Tea Party Members - Conservative, angry, white men with money... an obvious minority

[foxpaws]

Who could end up splitting the Republican party...

Poll: Five Percent of Americans Have Attended Tea Parties; Movement Is Overwhelmingly White, Male and Conservative

By David Weigel 2/17/10 1:25 PM

CNN has a much-needed and revealing poll on the Tea Party movement, with full breakdowns available at their site that reveal — no huge surprise — that it looks like a subsection of the Republican Party. The headline: Eleven percent of Americans have given some kind of support to the movement, with 5 percent attending rallies.

The demographic breakdowns: Tea Party activists are 60 percent male and 80 percent white, with 77 percent of them self-identifying as “conservatives” and 44 percent identifying as “Republicans.” While 47 percent of Americans report making less than $50,000 a year, only 26 percent of Tea Party activists make that little, while 34 percent make $75,000 or more. The major way in which this movement differs from the Republican Party’s makeup is in geography. Only 31 percent live in the South. Twenty-nine percent live in the Midwest, and 28 percent live in the West. Only in the Northeast, where 13 percent of activists live, are they relatively underrepresented (19 percent of all poll respondents live there).

From CNN...

According to the survey, most Tea Party activists describe themselves as Independents.

"But that's slightly misleading, because 87 percent say they would vote for the GOP candidate in their congressional district if there were no third-party candidate endorsed by the Tea Party," says Holland.

So what would happen if the Tea Party supported independent candidates for Congress?

The poll indicates that in a two-way race on the so-called "generic ballot" question, GOP candidates have a 47 percent to 45 percent edge. Throw a Tea Party candidate into the mix, and that two-point advantage becomes a 12-point deficit. That's because virtually everyone who would vote for a Tea Party candidate in a three-way contest would choose a Republican in a two-way race. The Democratic candidate gets 45 percent in both scenarios, but the GOP candidate's share of the vote drops from 47 percent in a two-way contest to just 33 percent with a Tea Party candidate on the ballot.

 

[fossten]

Don't you mean "teabaggers?"

 

[Calabrio]

So I guess this means that Democrats don't support limited government and reduced spending...

 

[topher5150]

I'm angry, and conservative, white, but no money LOL

 

[shagdrum]

I'm angry, and conservative, white, but no money LOL

Ditto.

 

[Mechanicboy]

I'm angry, and conservative, white, but no money LOL

+2 I spent it all on the LS LMAO

 

[foxpaws]

So I guess this means that Democrats don't support limited government and reduced spending...

Why would you say that Cal? Or did you just need to interject that to make sure you felt good about being a conservative angry white man (money optional I guess according to the other posts ). That little bit isn't in the article at all. They didn't ask about that in the CNN poll.

So, 11 percent of the population has done 'something' with the tea party movement - very much a minority. How much credence/air time should a minority like this be given? Is this the case of a very vocal minority manipulating the media? Or at least one arm of the media? Odd - if you look at Fox News evening news numbers compared to all other TV evening news viewing (national networks included) - they have about 10% of the total pie (2.3m vs 23m).... probably not a coincidence that the Tea Party numbers closely match the Fox numbers, and therfore rule the airwaves on Fox News. They know their audience.

 

[fossten]

Hey folks, this is where foxpaws brags about how much money she makes. Get ready to be taunted...

 

[SoonerLS]

Interesting. Most of the Tea Party Activists numbers aren't all that different from the All Respondents numbers until you look at the Education and Income numbers. Those numbers look a lot like those of another group of "angry, white men with money" who were also a very small minority--the Founding Fathers.

As for preferring Republican candidates over Democrats in the absence of a third party candidate, well, thank you, Captain Obvious. The Democratic Party is actively pursuing the policies the Tea Party activists are opposing, and, as the old proverb goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend--even if the Republican doesn't completely match up with the Tea Party ideals, a theoretical GOPer is almost certainly a better fit than a theoretical Democrat (choosing the lesser of two evils, so to speak) from the standpoint of the Tea Partier.

 

[fossten]

Even if I were an angry rich white man, which I'm not...

I'd be outraged at the blatant generational theft that Obama has just perpetrated on this country. Children yet to be born will owe all their incomes to pay for his reckless spending, and their children as well. And thanks to the liberals, many of them won't be allowed to be born either.

Hence the outrage.

 

[shagdrum]

The Democratic Party is actively pursuing the policies the Tea Party activists are opposing

Individualism vs. collectivism

TRUE liberalism vs. thinly veiled socialism

Liberty vs. tyranny

 

[fossten]

Individualism vs. collectivism

TRUE liberalism vs. thinly veiled socialism

Liberty vs. tyranny

Awesome, preach it brutha.

Thanks for the thread, foxpaws...really needed a pick-me-up!

 

[Mechanicboy]

$75k really isn't that much in many areas in the country. Many cities 75k is barely making ends meet.

 

[topher5150]

$75k really isn't that much in many areas in the country. Many cities 75k is barely making ends meet.

75k, I would kill for 75k, I'm not even making half that

 

[foxpaws]

Even if I were an angry rich white man, which I'm not...

