Impressive diversity; I think one of them was a Lutheran…
Knock what off?
Are you sure you weren’t at the State Fair?
Was their a birthing tent for cows? Deep fried food on a stick?
I hope you guys will take Gallup as reasonably bipartisan?
The headline of the Gallup poll: “Tea Partiers Are Fairly Mainstream in Their Demographics”
In terms of education, age, income, and even race, the tea party movement is almost identical to the population as a whole. (for example, they’re 79% white, as opposed to 75% for the population as a whole. Only a 4% difference, which probably entirely due to the under-representation of inner cities, not under-representation of suburban/rural minorities).
Only 49% call themselves Republican. 43% say they are independent. 8% say they are Democrats.
26% of the Tea Party is pro choice. 45% of them are women.
The characterization of them as a bunch of old white guy rednecks is just flat-out wrong. The only real way in which the Tea Party differs from the American public at large is in its demand for fiscal conservatism - only 12% support the health care bill, compared to 47% for the public overall.
I mostly agree with you on that Sam, but they due skew disproportionately towards males. And I wouldn’t say that support for the health care law (it’s a law now, not a bill) is indicative of lack of support for fiscal conservativeness.
The “independent” self identification is laughable. They’re just wingnuts who think the Republicans are too liberal.
The Gallup poll basically confirms that they are overwhelmingly white (and the ones who aren’t white aren’t black either), male and over 40. The poll doesn’t ask about rural vs. urban backgrounds, but they’re mostly rural.
They also don’t give a shit about “fiscal conservatism.” That’s a joke. For one thing, Obama IS a fiscal conservative. For another thing, they didn’t give a shit when Bush was spending the country into a recession. That’s a completely phony issue. It’s a pretense, and it’s belied by the actual signs they carry and things they say.
If you want to delude yourself into believing that this is some kind of legitimate, economically based ideological movement, I’m obviously not going to dissuade you, but I’ve seen them up close and these morons could never comprehend a complex economic issue in a million years. These were people who think that advisory “czars” actually have imperial powers, that there are going to be “death panels,” that (even now) their taxes have gone up when they’ve gone down or stayed the same, that (even now) the HCR package is “government health care,” that Obama was born in Kenya, etc. We’ve seen the polls showing the huge percentages of conservatives who think that Obama is a Muslim and the literal antichrist.
Please tell me why the teabaggers have never done anything to discourage the racist signs at their rallies… Unless and until they address that, they have no credibility. Seriously, the best you can do to try to give them legitimacy is to point to a Gallup poll showing that they’re “only” 80% white. Nice try.
The Gallup poll only asked that question (and a general ‘favorableness’ question for ideology - 63% favor ‘conservatism’). But this poll’s results are roughly similar to other polls of the tea party which ask a wider array of questions which do indicate general support for fiscal conservatism. Most of them think government is too big, the vast majority opposed the stimulus package, etc.
I have my doubts about their support for things that would actually fix the problem, though. I suspect many of them would run for the exits if you tried to seriously cut entitlements. But I don’t know that for sure.
And it skews towards males, but not by that much. 55/45 male/female, vs 49/51 for the population at large. The fact is that women make up a large percentage of the movement, which shows that it’s not a movement of ‘old white men’. There was another Tea Party poll which had men and women split pretty much 50/50, which may be within the margin of error of both polls. So the skew towards men is really not that big.
You have absolutely no evidence to support that.
No it does not. The percentage of whites is only FOUR PERCENT greater than the population average. The age breakdown is almost identical to the population as a whole (2% less 30-49, 2% more 50-64). And ‘overwhelmingly male’ must mean something different in your universe, because only 55% of them are male.
These differences are almost certainly due to the fact that the tea party is primarily a suburban/rural movement, with its geographic center slightly north and west of the U.S. population as a whole. I’ll bet the percentage of blacks in the party is about the same as the percentage of blacks who don’t live in the big cities. It’s not a party selecting out for old white racist males. It’s just not, no matter how furiously you try to spin the results.
