Announcement PH Beta → Check it out! Click Me! (you might be see "unsafe", but it is safe)
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago

Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated 
By KATE ZERNIKE and MEGAN THEE-BRENAN
Published: April 14, 2010

Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.

They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as very conservative and President Obama as very liberal.

And while most Republicans say they are dissatisfied with Washington, Tea Party supporters are more likely to classify themselves as angry.

The Tea Party movement burst onto the scene a year ago in protest of the economic stimulus package, and its supporters have vowed to purge the Republican Party of officials they consider not sufficiently conservative and to block the Democratic agenda on the economy, the environment and health care. But the demographics and attitudes of those in the movement have been known largely anecdotally. The Times/CBS poll offers a detailed look at the profile and attitudes of those supporters.

Their responses are like the general publics in many ways. Most describe the amount they paid in taxes this year as fair. Most send their children to public schools. A plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, and, despite their push for smaller government, they think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers. They actually are just as likely as Americans as a whole to have returned their census forms, though some conservative leaders have urged a boycott.

Tea Party supporters fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich.

The overwhelming majority of supporters say Mr. Obama does not share the values most Americans live by and that he does not understand the problems of people like themselves. More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites compared with 11 percent of the general public.

They are more likely than the general public, and Republicans, to say that too much has been made of the problems facing black people.

Asked what they are angry about, Tea Party supporters offered three main concerns: the recent health care overhaul, government spending and a feeling that their opinions are not represented in Washington.

The only way they will stop the spending is to have a revolt on their hands, Elwin Thrasher, a 66-year-old semiretired lawyer in Florida, said in an interview after the poll. Im sick and tired of them wasting money and doing what our founders never intended to be done with the federal government.

They are far more pessimistic than Americans in general about the economy. More than 90 percent of Tea Party supporters think the country is headed in the wrong direction, compared with about 60 percent of the general public. About 6 in 10 say Americas best years are behind us when it comes to the availability of good jobs for American workers.

Nearly 9 in 10 disapprove of the job Mr. Obama is doing over all, and about the same percentage fault his handling of major issues: health care, the economy and the federal budget deficit. Ninety-two percent believe Mr. Obama is moving the country toward socialism, an opinion shared by more than half of the general public.

I just feel hes getting away from what America is, said Kathy Mayhugh, 67, a retired medical transcriber in Jacksonville. Hes a socialist. And to tell you the truth, I think hes a Muslim and trying to head us in that direction, I dont care what he says. Hes been in office over a year and cant find a church to go to. That doesnt say much for him.


The nationwide telephone poll was conducted April 5 through April 12 with 1,580 adults. For the purposes of analysis, Tea Party supporters were oversampled, for a total of 881, and then weighted to their proper proportion in the poll. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for all adults and for Tea Party supporters.

Of the 18 percent of Americans who identified themselves as supporters, 20 percent, or 4 percent of the general public, said they had given money or attended a Tea Party event, or both. These activists were more likely than supporters generally to describe themselves as very conservative and had more negative views about the economy and Mr. Obama. They were more angry with Washington and intense in their desires for a smaller federal government and deficit.

Tea Party supporters over all are more likely than the general public to say their personal financial situation is fairly good or very good. But 55 percent are concerned that someone in their household will be out of a job in the next year. And more than two-thirds say the recession has been difficult or caused hardship and major life changes. Like most Americans, they think the most pressing problems facing the country today are the economy and jobs.

But while most Americans blame the Bush administration or Wall Street for the current state of the American economy, the greatest number of Tea Party supporters blame Congress.

They do not want a third party and say they usually or almost always vote Republican. The percentage holding a favorable opinion of former President George W. Bush, at 57 percent, almost exactly matches the percentage in the general public that holds an unfavorable view of him.

Dee Close, a 47-year-old homemaker in Memphis, said she was worried about a drift in the country. Over the last three or four years, Ive realized how immense that drift has been away from what made this country great, Ms. Close said.

Yet while the Tea Party supporters are more conservative than Republicans on some social issues, they do not want to focus on those issues: about 8 in 10 say that they are more concerned with economic issues, as is the general public.

When talking about the Tea Party movement, the largest number of respondents said that the movements goal should be reducing the size of government, more than cutting the budget deficit or lowering taxes.

And nearly three-quarters of those who favor smaller government said they would prefer it even if it meant spending on domestic programs would be cut.

But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on waste.

Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.

Others could not explain the contradiction.

Thats a conundrum, isnt it? asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. I dont know what to say. Maybe I dont want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security. She added, I didnt look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think Ive changed my mind.

Marjorie Connelly, Dalia Sussman and Marina Stefan contributed reporting.



If you don't favor the elimination of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, which represent the largest proportion of federal spending, you don't favor small government. Period. If you favor the expansion of our military/industrial complex, you really don't favor small government. At least the Tea Party supporters admit they're hypocrites.

As for the snide quote commenting on Obama's church attendance, all I can say is "Wow. Just . . . wow."

With ideological friends like Tea Partiers, libertarians don't need enemies.
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
14 years ago
Aside to NSD: this is an example why many libertarians get *very* hot and bothered when they get called/lumped together with "conservatives."

The difference between a libertarian and either a conservative or a liberal is profound. The difference between a conservative and a liberal is merely when they want to reach into your pocket or squeeze your balls.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
14 years ago
Exactly what direction is "Muslim"?

A more relevant analysis would be to compare their SES, education level etc. to the total politically active (voting?) population in the country.
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago
I agree. I get incensed quickly when I'm labeled a conservative. The difference between a conservative and liberal is one of degree, not substance (as implied by the word "conservative" itself). By contrast, there is a fundamental difference in worldview between libertarians and conservatives or liberals. I like to say a conservative is a liberal ten years behind. The conservatives of today make John F. Kennedy look radically conservative.