I'd be outraged at the blatant generational theft that Obama has just perpetrated on this country. Children yet to be born will owe all their incomes to pay for his reckless spending, and their children as well. And thanks to the liberals, many of them won't be allowed to be born either.

Hence the outrage.

Quick - show me the outrage that you posted on this site as Bush was bankrupting this nation...

 

[foxpaws]

Individualism vs. collectivism

TRUE liberalism vs. thinly veiled socialism

Liberty vs. tyranny

rhetoric vs reality

fiction vs fact

corporate slavery vs liberty

 

[fossten]

Quick - show me the outrage that you posted on this site as Bush was bankrupting this nation...

Quick...show me proof of what you speak. While you're at it, why don't you look at this link.

And you know I can produce plenty of posts where I criticized Bush.

You're so busy trying to manufacture hypocrisy on my part, you fail to realize that you just acknowledged the justification for the outrage. Hoist by your own petard, fox. Tsk. Tsk.

 

[fossten]

resolve vs. denial

truth vs. government propaganda

corporate slavery vs government slavery

Fixed that for ya.

 

[foxpaws]

Quick...show me proof of what you speak. While you're at it, why don't you look at this link.

And you know I can produce plenty of posts where I criticized Bush.

You're so busy trying to manufacture hypocrisy on my part, you fail to realize that you just acknowledged the justification for the outrage. Hoist by your own petard, fox. Tsk. Tsk.

Really - show me one where you took on the Bush administration pinpointing its fiscal irresponsibility regarding the level of debt that it loaded onto the American people. Show me your that your outrage has to do with the debt in this country.

And I believe your little link had to do with Bush's bailout of the banks - right?

 

[Calabrio]

Really - show me one where you took on the Bush administration pinpointing its fiscal irresponsibility regarding the level of debt that it loaded onto the American people. Show me your that your outrage has to do with the debt in this country.

And what would that prove?
Even if no such examples existed, what does that prove?

First, you fail to recognize that the expansion of the debt in the past year is much greater than it has been in past years. The situation is considerably different.

But more importantly, many people who may have previously tolerated the the unsustainable spending of the past have come to realize that this country can not continue to do so.

Because they (I'm not speaking of Fossten) may not have been aware of the problem in the past, that doesn't mean that they have no justification in being outraged now.

Frankly, everyone active here was very critical of the Bush's failure to veto any of the spending bills that came out of the Congress. The Republicans spent far too much money while they held the majority, the Democrats then went on to outspend and over regulate them.

Foxpaws, while you're busy attempting to smear the "tea party" movement as racist, out of touch, or dismiss them as "old white people" you fail to realize that it's a bipartisan movement.

And with that, I don't mean that it's actively embraced by the Democrat base. The Democrat base, consisting of entrenched Progressive Statists like yourself, won't have anything to do with such a movement. You don't share the values of limited constitutional government that is represented there.

But it's bipartisan in the fact that it condemns elements of BOTH parties for making the economic and constitutional mess we're in, and it embraces people joining the movement from BOTH parties.

Respect for the constitution isn't a Republican issue.
It neither includes all Republicans (some don't respect limited government), nor does it exclude ALL Democrats- just the progressive and marxist wing that has taken over the party.

 

[fossten]

Really - show me one where you took on the Bush administration pinpointing its fiscal irresponsibility regarding the level of debt that it loaded onto the American people. Show me your that your outrage has to do with the debt in this country.

And I believe your little link had to do with Bush's bailout of the banks - right?

I don't have to dig up postings where I criticized Bush just to satisfy you. There are others who will vouch for the fact that I am probably the most vociferous right winger here when it comes to criticizing Bush. However, I do recall lamenting that the bailout meant we were no longer a free nation. I don't really care if you believe me or not. You have no credibility anyway.

Moreover, it's funny how you play the 'both sides do it' card when it suits you, but when both sides actually DID it, and it hurts your point, suddenly it's BUSHBUSHBUSH only.

You have ZERO outrage or criticism for Obama or the Democrats. You won't even acknowledge you disagree with them unless you're cornered. You are completely devoid of intellectual honesty. In short, pot meet kettle.

So stop projecting your megafail attitude onto me.

 

[fossten]

Here's one...

Here's one that should shut you up fox...

Here's another one, albeit not a bailout thread...

So go pound sand, you hypocritical old race baiter.

 

[foxpaws]

I stand corrected - you really did bash Bush - took you 6 years, but you did it.

But why 6 years - were you willing to give him that long to make things right? Or did you think that for 6 years he was doing OK?

 

[fossten]

I stand corrected - you really did bash Bush - took you 6 years, but you did it.

But why 6 years - were you willing to give him that long to make things right? Or did you think that for 6 years he was doing OK?

Wrong again, race baiter. Keep going back. I called him out for everything I disagreed on.

You stand corrected again, but I'm not going to dig anymore for you. You don't take a hint. All you do is move the goalposts, the mark of a dishonest person.

Why aren't you outraged at Obama's spending? I guess Shag was right - the Democrats AREN'T for smaller government and more fiscal responsibility.

 

[foxpaws]

I don't like some of the spending - but I don't blanket-ly denounce everything. I think the stimulus helped stabilize the economy, I don't like the huge health care package and it's costs.