In fact, since 90% of blacks voted for the Democrats, the under-representation of blacks in the tea party movement is much more easily explained on ideological grounds. I imagine Berkeley and Cape Cod are under-represented as well. In fact, if 6% of the tea party is black, and 90% of the 11% of blacks in America voted Democrat, it would seem that blacks are over-represented in a conservative movement. The tea party is picking up not just blacks, but blacks who voted for Obama.
Okay, now you’re just messing with us, right? Explain to me how Obama, who just increased discretionary spending by 13% in one year and who just signed a trillion dollar health care bill into law and last year signed a trillion dollar stimulus into law, is a fiscal conservative.
Frankly, I don’t trust your anecdotal observations. You are perhaps the most biased observer of such people on this message board. Your hatred of all things remotely conservative is immense, and it colors your perceptions.
And here’s exactly what I’m talking about. You’ve just cataloged the dumbest beliefs you can find anyone on the right ever uttering, and then attributed them all to the tea party movement.
I would like a cite showing how many ‘birthers’ are in the tea party movement, and how many of them think he’s the anti-christ. Can you do that?
How many racist signs are we talking about? Where? What exactly did they say? The only evidence I’ve seen on any race issue regarding the tea party is the fact that the Congressional Black Caucus members could walk right through one of their protests armed with video cameras and microphones to catch any racist epithets or acts of violence, and couldn’t come up with a damned thing.
Are there racists in the tea party? Certainly. America has quite a few racists in it, and if the tea party movement is a demographic cross-section of America, it’s going to have its share of racists. Just like there are racists in the Democratic party. It’s unavoidable. The question is whether the movement is motivated by race or gives the racists any more tolerance than does America at large.
It doesn’t matter how many signs there are (and a lot of them are coded rather than overt, so how to count them is not that simple), the question is why they don’t have a problem with the ones the unambiguous one) that ARE there. I specifically saw somebody holding a sign with Obama done up like a witch doctor with a bone through his nose, and while I saw a few teabggers walking up and joking with the sign holder, I didn’t see a single person there object or complain about it.
I know you weren’t addressing me, and I don’t like the term ‘fiscal conservative’, I think fiscally responsible is better. But Obama has tried to reform health care, because most of our long term entitlement debts come from health care. For all the talk of social security going bankrupt, it is really medicare & medicaid we have to watch out for. The reforms Obama pushed will save the federal government 1 trillion over 20 years. The health care bill is paid for by cuts to medicare and new taxes. So any attempt to keep our medical system solvent and make it more efficient is an attempt to address the biggest threat to our long term fiscal stability.
Obama eliminated the Bush tax cuts on the well off starting in 2011, which will raise 2 trillion in 10 years.
Obama wants to end the Iraq war which costs $150 billion a year
In the 2009 SoTU address Obama claimed there were 2 trillion in cuts he wanted to make in the budget over the next 10 years.
Add it all up and when this administration is done spending should go down by several hundred billion a year (no Iraq war, fewer corporate subsidies, less medicare spending) and revenues should go up by several hundred billion as well due to ending the Bush tax cuts.
The Health Care package was also a Republican package, not a progressive one. A fical progressive would have pushed for single payer.
Obama is a tax cutter. That’s not progressive.
He’s also trying to cut wasteful spending which Bush never did.
I don’t know what Obama is doing that the teabaggers think is so “socialist.” For the most part, they don’t even have any idea what’s actually IN the legislation they think they’re supposed to fear so much.
You do realize that self-identifying as Republican is about as popular as self-identifying as “fuck face” right now, don’t you? There are lots and lots of Republicans running from Bush’s legacy of debt, failure, and torture nowdays. If you want to find out what percentage of the teabaggers are Republicans, you have to ask them whether they voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Of course, honest answers to pollsters questions as optional now as straight talk was when Bush reall, really wanted to sell us on an expensive war of conquest.
His reforms do exactly squat to fix the problem. In fact, they make it worse.
Cite? The CBO had to take the unusual step of amending their own forecast with a disclaimer that they’re only allowed to use the assumptions the Congress pushed on them. For example, that the 500 billion in cuts to medicare will actually happen. And in the next year or two, medicare has to get an injection of hundreds of billions of dollars just to keep doctor’s payments from being radically cut. Congress conveniently left that out of the score, along with other costs.
