# Here It Is: Tea Partiers Show True Colors **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 20, 2010, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719 "2010-04-20T05:46:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719/41 "2010-04-20T16:36:33Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Okay, some actual statistical data. That’s good. But what are its actual methodological uses and limits? > > [url=[http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/pollster-responds-to-your-questions.html](http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/pollster-responds-to-your-questions.html)] > > Hardly a slam dunk. > > It’s okay, we already got “this study is obvious gospel truth, even though the guy who carried it out says otherwise, because it confirms my pre-conceived notions…” > > As I’m pointing out, in the absence of valid statistical study, the answer is “we don’t know, and the Null Hypothesis hasn’t been falsified.” Not “yeah, believe whatever you’d prefer.” No, not “obvious gospel truth”. I would say, rather, “worthy of looking at seriously”, rather than handwaving it away by waving your Dogbert paw at it and saying “bah”. It may not be an ideal study, but there it is. Simply saying that it’s obvious crap right out of the gate does not make me think you gave it much thought. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719/42 "2010-04-20T16:44:13Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Not true. Why don’t you actually read the report instead of posting untruths? > > http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/mssrp\_table.pdf > > See all those columns? > > Want to read the headings? > > Want [a quote](http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html) from the paper? Your link doesn’t work. > [@](#): > > Isn’t it shit when people don’t take your hand-waving at face value. I don’t see what part of that quote speaks to racism. In fact, I don’t even see the word “race” in that quote at all. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719/43 "2010-04-20T16:46:09Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > No, not “obvious gospel truth”. I would say, rather, “worthy of looking at seriously”, rather than handwaving it away by waving your Dogbert paw at it and saying “bah”. > > It may not be an ideal study, but there it is. Simply saying that it’s obvious crap right out of the gate does not make me think you gave it much thought. It’s not so much the study, as the leap in logic that the analyst is making. It would only be “worthy of looking at seriously” if we had the data he claims he has-- which he doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719/44 "2010-04-20T16:56:32Z")
Notice also, that the survey is, by design, not even a random sample Americans. He specifically chose what he calls “battleground states” (Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, and Ohio) plus CA. Not one state in the Northeast was included. A simple survey, randomly conducted throughout the US, comparing those who strongly support the TP and those chosen randomly, irrespective of their support for the TP, is all you need. If that’s out there, I’d be happy to agree with whatever conclusions it makes. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719/45 "2010-04-20T16:57:28Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Or yell and swear at the cops. > > [Sharpton traffic stop case to be @#$#! dismissed](http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/sharpton_traffic_stop_case_to_be_1byP3dsaDVhamhlXWotGCJ) What group is Al Sharpton’s ex-wife supposed to be a representative of? :dubious: [QUOTE=tagos] Not true. Why don’t you actually read the report instead of posting untruths? > **[mssrp\_table.pdf](https://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/mssrp_table.pdf)** See all those columns? Want to read the headings? Want a quote from the paper? [/QUOTE] That table was not published at the time the study results were originally announced. The only data available originally was [this](http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html). ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719/46 "2010-04-20T17:01:28Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > “worthy of looking at seriously”, rather than handwaving it away by waving your Dogbert paw at it and saying “bah”. What ‘looking at seriously’ should we do, exactly, from a study that’s only claimed to be valid for a few states and, even then, doesn’t track actual Teaparty membership? There’s no handwaving involved, it doesn’t provide valid statistical data upon which we can model the national characteristics of the group in question. It simply doesn’t. > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Simply saying that it’s obvious crap right out of the gate does not make me think you gave it much thought. Simply making shit up about what I’ve said and cited makes me think that you’re not giving it any thought at all. Yet again, the study’s creator, the guy who conducted it, pointed out that it is not a valid study for determining national attitudes among Teaparty members and, in fact, doesn’t even analyze Teaparty membership at all among its respondents. That you keep trying to describe this as ‘handwaving’ or alleging that requiring a valid statistical study is somehow poor form, or how people are going to notice the study’s methodological flaws and therefore not support it and that too is bad? Well, it does not point to you analyzing the data honestly so much as presenting it to try to support your position, whether or not it actually does. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719/47 "2010-04-20T17:21:07Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I trust you’ve been here long enough to have heard the phrase “the plural of anecdote is not evidence?” No, i’ve never heard that one. Because anecdotes _are_ evidence. They may not always be the most reliable or generalizable evidence, but they are evidence. And in some cases, anecdotal evidence might be very convincing, depending upon exactly what the topic in question is. The plural of anecdote is not data. