Tea Party demographics

[bluefrog]

You can give it, but you can't take it.

Just like hypocrite losers in Congress on the left.

You're still not "hypocrite" correctly

 

[huevonkiller]

huevon youve been known to switch teams on a whim, whos to say you arent going to be plugging away for the democrats in the fall?

Brain I was not referring to you. I know you can take it.

 

[maxiep]

I've been to two events. One for healthcare and the other was a general event I just happened upon while I was at the park. I wasn't impressed with the level of discourse.

Super duper. Golly, you're smart. The rest of we knuckledraggers bow in your presence.

If you're saying I have to be a Tea Partier to know what the movement is then that's a problem in itself. It comes back to the identity crisis of the Tea Party.

I'm saying you don't know enough. Given that there's only one thing to know, you should be embarrassed.

You missed the point. I was saying that the movement has an identity crisis because of the religious & small government members (Bachmann) vs. small government members (Paul). There is a large vocal sub group of the Tea Party that wants religion to be a part of the movement. I've seen it first hand.

Nope. Got it. You stated your opinion, but that's not reality. Of course there's a large crossover between the small government folks and social conservatives. Shocking. It's like saying that there's a crossover between the large government folks and black people. Does that mean you have to be black to be in favor of large government?

Lots of people say lots of things. The dissonance comes from the fact that people speak for themselves. We only agree on one thing: government has gotten to large in scope and scale, and we're not willing to pass our bills on to future generations. After that, we're a varied group.

This sounds like the "you've been brainwashed by the liberal media" argument many of my co-workers rely on. I'm quite capable of thinking for myself, thank you.

I'm not the one parroting the narrative of the Tea Party's opponents. If you want to demonstrate that you can think for yourself, present an original thought. Don't bitch and moan at me. I don't care.

 

[Shooter]

So . . . the New York Times went out and found some "data" showing that people don't like the Tea Party. I wonder how many people they polled were Republicans, independants, and conservatives--and how many were liberals who mirror their own philosophical leanings???

Anybody want to hazard a guess?

 

[barfo]

So . . . the New York Times went out and found some "data" showing that people don't like the Tea Party. I wonder how many people they polled were Republicans, independants, and conservatives--and how many were liberals who mirror their own philosophical leanings???

Anybody want to hazard a guess?

It wasn't the New York Times that did that. It was - even worse! - a couple of academics.

Personally, I'm a little disappointed there wasn't a link to the actual study - I think it would be good to know the answers to the questions you ask.

barfo

 

[bluefrog]

Super duper. Golly, you're smart. The rest of we knuckledraggers bow in your presence.

C'mon, I've been civil with you, no need to get bitchy. You made an assumption about me and I was just pointing out that I've looked into the tea party.

I'm saying you don't know enough. Given that there's only one thing to know, you should be embarrassed.

If it's only about small government why do I see anti-abortion signs and anti-gay marriage signs next to "Crystal Coast Tea Party" signs? Why are churches involved in organizing tea party events? Why is it when a Tea Party leader speaks about God or religion, it's completely divorced from the movement?

I don't get your black people/big government analogy.

Lots of people say lots of things. The dissonance comes from the fact that people speak for themselves. We only agree on one thing: government has gotten to large in scope and scale, and we're not willing to pass our bills on to future generations. After that, we're a varied group.



I'm not the one parroting the narrative of the Tea Party's opponents. If you want to demonstrate that you can think for yourself, present an original thought. Don't bitch and moan at me. I don't care.

OK, here's an original thought for you (or more bitching and moaning, depending on how you want to see it.)

The tea party is like a new music genre, let's say Blue Grass Death Metal. It's huge, it's taking the nation by storm.

Now you're only into a certain kind of Blue Grass Death Metal, the songs that don't have fiddles. If the song has fiddles you don't consider it real "Blue Grass Death Metal".

I've listened to a few albums, went to a few shows. I don't like it (especially the songs with fiddles). For me, it all sounds the same, but I can see the appreciation people have for it.

