Why is that?
From the link:
Join the Tea Party: Now Only 5% Overtly Racist!
IIRC, Wallace was more a Communist-backed goofball.
I’ll bet the teabaggers’ plan will be to lie their way out of any bad outcomes because Nasty Ass Obamaaaaa ruined everything - on the assumption that it worked to get them elected, so people are really that gullible.
Without getting into much nuance, my opinion on it is thus:
For some reason the Republicans have a much better track record of keeping their voters all voting a particular way. As someone said upthread, they will determine who the candidate is going to be based upon ‘can he win a general election?’
With that said, if the Tea Party is seen by the populace as too extreme then their will be concessions made. If they fail to do this, the Democrats will welcome a split vote.
I’m very much in agreement with you here, brickbacon. For now, the Tea Party acts like a motivational organization for elements which are in the GOP already, so its impact on the 2010 elections will be like a get-out-the-vote program, except that it has also determined some of the candidates from the primaries.
After the 2010 elections, when a few of those candidates are sitting in office, what they do will determine any lasting effect of the Tea Party…
[ul]
[li]If they vote like other GOP members, and the GOP reaches compromises with Democrats to pass significant legislation, then the Tea Party will likely have little large-scale effect.[/li][li]If they vote like other GOP members, and the GOP doesn’t compromise with Democrats, the Tea Party will have had an effect on the 2010 elections, but I don’t think it will have much lasting influence.[/li][li]If they don’t vote like other GOP members, and the GOP reaches compromises with Democrats to pass significant legislation, the Tea Party will have established an identity independent of the GOP, and might have a longer term influence than 2010.[/li][li]If they don’t vote like other GOP members, and the GOP doesn’t compromise with Democrats - no, wait, stop laughing…[/li][/ul]
Nate Silver of 538 says the result is about 5 percent skewed toward the Repubs. and Tea Baggers. A lot of elections are closer because of it.
Who will make the concessions?
Who is more likely to have land lines in this day and age?
I was under the impression that BrainGlutton was asking why only land-line users were being polled … why not cell phone users as well?
Retired people that can afford it and those that have businesses are more likely to have land lines-the less affluent, not so much. This is one way to tilt the poll to leave out the unemployed and lower incomed folks.
For the love of OG, NO. A thousand times NO. I do not want or need dozens of politicians calling my cell phone. Polls, political ads, charities…all the assholes with exemptions to the no call list are most welcome to kiss my ass. I don’t want to talk to them, and I especially don’t want them calling me. My cell phone is for my convenience–to reach people I want to reach, and to allow a select few–ie, family, friends, and certain others to reach me.
I mean, why do they only poll via land lines? Some technical reason?
Definitely not for that reason, I should think. Polling is no biz for you if you respect people’s right to be left alone. 
It used to be because cell phones weren’t listed in the phone books all that often. Also, cell phone location drift is a big problem nowadays-people keep their old cell phone numbers when they move across the country, skewing local poll results. Sally could still have her old Palm Springs number even though she now lives in Kalamazoo, so any opinion she has is next to useless when it comes to local or semi-local polls.
I believe there’s also a law that all calls placed to cell phones (even from folks exempt from the no-call-list laws like political pollsters) must be dialed by hand, so it costs more to have the call center calling cell phones. Some pollsters just pay extra for hand-dialing and call them anyway, but most don’t bother.
The Republicans who pick the candidates of course.
The less affluent are less likely to have a phone at all…
But if they have a phone, it is very likely it’s a cheap throwaway cell phone.
We are making lots of assumptions already but if they were frugal with their money, a land line is typically cheaper than a cell phone, no?
Add in the fact that there are still some rural areas that don’t provide cell phone service (don’t get me started on this one as I’m in Austin a budding metropolis and still get dropped regularly)
I’d say land line polls are:
- easier
- more stable (people don’t get a new number with each throw away land line)
- cost effective
If they did both how would they effect those who don’t want their cell number distributed like Oak? I suppose both is plausible if somewhat less effective.