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719/48 "2010-04-20T17:28:12Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > No, i’ve never heard that one. [It’s used in addition to](http://www.gwu.edu/~cih/journal/contents/V7/N3/editorial_v7n3.pdf) “the plural of anecdote is not data.” Both are correct. > [@mhendo](#): > > Because anecdotes _are_ evidence. No, they’re not. Not in the way they’re most often used. They are evidence that can be used to falsify the claim “nobody does thus and such”, but they are not evidence of how many people do thus and such. You can’t claim that it isn’t a valid data-set, but it is valid evidence about a group that requires a valid data set. The Fallacy of Anecdote is a fallacy, after all, not a winning logical proof. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719/49 "2010-04-20T17:35:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Notice also, that the survey is, by design, not even a random sample Americans. He specifically chose what he calls “battleground states” (Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, and Ohio) plus CA. Not one state in the Northeast was included. A simple survey, randomly conducted throughout the US, comparing those who strongly support the TP and those chosen randomly, irrespective of their support for the TP, is all you need. If that’s out there, I’d be happy to agree with whatever conclusions it makes. Here ya go. [An _Investor’s Business Daily_ poll](http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=530739)which shows the American public to be more in tune with the Tea Party movement than with the current administration: > [@](#): > > Some incumbents dismiss the grass-roots movement as fringe and underestimate its potential. But the Tea Party gets favorable ratings in our poll. > > Two-thirds (64%) say they are familiar with the Tea Party. > > Of those, one-in-eight (12%) mentioned that a member of his or her household is a member of the movement, and most (59%) of them have a favorable opinion of the movement. Two-in-five (39%) did not have a favorable opinion. The article claims the IDB/TIPP poll was the most accurate in the last two presidential elections. It’s rather difficult to dismiss the Tea Party movement as strictly a lunatic fringe phenomenon in the face of that. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719/50 "2010-04-20T17:39:23Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Here ya go. That also doesn’t show what the racial attitudes are amongst Teaparty members, only how much generalized support Americans tend to have for the Teaparty. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719/51 "2010-04-20T17:40:05Z")
It seems like the study is casting the TP in a better light anyway. I mean, who can disagree with the statement: blacks, like other racial minorities, should work their way up “without any special favors,” Seriously, how could anyone in their right mind think that special favors are OK? Or “we’d have many fewer problems in this country if people more treated more equally". What a load of liberal trash. “our society should do whatever is necessary to ensure equal opportunity in this country,” _Whatever is necessary_?! I can’t believe even 64% agreed with this. True Americans (;)) would have said “Hell no!” A quick scan of the race questions shows that, while bigoted, they’re not that far from the majority of whites in those regions. The only thing left is the gay/lesbian adoption and the gay/lesbian discrimination law. Considering that the TPers are older than other parties, that makes sense. Despite this, I’m going to go with **John Mace** on this. The study’s author even recognizes its flaws, so why should I trust it anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719/52 "2010-04-20T17:43:31Z")
That’s not a poll. It’s an editorial, and doesn’t even offer a link to the raw data. > [@](#): > > The president’s liberal policies have helped boost conservatism. Obama misinterpreted his victory in 2008 as a broad mandate for transformational change. > > Many voters expected him to drive in the center, but he veered off to the left. > > The conservative tilt of the country has always existed. By steadfastly governing from the left, Obama has helped awaken core conservative values — smaller government, lower taxes and strong national security — in voters’ minds. > [@](#): > > Americans have had enough of one-party rule. > [@](#): > > Voters sense an arrogance that creeps into governance if no checks and balances exist. Investor’s Business Daily is the same periodical that claimed last year that Steven Hawking would be dead if he’d had to rely on socialized medicine. You’ll excuse me if I don’t accord it much credibility (read: any). ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719/53 "2010-04-20T17:47:28Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > No, they’re not. Not in the way they’re most often used. They are evidence that can be used to falsify the claim “nobody does thus and such”, So they are evidence. Thankyou for agreeing with me. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > …but they are not evidence of how many people do thus and such. The fact that they are not evidence of one specific thing does not mean that they are not evidence. I already noted that there are important limitation on what anecdotes can tell us, but this does not mean that they are not evidence. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > You can’t claim that it isn’t a valid data-set, but it is valid evidence about a group that requires a valid data set. The Fallacy of Anecdote is a fallacy, after all, not a winning logical proof. If you believe that something is only evidence if it constitutes a “winning logical proof,” all that demonstrates is that you have no idea what evidence is. I actually happen to agree that the incident in the OP doesn’t tell us very much about the Tea Party movement, or American conservatism more generally. But that’s NOT because it isn’t evidence. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719/54 "2010-04-20T18:14:57Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That’s not a poll. It’s an editorial, and doesn’t even offer a link to the raw data. > > Investor’s Business Daily is the same periodical that claimed last year that Steven Hawking would be dead if he’d had to rely on socialized medicine. You’ll excuse me if I don’t accord it much credibility (read: any). Yeah, that’s pretty much the kind of “don’t bother me with facts” response that I expected. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719/55 "2010-04-20T18:19:29Z")
Yeah, I hate it when you bother me with facts, like what the actual poll questions were. Good thing I didn’t say anything about raw data in my response, or else some well-meaning soul might have linked to it! Do you not think people might actually \*read \*your posts, and notice they’re drivel? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719/56 "2010-04-20T18:28:44Z")
People, people, people … Can’t we all just agree that people who speak at TeaBagger rallies about killing government agents, militias with plans to kill cops, people who throw bricks through Democratic office windows, people who tote around signs of Obama as a witch doctor, or as Hitler, people who forward racist emails about Obama, people who shout “Terrorist” and “Kill him” at Republican political rallies about Democrats, women who maim themselves and accuse big black Obama supporters for the injury, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and the entire Free Republic board are emphatically \*\*\*NOT \*\*\*emblematic of anything on the right, but that Cindy Sheehan is precisely what is wrong with Liberals as whole? I mean … how about a little perspective here. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719/57 "2010-04-20T19:38:30Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > So they are evidence. No, they are not. Nobody here is rebutting the claim that “no Teaparty member, at all, has ever said anything weird.” Nor are plural anecdotes able to falsify an absolute any more than a single one is. > [@mhendo](#): > > I actually happen to agree that the incident in the OP doesn’t tell us very much about the Tea Party movement, or American conservatism more generally. But that’s NOT because it isn’t evidence. That’s _exactly_ why it doesn’t tell us anything, because it’s not evidence that you can base demographic conclusions on. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719/58 "2010-04-20T19:46:25Z")
Don’t forget the [homophobes](http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/04/19/tea_party_graham_gay): > [@](#): > > Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has had an uneasy relationship with his party’s purists for years. Even in his own home base of South Carolina, the right wing has long thought of Graham as a [squish](http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2009/10/14/lindsey_graham_and_climate_change) on an array of crucial issues, including campaign finance, immigration and environmental regulation. > > There’s also, however, always been a nastier undercurrent. For years, unsubstantiated but persistent rumors have swirled about the sexuality of the unmarried Graham. What’s unsettling is how some on the right seem eager to connect one complaint about Graham to the other. > > At a Tea Party rally in Greenville, S.C., last week, a speaker [tried to figure out](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2MCXjkS8cc&feature=youtu.be) just what, exactly, is wrong with Graham. “Barney Frank has been more honest and brave than you. At least we know about Barney Frank, nobody’s going to hold it over his head.” > > He continued, “Look, I’m a tolerant person. I don’t care about your private life, Lindsey. But as our U.S. senator, I need to figure out why you’re trying to sell out your own countrymen, I need to make sure you being gay isn’t it.” I love it when the right gets into circular firing squad formation. _“Fire when ready, Gridley!”_ ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719/59 "2010-04-20T20:23:27Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > No, they are not. Nobody here is rebutting the claim that “no Teaparty member, at all, has ever said anything weird.” Nor are plural anecdotes able to falsify an absolute any more than a single one is. > > That’s _exactly_ why it doesn’t tell us anything, because it’s not evidence that you can base demographic conclusions on. Your definition of evidence is narrow and stupid. You keep coming up with your own ridiculous definitions for “evidence.” First, it’s something that should be a “winning logical proof,” and now it needs to be something you can “base demographic conclusions on.” You clearly have no idea what evidence actually is. ---
**Author:** ![Batfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Batfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Batfish)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719/60 "2010-04-20T20:40:29Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > … You simply picked one conservative and then decided that he speaks for all conservatives with no basis whatsoever. … Okay, so only the fringe talk or think like this. Where is the condemnation from the mainstream conservatives? Start by condemning it yourself, then link us to some quotes where name conservatives/Republicans have condemned it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-it-is-tea-partiers-show-true-colors/536719.md?page=4)