Amusingly, the same poll also shows that Tea Party supporters are delusional: 84% of them think that the Tea Party movement reflects the views of most Americans, as opposed to 25% of the general public (ie., most Americans).
The Tea party just released it’s Contract from America
I’d can’t say I disagree with all of it. It just seems they’re promoting ideals without a realistic grasp of what it takes to get there.
I like Princhester’s term for them: “a grab bag of the disaffected”.
I think they shoukld pay for their war before getting huffy about ‘balancing the budget’. A trillion bucks’d go some distance towards reducing the debt they now seem so concerned with.
Incidentally isn’t “repeal and replace” a trademarked pubby slogan? Should the teabaggers even be using that if they want to continue to pretend to be not-Republican?
Their language could use some going-over by a lawyer. “Do not do these things which will cause Bad Stuff to happen.” Righto, I’ll do it in the way that doesn’t cause Bad Stuff to happen.
I like that of all the things they could possibly oppose, the only things mentioned by name are Cap-and-Trade, which is a pretty reasonable strategy for emissions reduction; and Government-run Healthcare, which presumably means anyone fighting in Iraq will come home to find their veterans’ benefits have been cancelled.
I can go with that. And I’m not sure many of the Tea Partiers would disagree, either.
I went to a Tea party event today out of curiosity. I didn’t see any effigies, miss-spelled signs, drooling howling rednecks, Obama/Joker posters or much of anything interesting.
I heard there was going to be free food, which of course turned out not to be true. In fact it was way overpriced. I didn’t buy any.
The speakers were unremarkable, the little I heard. The crowd was about 200 to 300 I guess and this was in the county seat for Baltimore County MD.
The lack of bad taste was mostly due to the affluent and educated demographic here I expect.
That’s because this poll is way out of date (up to 2004) and doesn’t apply to the 2008 elections or later dates. In the 2004 elections, according to the exit polling, Bush won the the college graduate vote by 6%, but in the 2008 elections, Obama won it by 2%. In the 2004 elections, according to the exit polling, Kerry won the postgraduate vote by 2%, but in the 2008 elections, Obama won it by 18%. So there has been a significant shift, 8% and 16% respectively. Not to mention that the sample size of the exit polling (17,836 in 2008) makes the results much more accurate than this outdated poll you cited (sample size of 1212).
This is a different poll. Here is the data from the New York Times/CBS News poll that I cited (with a larger sample size):
Tea Party All Difference
Not a high school graduate 3 % 12 % –9 %
High school graduate 26 35 –9
Some college education 33 28 +5
College graduate 23 15 +8
Post-graduate 14 10 +4
It shows that the Tea Party supporters are better educated and the differences are above the margin of error.
No, it is you who needs to show the Tea Party supporters are less educated. You are the one that is defending posters who said that Tea Party supporters are uneducated. The default position, before any data was presented, was that they have same education as other people. It is you and these posters who are making the claim that they are uneducated and you have not presented any data whatsoever to support that position.
I think you’re still missing the point. Exit polling of voters in any particular election is not necessarily representative of statistics about self-identified party supporters in general, because so many people don’t actually vote in elections.
The exit polls you’re citing, although they do have tens of thousands of people in them, represent only the people who actually went out to vote. So they are not as indicative of the overall characteristics of self-identified party supporters as a direct poll of such supporters is (even though the direct poll has a much smaller sample size).
Even if you prefer to use that poll and disregard the one I cited which has different results, it’s still only comparing TP supporters to the general population, rather than telling us anything about differences between TP supporters and “traditional Republicans”.
It’s true that people who are making that claim (and I wasn’t one of them, btw) need to support that claim with data. But if you are trying to argue that the data actually disprove that claim, then you need to use the data correctly. I’m just pointing out some flaws in your attempts to “correct” this claim with misapplied statistics.
I wouldn’t put too much weight in anything these polls say about “supporters”, unless we know what that actually means. It’s not like you can be a registered Tea Party Supporter in the way you can be a Republican or Democrat. Not to mention the fact that even the term “Tea Party” is ill defined.
I’m consistently using “supporter” to mean “self-identified supporter in response to survey question”, both for Tea Party supporters and for self-proclaimed Reps and Dems.
You are quite right that the ambiguities inherent in that category put a whole lot of fuzz in the results, though.
That makes sense. I’d feel better about the data being meaningful if the pollsters at least laid out what things the Tea Party stands for, or asked if the respondent was familiar* with the goals of the Tea Party.
*If anyone answers yes to that, then maybe he or she could clue the rest of us in!
It’s kind of unfair to expect that of pollsters when the Tea partists themselves are very unclear on the subject.
Hence the asterisk.
And perhaps the term “supporter” is simply meaningless since what the person is supporting isn’t even defined.
Not in my experience. The divide on Fox New or not-Fox News seems to be one of age rather than tea-partiness. None of the republicans I know under age 40 watch Fox, and those over 50 watch the station frequently to daily.
For those of you commenting about the tea party protesters’ lack of vocalization during Bush’s two terms - it’s all about scale. The Obama administration has taken spending to a whole new level, and that’s what has brought them out.
First, some of you “educated and mightier than any teabagger” posters need to learn the difference between the national DEBT and the national DEFICIT. That aside, look at the numbers:
- National DEBT -
Bush administration added $4.1 Trillion to the national debt over 8 years cite
Obama administration added $3 Trillion in the first year.cite
- National Deficit -
In Obama’s first year in office, the national deficit was 3 Times Higher than the highest deficit recorded during the Bush Administration, and more than the total deficit of Bush’s last 4 years. cite
Here, let me correct that for you:
Bush administration added $4.1 Trillion to the national debt over 8 years, then the
Bush administration added $3 Trillion in the first year of the Obama administration.
Nobody but the over-educated, under-thoughtful Teabaggers are going to ding Obama with the money spent to clean up after the catastrophy of the Bush Administration.
Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann is a tea partier:
If I’m interpreting her correctly, she’s complaining about the $3 trillion Bush tacked onto the deficit this year, and blaming that on Obama.
Gangster piggies? Land sakes, what will they come up with next?
Right, and that couldn’t have anything to do with the lost revenue caused by Bush’s recession, could it?