Is theTea Party movement actually more politically diverse than the “liberal media” would have you believe? Andrew Malcolm, a blogger for the L.A. Times who used to be Laura Bush’s press secretary, thinks so. He wrote yesterday (4/5/10) about a pair of polls that came out about the Tea Party movement:
For upwards of 12 months now members of the so-called Tea Party protest movement have been stereotyped, derogated and often dismissed by some politicians and media outlets.
They’ve been portrayed variously as angry fringe elements, often inarticulate, potentially violent and merely Republicans in sheep’s clothing or disgruntled pockets of conservatives blindly lashing out at a left-handed President Obama….
Alas for stereotypes, they’re convenient, often catchy. But not necessarily true.
Now, comes a pair of polls, including Gallup, that paint a revealing detailed portrait of Tea Party supporters in most ways as pretty average Americans.
Oddly, though, the polls cited by Malcolm don’t say anything about whether the Tea Party activists are angry, inarticulate or violent–or whether they’re motivated by racial resentment, which is another criticism frequently leveled at the movement. Instead, the polls mostly provide basic demographic information that is largely irrelevant to the “stereotypes” Malcolm cites about the Tea Party movement.
The polls do give some information about partisan and ideological identification–and on these measures Malcolm’s account is quite misleading. He cites a survey by the Winston Group, a Republican polling firm, that found that 17 percent of Tea Party supporters identify as Democrats as an indication that the movement has a “bipartisan breakdown”–and are therefore the “commonsense Americans” they are portrayed to be by Sarah Palin. But at 17 percent percent, the Tea Parties would have about half as many Democrats as in the general population–and at 57 percent Republican, it would have more than twice as many Republicans. That’s actually not very “bipartisan.”
And while the one poll got 17 percent Democrats, the other poll, by Gallup, found the Tea Party base was only 8 percent Democratic–one-quarter of the party’s proportion in the general population. That’s less than the 12 percent of Tea Party supporters who told Gallup they support the new healthcare law–a proportion Gallup calls “a uniformly negative reaction.”
As for ideology, both polls show Tea Party supporters are much more likely to describe themselves as “conservative” and much less likely to identify as “liberal” than Americans as a whole.
Most of these distortions can be laid at Malcolm’s feet, but there’s one misrepresentation of the polling data that Gallup has to be held responsible for. Malcolm accurately quotes Gallup’s Lydia Saad as saying that “Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large” in terms of “race,” among other demographic qualities. But Gallup’s chart indicates that 6 percent of Tea Party supporters identified as non-Hispanic blacks–versus 11 percent for respondents in general. Would a group that was 28 percent female be considered “quite representative of the public at large” in terms of gender? That’s the claim that Gallup is making about the Tea Party movement and race.
(For more on these Tea Party polls, see Political Animal, 4/5/10, and Plum Line, 4/5/10.)
The writer, Jim, seems to be proposing the unless the quantities are equally distributed, the movement is not bipartisan. That can’t be further from the truth.
Being bipartisan only requires a mix of different people, which is far beyond what congress has been able to produce, while passing bills with NO republicans voting yes.
Even if the numbers are different in different polls, none of the polls project what all the opposition is saying about the member. That’s the important point to take away from the issue.
As we all know, polls are only as accurate as the way in which the questions are framed and worded. Here’s a poll I’d like to see: Of the members of the TeaBagger “movement”, how many of those who call themselves “liberal” are liberal REPUBLICANS? And how many of those who call themselves “Democrats” are CONSERVATIVE (i.e. “Blue Dog”) Democrats? I have a feeling we can estimate the numbers.
The passage of bills in Congress without republican â┚¬Ã…“yesâ┚¬Ã‚ votes is hardly a failure on the part of Congress as a whole. It is a failure of the GOP (Greedy Obstructionist Party?) to do their job! Their only idea/policy at this point, it seems, is to blindly oppose anything and everything Obama &/or Congressional Democrats try to do, regardless of whether it’s good for the American people (remember them?), even when it was originally a Republican idea (voting against their own bills has happened more times than I can count). Rather, as I view it, it is a success on the part of Congress, in the fact that they were able to pass necessary legislation in spite of having no support from the right. Tom’s choice of phrasing (â┚¬Ã…“NO republicansâ┚¬Ã‚Â) couldn’t be more descriptive of what the party has become: the party of NO. Specific to health care, the vast majority of the amendments that house republicans put forth were INCLUDED in the bill (including the mandate to purchase insurance, which the TeaBaggers are all up in arms about. Misdirected anger, much?), but STILL, the G.NO.P. voted against it. The fact is, the majority of congress has been OPEN to bipartisan efforts and compromise. It’s the minority that has refused to â┚¬Ã…“negotiateâ┚¬Ã‚Ââ┚¬Ã‚¦and yet still try to claim that OBAMA isn’t willing to work with THEM!?
Tom, what YOU seem to be proposing is that a group of misinformed people, whipped into a fear-based frenzy by lying “journalists”, propagandizing right-wing politicians, and their corporatist benefactors, of which “conservatives” and “Republicans” make up 80-90% is somehow a “mix of different people”, and therefore “bipartisan”. Not in my book. Not even close. The quantities don’t have to be equally distributed, but they DO need to be more distributed than that!? IF 10% of the â┚¬Ã…“yesâ┚¬Ã‚ votes on the health care bill HAD been republicans, would YOU call that â┚¬Ã…“bipartisanâ┚¬Ã‚Â, honestly? As Jim accurately points out, the discrepancy between the TeaBaggers numbers and the population as a whole is vast, in terms of a “mix of different people”. THAT is the important point to take away from this issue.