 

[mook]

I think the results of that straw poll in Iowa speak a lot to the nature of the Tea Party. There's an undeniable libertarian/Ron Paul/maxiep side that wants to believe the movement is entirely about small government. But just look at the results of that poll--Paul basically tied for second, but really only captured about 28% of the total vote. The rest was dominated by conservative christians who talk more about abortion and homosexuality than they do cutting medicare or saving money by eliminating foreign wars or legalizing pot.

Obviously, the straw poll is among Republicans, not just Tea Partiers. But given that the Tea Party is where all the action is on the right, it seems like this particular poll would've been Ron Paul's true moment to shine. And it wasn't that much more of a remarkable showing than he's had in past years.

I think a lot of Republicans are pretty embarrassed how quietly (and sometimes not-so-quietly) they went along with Bush and his policies. The massive expansion of Medicare, the two badly fought wars, the bailouts that began under his presidency. The ridiculous levels of debt rung up over those 8 years. It's just not how Republicans want to see themselves.

So what's the easiest way to rid yourself of this cognitive dissonance? Get mad. Label yourself a Tea Partier. Show up to a meeting or two and let guys like maxiep go on about limited government (and quietly nod when they bring up Ron Paul--that's just the price of admission.) You're not a Dubya Republican anymore (and of course never were)! You're a TEA PARTIER, dammit, and you aren't going to take this bullshit anymore!

I don't say this to insult or aggravate libertarians like maxiep. I have good friends who are libertarians, and Irespect their ideological position, even if I disagree with it. I don't deny that the Tea Party was founded from a true place of limited government and personal freedom, and that's still the focus of what gets talked about in meetings (because it's the only thing such a disparate group can agree on).

But I think this poll is a clear demonstration that a lot of Republicans who care a lot more about Christian/social issues are using the "Tea Party" name to dissociate themselves with a pretty embarrassing presidency.

 

[Denny Crane]

Ron Paul is pro life. I don't see what a person's religious views has to do with anything if they don't use elected office to act on them.

I'm not a tea party person, nor is Paul. But I know I'm thrilled to have a big grass roots movement talking exclusively about issues I care about. Those would be smaller govt., constitutional govt., fiscal sanity, etc. If it moves centrist republicans and independents toward those goals, then GREAT!

When they start pushing some social agenda that's only manifested itself in the minds of left wingers, I won't be a fan.

 

[maxiep]

C'mon, I've been civil with you, no need to get bitchy. You made an assumption about me and I was just pointing out that I've looked into the tea party.

We get tired of being called stupid, especially when even the radically right wing rag New York Times shows statistically that we're better educated than the rest of the populace. You comment struck me of being in the same tone John Kerry had talking about how stupid Bush was, when Bush had a higher GPA at Yale and went to a better grad school. But of course Kerry was smarter; he believed the right things.

If it's only about small government why do I see anti-abortion signs and anti-gay marriage signs next to "Crystal Coast Tea Party" signs? Why are churches involved in organizing tea party events? Why is it when a Tea Party leader speaks about God or religion, it's completely divorced from the movement?

Because you're making the false assumption that we're a tighly organized, highly disciplined group. We're not. We're messy. Most of us are political novices who didn't give a shit about politics before. It makes us easy to mock by those a bit more polished and a bit more jaded.

I'm not denying that there's a huge crossover with fiscal and social conservative issues. I do know that they're irrelevant to our core cause. It's like seeing a "Keep Portland Weird" poster at a Blazer rally. Sure, most Blazer fans are liberal, but you're there to support the Blazers. It's the Blazers that brought you there. In this case, it's the case of limited government that lives within its means.

I don't get your black people/big government analogy.

The Democrats have been the party of big government. The group that votes with them most loyally has been the Black vote. Therefore, if you like big government, you need to be black. The annoying social conservatives that don't want anything legislated except for how you live your life have been the Republicans' most loyal voting bloc. Just because those people overlap with my beliefs partially doesn't mean I have be EXACTLY like them. That was my basis for comparison. Not the best one, but the point generally stands.

