2012, 13:33
[QUOTE=Dozer523;469980]I'm pretty sure it will be "disseminated" amount discerning women cuz my daughter reads Vogue. Thank God she hasn't decided to dress like Vogue. Where was I? Oh yeah, The Bright Center of My Universe - BCMU -also happens to be an editor for her school paper. BFD? Did I mention its a University newspaper? Big Whoop? One of the best Schools of Journalism in the nation. And she has Big Plans. And she reads the NYT and WSJ and PS.Com ("OMGosh Daaaaa-d! I searched BCMU and you're posting about me again!) and a number of other dailies and periodical as well as stuff that reviews the stuff she doesn't read herself. Why, you ask? Of course you wouldn't ask cuz she's just a girl. . . But so she is informed and she is always looking for ideas for good articles . . That might entertain, enlighten, inform and call one to action.[QUOTE=Dozer523;469980]
I know a National Merit Scholar who will receive her BA and Masters in 4 years from a prominent Public Policy school, whose mother graduated from UT Law and beat breast cancer. They're informed. They don't read Vogue. Point being, your anecdote doesn't prove your point.
[QUOTE=Dozer523;469980]Based on your experience, what makes you an expert on women their reading habits and the effect on America based on the two in combination?
And before you answer, frame your ruminations taking into account some fat, black woman who just likes to talk in Chicago. You can dismiss, discount and disrespect anyone you want but history and good manners shows one does so at their own peril.[QUOTE=Dozer523;469980]
http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/08/romneys-strong-debate-performance-erases-obamas-lead/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9595340/US-election-2012-Mitt-Romney-gains-four-point-lead-over-Barack-Obama-in-latest-poll.html
"Romney also achieved gains over the past month among women, white non-Hispanics and those younger than 50, the Pew research Centre said. It noted that likely women voters are now evenly divided at 47 per cent each for Obama and Romney, when last month, Obama led Romney by 18 points among women likely to vote."
The poll shows that Romney has gained among women. Which would lead one to believe that this "profile" hasn't had much impact. None, really. Which would lead one to believe that I might have had a good point. But hey, I don't read and I don't care what women think, so what do I know...
The basis of my disagreement is that it's a Vogue profile, not a front-pager in the NYT.
You seem to think this profile is going to be disseminated throughout the ranks and across the globe and will have resounding effects for ages to come. Women everywhere will unite behind this champion of working mothers. You don't offer any concrete support to show that this is possible, other than the obvious, that women's politics are different than men's. Oh, and Vogue's outstanding readership numbers. I mean, their profile accomplished a whole lot for Mrs. Palin.
I think a few million people are going to read it, most of whom are already Dims, then flip to the next page to check out the capris. I think this because the working mothers I know, several who have fought and defeated breast cancer, don't give a damn about some liberal Rep. from South Florida, and this little fluff piece in Vogue wouldn't do anything to change that.
That's funny, I've been meaning to ask as well. What's the deal with your constant need to push new guys toward the search button? I've read the stickies. I've been shot down before. I know how this works. You're not a QP or a Mod, and your name ain't green. I don't need to know what everyone else here thinks to be able to form my own opinion.
ETA: http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/08/romneys-strong-debate-performance-erases-obamas-lead/
"While shifts are evident across many demographic groups, there has been a notable change among women voters: In September, just 42% viewed Romney favorably, while 60% had positive impressions of Obama. Today, about half view each of the candidates favorably (51% Obama, 48% Romney)." I stand corrected on the effectiveness of this Vogue profile.On the one hand, you profess to have an idea of what I think and that you know how to use the search button. I have doubts. Were you truly up to speed with the search functionality of this BB, you might have noticed--as pointed out in a previous post by a QP--that the conversations on this BB spread across threads, fora, and time.
You also might have noticed that a theme in many of my posts is the issue of keeping the GOP relevant into the twenty first century-- not just winning the next election. Moreover, if you had paid attention only in those threads you've visited, you would have noticed that I'm not merely focused on one election, but how each party is responding to America's changing demographics.#
Instead, you persist in avoiding points that I (and others) have developed in this thread (and others) to argue that you agree with the position you held in the first place. In my experience, the value of a position is determined by how well it can hold its place against differing points of view in the marketplace of ideas. In your formulation, your position has value because it is your position. ("I don't need to know what everyone else here thinks to be able to form my own opinion.")
Well done.
As for you pointing out my status on this BB. That's great. Like most things, I am nothing.* I'm relieved to see that we agree on something.