Generalities being what they are, and despite the spin that some may try to put on these numbers, this polling data (as accurate as one can assume it to be) PROVES “what the opposition is saying” to be correct: that â┚¬Ã…“the movement is not bipartisanâ┚¬Ã‚…with very few exceptions to the rule.
Cory, well said. Your thoughts are clear and concise. I wouldn’t expect any of those “teabaggers” that are “sweeping” as the headline above reads, to be able to make any sense of it, as it is based on fact and logic. Just the act of writing the headline above [Are liberals powerless to the Tea Party movement that is sweeping our conservative right of center nation?] and using the term “sweeping” seems to be deceptive to me. Maybe I just don’t get out enough, but I just don’t think there are really the numbers of teabaggers that some of these reporters would like for us to believe.
pretending that Tea Party people are a bunch of crazys is as silly as pretending Obama is a lefty
You’re using Alternet as a source!?!?
The veracity of the whole article is called into question by linking to a website which routinely distorts facts, ignores reality and filters news to its own benefit.
You’ll never squeeze money out of my pocket if you rely on Alternet to make a point about anything.
“leftover”- the Alternet link is specifically about tea party opposition claims, so Alternet is perfectly legitimate in this use, unless you find Alternet to be an ADVOCATE for the tea partiers. FAIR isn’t making any claims based on that post which is about the derogating nature of the opposition.
As for the Winston group survey, it highlights what a non-homogeneous group the Tea Party actually is: “They believe that cutting spending is the key to job creation and favor tax cuts as the best way to stimulate the economy. That said 61 percent of Tea Party members believe infrastructure spending creates jobs. Moreover, given the choice Tea Party members favor 63-32 reducing unemployment to 5 percent over balancing the budget ”
So they want to cut taxes (despite taxes being cut by this admin on 75% of the population), and they don’t care about the deficit if jobs are being created (exactly what the Stimulus spending was premised on). So why are they mad at Obama for doing what they have asked for? Oh, wait, I forgot, because he also tried to make it so health insurance wouldn’t cripple people financially.
The only answer is that they have been misled by Obama’s opponents and certain media figures, which is also why anti-Tea Party people call them “dumb or idiots” or what not. The old adage that applies is “The soup was terrible and there wasn’t enough of it”, which is what they are saying.
TEA PARTY—————THE TEA PARTY SUPPORTERS THAT I KNOW ARE BABY BOOMERS MOSTLY MOVING INTO RETIREMENT YEARS. THEY COME FROM LOWER MIDDLE INCOME FAMILIES, HAVE BETTERED THEM-SELVES, ARE NOW IN THE HIGH-END MIDDLE CLASS——-THEY GOT THEIRS, NO ONE ELSE (OBAMAISM);
SOCIALISM; LEFT-WING LIBERALS;THEIR CATCH PHRASES, ARE GOING TO GET “MINE”, THEY THINK AND SAY. AND RACISM IS PRESENT, ALSO.
I heard Hannity quote these polls’ numbers on Democrats and Independents on a VERY rare surfing moment by FOX News. (I can’t watch these people, my blood pressure would make my head explode!!)
The so called liberal media is almost as frustrating and painful to watch and listen to. They are so cowed and/or so un-intelligent and linear thinking, that it simply can’t dawn on them that these so called Democrats and Independents have to be elderly blue collar “Reagan” Democrats or their offspring. The Independents are all or almost all Republicans.
If any of them were once REAL Democrats or democrats with a small d, they at LEAST wouldn’t be capable of spewing the racist vitriol that the Tea Party crowds on TV are. It seems to me they cldn’t tolerate being in a group of people carrying the signs we’ve seen that in the extreme dehumanize President Obama. Frank Rich had a great column on this a week or so ago…. that the TP’s aren’t really about healthcare. Dick Armey and his ilk orchestrated all of this last spring and summer, and Chris Matthews calls him a “great guy” recently.
It’s all about the half black man in the White House. It doesn’t seem to matter to them that his white grandfather stood in Patton’s Army in Germany. Most think his mother, having married an (brilliant) African fm Kenya and then an Indonesian man, fits into the black female welfare stereotype. Remember comments fm one or two (southern, I think both were) Republicans on floor of the House. David Remnick’s new bio of Obama lays her life out fully as a very smart dedicated anthropologist. She did extensive field work in Indonesia, mainly on developing micro programs for women in underdeveloped countries to start small businesses.
I don’t feel good about the future of this country…
Just in case someone says I’m knocking the elderly…. I am a 67 yr old still slightly auburn-haired white woman just retired and back in Maine, fresh air and haven’t heard one over-sensitive car alarm in 4 months… Heaven !!
The only demographic group that President Obama didn’t win in 2008 was the white elderly unfortunately. I remember NYT articles at the time, one describing this population in southwestern and may PA before that big primary. They were afraid he would take from them and give to “THEM.” Sounds like the hatreds and suspicions starting with Reconstruction. Even Hillary Clinton and her campaign exploited these fears, the dark underbelly of American history and politics.
My biggest shock has been ever since Obama took office…. the complete explosion of all this history by the right wing and really the mainstream Republican politicians and the leaders standing quietly by and taking full advantage, even the mainstream media not calling them on it, thus silence is consent and legitimizes it. so depressing.
I have been seeking reliable recommendations on dog insurance and think that your site is a great resource. It is not easy to find good ideas on the Web in regards to dog insurance, but I think I can use this information! If you have any more good ideas, specifically for dog insurance, please let me know. Thanks a bunch!