By the way, though I admit I'm a hypocrite for taking military educational benefits, and as much as it would suck for me personally if they were eliminated, I would not oppose efforts to cut them.
UserPostedImage
Porforis
14 years ago
No offense, but I hardly trust the New York Times to quote two typical Tea Partiers. If they could find a wacko saying that Obama's a space alien or Hitler reanimated, they'd try to paint it as typical of tea partiers. Every group has its wackos, liberal and conservative alike. And with recent figures like 18% of Americans identifying themselves as having been involved in a tea party, how CAN'T you find a large handful of complete idiots?

That being said, I find no problems with anything else in the article... Surprisingly good reporting, actually... Assuming the polling data is accurate, but I see nothing too surprising.
Porforis
14 years ago
And just as a followup, I really don't see anybody proposing the straight-up elimination of Social Security... It's simply not going to happen. Phasing it out? Sure. Completely cutting off benefits and payments at an arbitrary point in time? Absolute suicide politically.

That being said, if you have a specific income tax for something (like social security and medicare), and you expect to reap benefits from it because you've paid into it... It's a bit different than bitching about something paid for by general income/capital gains/sales taxes that you use being eliminated.

Thus, I don't find it too unreasonable that people that have paid into social security should get something out of it. I've paid a specific tax for it, I should get something out of it specifically. Personally, I think that we should bite the bullet and say that everyone who is born after an arbitrary date will neither be charged social security taxes, nor reap any benefits from it. I realize that this causes a major shortfall in the amount of trillions, but it's the difference between taking a major, numbing hit now or a catastrophic hit later, and completely screwing people out of thousands and thousands of dollars specifically allocated for something they'll never get.

But that's just my opinion.
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952



I guess I'm stupid. I openly advocate for the complete abrogation of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Of course to do so would be political suicide, but doing the right thing usually is. I actually don't have a problem with paying into the system for those who are currently reliant on it without the expectation of receiving anything back from it. While I would prefer to have the system eliminated in one fell swoop, I would not be opposed to eliminating it through attrition; that is, as a recipient dies, his slot on the rolls is simply deleted, leading to a slow but constant diminution of the recipient pool.

The system as currently configured is untenable. When first instituted, there were something like 11 taxpayers for every recipient. Now if I'm not mistaken, there are less than 3 taxpayers for every recipient, and the ratio continues to shrink. It's a poorly designed pyramid scheme. The only way it's sustainable in the long run is if Americans start having more kids or we have a huge influx of legal immigration. Caucasian Americans currently have a negative population growth rate, averaging only 0.84 births per woman; the only reason our population continues to grow is that Hispanics have a much higher birth rate than Caucasians.
UserPostedImage
Pack93z
14 years ago
Instead of taking benefits from those that really need it via the form of a true disability.. why not go through the system and kick off those that are abusing the system.. ones that can do other physical activities.. yet can't seem to work.

We have a gent in my town that hunts and fishes every single day.. draws SSI because he is too disabled to work.. and it pisses me off every time I see that asshole. Claims he has some disease that effects him and he cannot hold down a job. Yet he can hunt or fish freely..

I would be very open to culling the system of those that could work but abuse the system so they don't have to.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
14 years ago
I remember in college when they showed me that SS system was untenable in the long run (e.g. until my retirement). That was 1977. When something might have been done.

Of course that was when it was conclusively demonstrated to me for the first time that Keynesian "solutions" were untenable, too.

It's the first rule of bankruptcy. Creditors ALWAYS get screwed. The only question is how much.

And I'm afraid the *best* America can hope for is that we get screwed reasonably soon by an army of John Holmes clones.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago
Of course you're right, Shawn -- that should be an ongoing process. The problem is how do you go about doing it? Set up some kind of supervisory board?
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (17m) : Kanata, seek help! lol
beast (2h) : I was rooting for the Bears to win and hurt their draft pick status
Zero2Cool (2h) : Forgot there was even a game last night haha
TheKanataThrilla (2h) : That was terrible.
TheKanataThrilla (2h) : Watching that game in its entirety yesterday is proof positive that I am a football addict.
beast (3h) : And horrible time management multiple times... and not being able to score more than 3 points on a team with talent
beast (3h) : Realizing the Bears didn't fix it from the previous week and do the same thing, getting the game to overtime
beast (3h) : They probably are not tanking, but they've absolutely mismanagement some things, such as Vikings seeing the Packers blocked FG and realizing
Zero2Cool (4h) : Crazy of Bears to have that mindset that is
Zero2Cool (4h) : Hail Mary stop away from 5 - 2. Not sure how that flips to tanking. Crazy mindset if true
beast (4h) : I've quietly questioned if Bears are tanking on purpose... they suddenly got a lot worse with some simple concepts like 101 clock management
wpr (7h) : Watching bares fans melt down over how putrid their team is, so enjoyable. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Mucky Tundra (14h) : The Seattle Seahawks defeat the Chicago Bears 6-3. Jason Myers had 6 RBIs for Seattle while Cairo Santos had 3 RBI for Chicago
beast (15h) : Not nessarily, he might of been injured either way. He's playing about 50% of the games the last 4 years
Zero2Cool (21h) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.
packerfanoutwest (21h) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it
beast (23h) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done
Zero2Cool (26-Dec) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.
Mucky Tundra (26-Dec) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore
packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!
Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!
beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
17m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

36m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

38m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

1h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

1h / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

11h / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Dec / Random Babble / beast

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.