Yet, what about the fact pattern you're establishing. You log on, you read first the threads in which I've posted. You spend a considerable amount of time writing posts that attempt to establish your credibility by sharpshooting points that--by virtue of what you post--you clearly do not grasp. And you make what appear to be attempts at pithiness. (What ever your strengths may be, talking trash isn't one of them.) Every moment you spend attempting to establish yourself as a guy who knows what he's talking about (readers can judge your progress for themselves) reflects a choice on your part to focus on one task at the expense of others.
In contrast, unregistered guests as well as registered members with your status spend hour after hour pouring through the threads that really matter on this BB. Moreover, registered members with your status fire off PMs (presumably to those with knowledge that really matters). They lurk in those fora open to current/aspiring QPs only, and then they lurk some more. They disappear from the BB for a while. Some never come back to this BB.
Others return briefly to share great news, to pass along what they've learned, and to get more guidance. We who sit in the peanut gallery observe, mostly in silence, even though many of us are cheering our heads off, thanking the Lord God, and finding solace that, as screwed up as America is right now, there are still places where things work as they should. (I know these things because: [a] I use the search button; [b] I know where to lurk; and [c] I am an insomniac who uses a lot of Firefox plug ins.)
I have attempted--and failed--to encourage you to use the search button so that you could see the pattern I outlined in the previous two paragraphs. That is, I've endeavored--and failed--to empower you to ignore what is not that important in the grand scheme of things (e.g. many--if not most--of my posts) and to focus on what is truly important: what the BTDTs and SF candidates have to say. (FWIW, these failed attempts reflect a sensibility of academic historians-- even if we disagree with someone's POVs, we still have a mission to get into that person's hand information they can use.)
Instead, you' have made the choice to let the fact that I have the temerity not to agree with your POVs and the gumption to ask you to establish the factual bases of your POVs to distract you. In short, you've effectively allowed yourself to be "ambushed by a cup of coffee."
But then, as you put it: "I don't need to know what everyone else here thinks to be able to form my own opinion."
Again I say, well done.
__________________________________
# You looked only at the current presidential election. How about [a] other contests in which Americans will vote, [b] the role of women's health as a defining issue in national politics and its potential to transcend partisanship, [c] the actual message of profiles in Vogue -- that women can aspire to participate actively in political and professional life as they see fit, not as men see fit, and the impact of this message on [d] the lingering anger many women have at both parties for the treatment of Senator Clinton and Governor Palin.
* This comment draws from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (1998).
Dozer523
10-09-2012, 22:21
I know a National Merit Scholar who will receive her BA and Masters in 4 years from a prominent Public Policy school, whose mother graduated from UT Law and beat breast cancer. They're informed. They don't read Vogue. Point being, your anecdote doesn't prove your point.
http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/08/romneys-strong-debate-performance-erases-obamas-lead/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9595340/US-election-2012-Mitt-Romney-gains-four-point-lead-over-Barack-Obama-in-latest-poll.html
"Romney also achieved gains over the past month among women, white non-Hispanics and those younger than 50, the Pew research Centre said. It noted that likely women voters are now evenly divided at 47 per cent each for Obama and Romney, when last month, Obama led Romney by 18 points among women likely to vote."
The poll shows that Romney has gained among women. Which would lead one to believe that this "profile" hasn't had much impact. None, really. Which would lead one to believe that I might have had a good point. But hey, I don't read and I don't care what women think, so what do I know... quoting is not all that hard.
My cute story about my daughter doesn't prove my point?
And you use a story about your friend who "will earn her BA and MA in four years from a prominent public policy school" to prove me wrong?
Well, okay then . .
But she hasn't got her BA and she hasn't got her MA either . . .
So is your point that her lack of accomplishment justifies not reading Vogue and not reading Vogue makes her a better, more accomplished person? Got it.
I'm typing this part slowly so you can keep up. It isn't what you will do that makes you smarter. My daughter is a thoughtful, talented, ambitious young lady who reads Vogue (among other periodicals). She is an editor of a University newspaper that is read by thousands of thoughtful students -- some of whom are girls.
Although BCMU does not decide what her reader WILL read she does control what they CAN read. That was my point. That the message matters and getting it in front of the reader matters more.
I'm typing faster now. This young lady friend of yours (and I hope she's pretty and that she thinks there is something special about you), for all she might do is not in a position to influence anyone to the extent that is enjoyed by members of the press.
BTW what you don't read doesn't make you smarter either. And that is the point of our discussion.
Among the issues being debated in this thread is the "gender gap" that has tended to favor Democratic candidates when it comes to garnering support from women voters.
While the polling data do indicate that the GOP is closing this gap for the 2012 presidential election, voters will be casting ballots in other races as well.
One issue that may add fuel to the fire of this debate is the issue of pay to congressional staffers. This past summer, the on line edition of the National Journal published a report by Matt Berman that compares congressional staff pay by position, party, and gender. That article is available here (http://nationaljournal.com/congress-legacy/how-congressional-republicans-and-democrats-pay-women-20120711?print=true).