A) the medicare cuts have not happened. I doubt they will happen. He did what every president does - kicked the unpopular benefit cuts down the road.
B) he’s only cutting medicare to pay for a new health care entitlement. It’s not fiscally conservative to cut funds from one entitlement program only to add them to another. This also means it will be even harder to fix medicare, because the low-hanging fruit will be removed making the rest of the cuts more painful.
C) the penalties set up for not having health care were intentionally structured so that there are no punishments possible for non-compliance. So expect those revenue figures to be substantially lower than forecast.
You just used the past tense to refer to a future cut. Let’s wait and see if he actually allows those tax cuts to expire, hmm? For that matter, didn’t he already say he’s not going to allow all the tax cuts to expire? Only the ones on the rich.
Yeah, and Bush wanted to end it too. In fact, Obama has been following the Bush timetable pretty much to the letter. In any event what he ‘wants’ is not the same as what he does. Bush wanted to reform Social Security and Medicare, too. He also wanted to balance the budget. He did neither.
And yet, in the ACTUAL ten year budget forecast, which is posted online and which I have linked to several times, there are no such cuts. Government outlays are forecast to increase from 3.518 trillion in 2009 to 5.713 trillion in 2020. Looks to me like about 2.2 trillion dollars MORE, not 2 trillion less.
In any event, it’s bizarre to show ‘proof’ of Obama’s fiscal conservatism by claiming that he wants to be more conservative in the future. ALL presidents claim they’re going to cut spending and balance the budget. The proof is in what he actually does, and so far Obama has been throwing money around like a drunken sailor. 13.1% increase in discretionary spending this year. 5 billion to ‘community reinvestment’. 8 billion for high-speed rail. 25 billion for new foreign aid. A trillion for a new health care entitlement. A trillion dollar stimulus. 10 billion for ‘cash for clunkers’. 32 billion for a new ‘jobs’ program.
In the meantime, nothing is being done about the growing structural deficits at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which will cost tens of billions of dollars.
You can call him a fiscal conservative when he actually acts that way, not because he says that he WILL act that way some time in the indeterminate future.
Except that spending isn’t going down, it’s going up dramatically, and is forecast to continue doing so right through both of his terms, by his own administration’s admission. That’s what you get for believing Obama’s promises instead of watching what he actually does. It seems a lot of people have been fooled that way.
As you approach your dotage ( I’m going on 70, and I speak to all: Pubs and Dems, Commies and Nazis, Beckerites and Naderites) and if in your life journey you have allowed your mind to open, you will find nothing but amusement here on the boards, next door and between your legs. Yes, it’s all a joke to an open mind. To the unopened mind, it’s tragic.
Humor is founded in verbal distinction and all words, in the end, are synomous. The teabaggers have it right, Obama = All that’s wrong in America. And, as a Conservative Anarchist, I agree.
Obama is Bush in Blackface, the face of Corporate America.
One example. To sneak a Pub designed HC plan past the Pubs, Obama (Mr. Transparency) did a backroom deal allowing Big Pharma to dictate drug price$. That’s pretty funny.
YMMV.
While I realize that pretending that everybody on both sides of the aisle are equally corrupt allows you to protest the system without having to take responsibility or come up with any viable solutions, it really adds nothing to the conversation. What you see as The Wisdom Of Age, I see as someone not bothering to do the basic research to find out which choice might be slightly better than the other. Outside of simply-drawn cartoons made by schoolchildren, not much in life is black and white.
Obama is a blacker shade of pale. Apologies to Procal Harum.
To this I only add, 99.9999% of govt “inefficiency” is corruption.
To this conversation, you “add” nothing but yelling without purpose.
I see a great disparity between the Tea Party as seen in the media and in person, and the Tea Party shown in selected polls-why? Are the people showing up with crude/hateful/nonsensical signage at the rallies not the ones participating in the polls? If they are one and the same, are they lying when being polled?
Consider me agenda-free other than my acquiescence in packing the greedy off to Gitmo.
Simply, they (and a good many here) know no better.