OK, here's an original thought for you (or more bitching and moaning, depending on how you want to see it.)

The tea party is like a new music genre, let's say Blue Grass Death Metal. It's huge, it's taking the nation by storm.

Now you're only into a certain kind of Blue Grass Death Metal, the songs that don't have fiddles. If the song has fiddles you don't consider it real "Blue Grass Death Metal".

I've listened to a few albums, went to a few shows. I don't like it (especially the songs with fiddles). For me, it all sounds the same, but I can see the appreciation people have for it.

Using your analogy, the issue is that there's a concerted effort to call The Oakridge Boys the poster children for Blue Grass Death Metal, simply because they have a fiddle in their band. Of course, The Oakridge Boys have little to do with BGDM, but they want to make a little money, so they let themselves be used by these people and the media narrative grows. If you go to a BGDM show, no one likes or cares about The Oakridge Boys, but that no longer matters to the casual observer; they've read too many times that The Oakridge Boys are the face of the BGDM movement. Ergo, there's a separation between appearance and reality. Regardless, it's not our problem as long as we continue to support true BGDM bands and blow off The Oakridge Boys. What others think of us is irrelevant.

 

[bluefrog]

Using your analogy, the issue is that there's a concerted effort to call The Oakridge Boys the poster children for Blue Grass Death Metal, simply because they have a fiddle in their band. Of course, The Oakridge Boys have little to do with BGDM, but they want to make a little money, so they let themselves be used by these people and the media narrative grows. If you go to a BGDM show, no one likes or cares about The Oakridge Boys, but that no longer matters to the casual observer; they've read too many times that The Oakridge Boys are the face of the BGDM movement. Ergo, there's a separation between appearance and reality. Regardless, it's not our problem as long as we continue to support true BGDM bands and blow off The Oakridge Boys. What others think of us is irrelevant.

I see this too. There's almost a weird coordination with left and right wing media that paints the Tea party as a social conservative movement.

Depending on how you want to effect change wouldn't it be in the movement's best interest to have a favorable and accurate image? It seems like attracting new people and spreading the core message would be important.

 

[barfo]

You can't really have it both ways. If you claim to have a party with no leaders and no organization, it stands to reason that it is up to each individual - inside and outside the organization - to interpret the nature of the party for themselves. You have your view, I have my view, neither of them are right or wrong, because there is no authority on the subject.

Having no leaders and no organization means that anyone who wants to "join" can join. You may not consider them legitimate members, but by your own non-definition of the party, they are just as legitimate as you, no matter what their views.

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Blue Grass Death Metal w/o violins -

[video=youtube;jndpIJmhvYM]

 

[Denny Crane]

You can't really have it both ways. If you claim to have a party with no leaders and no organization, it stands to reason that it is up to each individual - inside and outside the organization - to interpret the nature of the party for themselves. You have your view, I have my view, neither of them are right or wrong, because there is no authority on the subject.

Having no leaders and no organization means that anyone who wants to "join" can join. You may not consider them legitimate members, but by your own non-definition of the party, they are just as legitimate as you, no matter what their views.

barfo

Except the members use a number of collaborative sites like this to self-organize, and they're drawn to these sites by a common interest that has little to do with your fevered imagination.

 

[barfo]

Except the members use a number of collaborative sites like this to self-organize, and they're drawn to these sites by a common interest that has little to do with your fevered imagination.

Wait, this is a tea-party organization site?

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Wait, this is a tea-party organization site?

barfo

No, this site is a Tea Party Super Pac!

 

[maxiep]

I see this too. There's almost a weird coordination with left and right wing media that paints the Tea party as a social conservative movement.

Depending on how you want to effect change wouldn't it be in the movement's best interest to have a favorable and accurate image? It seems like attracting new people and spreading the core message would be important.