While the article refers readers to a companion NJ piece that points out comparing salaries of men and women is not always the cut and dried apples to apples comparison that many believe (http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/workplace-compensation-an-incomplete-picture-20120711), Mr Berman avers "But the salary contrasts are striking when matched to congressional salary data on the whole."
Some points of note in the numbers ...
House Staff Salaries
For all House staff, women made on average $5,862.56 less annually than men. Although that may sound like a lot, compared with the national average it's actually quite an improvement. In the House, women on the whole made about 90 cents on the dollar compared with men. The national average for 2010 was 77 cents on the dollar. The salaries: Female House staff made $56,671.15; male House staff made $62,533.71.
Female Republican House staff made on average $10,093.09 less annually than male Republican House staff. That's good for 84 cents on the dollar, female to male. Female Republican House staff made on average $3,774.80 less annually than the average female House staff member. The salaries: Female Republican House staff made $52,896.35; male Republican House staff made $62,989.44.
Female Democratic House staff made on average $1,473.65 less annually than male Democratic House staff. That's 97 cents on the dollar compared with men. It's not parity, but it's not far off. The salaries: Female Democratic House staff made $60,048.92; male Democratic House staff made $61,522.57.
Senate Staff Salaries
For all Senate staff, women made $7,277.69 less annually on average than male staff. Female staff in the Senate made 89 percent of what male staff took home. That's slightly less than the 90 percent that female staff made in the House. The salaries: Female Senate staff made $58,984.67; male Senate staff made $66,262.36.
Female Republican Senate staff made on average $9,805.85 less annually than male Republican Senate staff. That's 86 cents on the dollar for female Republican Senate staff. The salaries: Female Republican Senate staff made $59,846.47; male Republican Senate staff made $69,652.32.
Female Democratic Senate staff made on average $4,916.46 less annually than male Democratic staff. Female Democratic Senate staff made 92 cents on the dollar compared with male staffers. The salaries: Female Democratic Senate staff made $58,449.55; male Democratic Senate staff made $63,366.01.
Attached to this post is a PDF of the .XLS file accompanying the initial article. It has been reformatted for readability.
#FWIW
Among the issues being debated in this thread is the "gender gap" that has tended to favor Democratic candidates when it comes to garnering support from women voters. ...................
My first take on your data was "Oh, crap, the R's pay less." But I then got to thinking.
While your attached charts had cold numbers they didn't help with understanding just how the process worked.
Is each Senators budget for staff fixed? Are they all the same? If it all the same and fixed are some hiring more but paying less while others are hiring less but paying more?
Another question - where does the money come from to pay staffers? I assume from us, in other words, the capital is not run like a company that has to produce a profit.
TXGringo,
You are an unknown (no one knows if you have what it takes) SF Candidate arguing with known Quiet Professionals. I think you are going to have a difficult, if not an impossible, time graduating the SFQC due to your lack of situational awareness.
A bit of advice, back away from the keyboard, DON’T throw crap on the wall to impress folks (“I know [someone]…”), you aren’t. Make your point, get off the soapbox, and move on and do not get back on the mantra.
Go do some PT.
Joker
It is no big deal to write a post while also drafting a reply to your reply. That is, at least until kick off of the Texas vs. Oklahoma game. At which point--especially if Texas loses--it may get a bit more difficult to filter out the snark. (This isn't to say that I'd be bitter over the outcome of a college football game.)
OU vs. Texas final: Sooners roll Longhorns 63-21! :eek: :lifter ;)
Link (http://houston.sbnation.com/2012/10/13/3498860/ou-vs-texas-final-sooners-roll-63-21)
Pat
OU vs. Texas final: Sooners roll Longhorns 63-21! :eek: :lifter ;)
Link (http://houston.sbnation.com/2012/10/13/3498860/ou-vs-texas-final-sooners-roll-63-21)
PatEt tu, Pat?
I'm wondering, uh, in case I break into some Spanish or French... may I use the familiar tu form with you people? Instead of usted? Because I think usted is gonna be a little too formal for this crowd. I feel already I've established the kind of rapport than I can, I can jump into the tu form with you! That quickly! I'm taking a tu liberty with you, I'm gonna use the tu form, and that's it! You can't talk me out of it. You know, Caesar used the tu form with Brutus, even after Brutus stabbed him. He said "et tu Brute," and I think that's a little too informal when someone's trying to assassinate you. *
______________________________________________
Larry David in Larry David: Curb Your Enthusiasm (HBO, 1999)
Et tu, Pat?
______________________________________________
Larry David in Larry David: Curb Your Enthusiasm (HBO, 1999)
¡Si! :D
Pat