Tea-Party: Poll data

[Jimmie Higgins]

Sorry to start yet another thread on the Tea-Partiers, but since this is such a topic of conversation on the left, I thought it might be useful to add some hard poll-data about self-identified tea-partiers.

NYTIMES: Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?pagewanted=1&hp)


NYTIMES Poll data. (http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-timescbs-news-poll-national-survey-of-tea-party-supporters?ref=politics#document/p38)

This may not come as a surprise, but on average, tea-party people are more often white, more often from professional and petty-bourgeois backgrounds, more likely to not be unemployed, and more likely to be receiving big government socialist money in the form of medicare... than the rest of the population.

Maybe because so many are retirees, they have a low unemployment average of 6% as opposed to people under 30 where 1/4 of the workforce is unemployed.

Unfortunately, from what I read, racial and immigration views of tea-party people were not deeply examined although tea-partiers for the most part think that the poor and blacks are getting a better deal (this is empirically false) than the "middle class" and blacks complain about non-existent racism too much.

Hopefully this info can inform some of the debates about the nature of the tea-party here as well as show how disconnected from what most Americans think. Contrary to the tea-party people and some on the left, the tea-party views are fairly opposed to average views in the US. The poll found that while 60% of the country blames George Bush and Banks for the economic crisis, 60% of tea-partiers support George W. Bush and blame Congress for the crisis.

[Jacobinist]

Despite what the corporate media says and attempts to do about the Tea Party, the reality is that they simply won't tell the truth. These people arent really motivated by the 'economy' or any current affairs. If that were the case, they would have been visible during the unconstitutional presidency of the G-Dub and his multiple attacks on American liberalism. However, they werent. So why are they now active? If you ask, because now the president is black. Anything he proposes, even when he concedes on major points, gets no support. They still attack him for being a communist, muslim, or even illegitimate. Also, I find it funny how nobody from the GOP will come out and openly disavow the small fringe group, maybe because it's the foundation of their platform? I came across a poll, that if I remember correctly asked the question to teabaggers; 'do you think obama is either a communist/muslim/foreigner.' The results were 46% yes.

The white establishment, parts of it at least, see the changing demographics. It scares them, and hence, the reactionary teabaggers.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Tea-Party incomes:

20 percent reported family incomes of over $100,000.

68 percent have incomes of $50,000 or more.

70% said that they are financially secure.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Despite what the corporate media says and attempts to do about the Tea Party, the reality is that they simply won't tell the truth. These people arent really motivated by the 'economy' or any current affairs. Actually, what the NYTimes took from this poll is that they are driven by ideology, not economics or current affairs. Just the fact that most are affluent and only about 6% have had unemployment demonstrated that it is not direct economic hardships driving this, as you pointed out.

[Jacobinist]

Actually, what the NYTimes took from this poll is that they are driven by ideology, not economics or current affairs. Just the fact that most are affluent and only about 6% have had unemployment demonstrated that it is not direct economic hardships driving this, as you pointed out.

For sure, but what Im saying is that those people are neither driven by ideology nor the economy. They are driven by white resentment, being inflammed by having an illegitimate, muslim-communist president.