And all of those things I agree would be great, but we can't do it. By design, we're a leaderless movement. We have people who will organize meetings, but other than that we're expected to lead ourselves and act as individuals.

 

[maxiep]

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/dismiss-the-tea-party-at-your-peril/

 

[ABM]

i would guess that most KKK members are white racist religious nut anti abortion homophobes too

Bite me.

 

[BrianFromWA]

But, for all that that minority tends to get most of the attention from people who really don’t want to understand it, the broader Tea Party movement represents the awakening of the ‘leave me be’ types. Such people, by definition, aren’t generally inclined to political activism. Perhaps that’s why more and more ordinary people identify with the movement and support its goals even as its detractors become ever more caustic in their attacks on it. An expansive view of the state as a means of accomplishing good almost invariably carries with an attitude that one knows better than other people what “good” is and the concomitant belief that it’s acceptable to use the power of government to force such ideas on people “for their own good.” Regular Joes and Janes who prefer to be left alone can see the effects of this attitude in ever-expanding government. TARP, the “stimulus,” repeated bailouts, health care reform — each coming rapidly on the heels of the last — (and the promise of more such policy to come) were like a shock to the system, jarring them out of their inertia. And they don’t much appreciate the inherent condescension of their “betters” who rammed all of this through regardless of popular opinion either. So when they see a bunch of people a lot more like them than the ones trying to “fundamentally transform” their country being pilloried with vulgar sexual slurs as racists and extremists, it’s only natural that they start feeling more affinity for the Tea Party.

One of the more observant parts, imo.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Bite me.

lol, do you disagree?

 

[santeesioux]

Not really on topic, but still funny

http://teapartyjesus.tumblr.com/

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Not really on topic, but still funny

http://teapartyjesus.tumblr.com/

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's fucking awesome!

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149114/O...link&utm_term=All Gallup Headlines - Politics


Obama in Close Race Against Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Paul

These prospective election ballots -- measured Aug. 17-18, well over a year before the Nov. 6, 2012, election -- indicate that the race for president at this point is generally competitive, with voters fairly evenly divided in their preference for giving Obama a second term or electing a Republican candidate. Even though the four Republican candidates tested have varying degrees of name recognition, they all fare roughly the same.

Gallup's generic presidential ballot -- measured six times this year -- shows a close race between Obama and a generic "Republican presidential candidate," although there have been survey-to-survey variations on this measure, with the Republican candidate leading in June and July.

President Obama's job approval rating is hovering around the 40% mark. This is below the rating that any of the six incumbent presidents re-elected since Eisenhower has had at the time of the presidential election. However, in August of the year before they were re-elected, Ronald Reagan (43%) and Bill Clinton (46%) were both below 50%. Obama's position of rough parity against leading GOP candidates shows that more Americans at the moment say they would vote for Obama than approve of the job he is doing -- perhaps a reflection of the continuing lack of a strong front-runner on the Republican side.

With the first official votes for the Republican nomination more than five months away, and with the very real possibility that GOP candidates such as Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani, and George Pataki may jump into the race, much could still change as the election process unfolds. A look at presidential election trial heats conducted in the late summer of the year before previous elections reveals that such change is quite common:

In August 1999, Texas Gov. George W. Bush led Vice President Al Gore by 55% to 41% in a Gallup trial heat poll. That race ended up in a virtual dead heat, with Gore ultimately winning slightly more of the national popular vote than Bush.

In August 1995, Kansas Sen. Bob Dole was slightly ahead of President Bill Clinton in a Gallup poll, 48% to 46%. On Election Day 1996, Clinton beat Dole by eight points.

In August 1983, President Ronald Reagan was ahead of Democrat Walter Mondale by only one point, 44% to 43%. Reagan went on to beat Mondale in a 59% to 41% landslide in the November 1984 election.

In August 1979, incumbent President Jimmy Carter was tied with former California Gov. Reagan -- each getting 45% of the vote. Reagan ultimately defeated Carter by 10 points.