Who are Tea Party Activitist, really?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Coincidentally, I heard Rassmussen interviewed as I was on a long drive this morning. He made the point, and its alluded to in this post, that while in-roads are being made in Repub primaries with Tea Party candidates, there is also an effort towards making in-roads on the Democrat side. This suggests that the "populist" message of the Tea Party is resonating with moderate Dems.

Funny, while reading this thread and the interview with Right Wing pollster Rassmussen and Fox political analyst Schoen that the Tea Party's influence and philosophical leanings were a conspicuously Right Wing/Republican phenomenon. Their rhetoric is as anti-Left, anti-Democratic as it is anti-government, more so really.

Can you point me in the direction of a single Tea Partier who even attempted to gain nomination on the Democratic ticket anywhere?

John

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Funny, while reading this thread and the interview with Right Wing pollster Rassmussen and Fox political analyst Schoen that the Tea Party's influence and philosophical leanings were a conspicuously Right Wing/Republican phenomenon. There rhetoric is as anti-Left, anti-Democratic as it is anti-government, more so really.

Can you point me in the direction of a single Tea Partier who even attempted to gain nomination on the Democratic ticket anywhere?

John

Oh, that evil Fox News again. Are you trying to distance yourself from Schoen, even though he was instrumental in successfully re-directing Clinton's '96 re-election campaign, and is a well credentialed Democratic pollster and strategist?

On your question, you know that's not what I posted, nor how I quoted Rasmussen. I'm not continuing to play this game with you.

[finnbow]

...there is also an effort towards making in-roads on the Democrat side. This suggests that the "populist" message of the Tea Party is resonating with moderate Dems.

I think it's fair to say that some of the "leaders" of the Tea Party (oxymoron alert) would like to build a broader coalition, as does everyone in politics. Also, it's fair to say that there are many Democrats fed up with the political status quo. The question remains whether these two factors will actually result in Democrats getting on board with the Tea Party. I'm doubtful, but the GOP does not have a monopoly on knuckleheads.

I'm generally sympathetic with their primary argument that the reach of government has gotten too large. My problem is that they have absolutely no agenda to address even this primary argument, much less anything else.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I think it's fair to say that some of the "leaders" of the Tea Party (oxymoron alert) would like to build a broader coalition, as does everyone in politics. Also, it's fair to say that there are many Democrats fed up with the political status quo. The question remains whether these two factors will actually result in Democrats getting on board with the Tea Party. I'm doubtful, but the GOP does not have a monopoly on knuckleheads.

I suspect that some current Blue Dogs might find that some of their agenda meshes with the Tea Party types. Where there's money and votes to be gained, there you may find a politician, whatever their party affiliation.

Lest we thing the Rasmussen / Shoen findings are a fluke, here are some indicators from earlier this year:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...rty-obama.html

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I'm generally sympathetic with their primary argument that the reach of government has gotten too large. My problem is that they have absolutely no agenda to address even this primary argument, much less anything else.

I don't know that the Tea Party folks generally go in for strategy, for better or worse. They've tended to find candidates whose platform they support, and then they go all in for those candidates.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I don't know that the Tea Party folks generally go in for strategy, for better or worse. They've tended to find candidates whose platform they support, and then they go all in for those candidates.

Maybe so. But the candidates they support also seem pretty clueless with respect to a cogent agenda to address their primary complaint (big government) - the blind leading the blind, as it were.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Oh, that evil Fox News again. Are you trying to distance yourself from Schoen, even though he was instrumental in successfully re-directing Clinton's '96 re-election campaign, and is a well credentialed Democratic pollster and strategist?

Two words for you, Whell: Dick Morris. Okay, two more: David Gergen

On your question, you know that's not what I posted, nor how I quoted Rasmussen. I'm not continuing to play this game with you.

Given our past exchanges, I'm pretty sure you won't buy this but I wasn't putting words in your mouth and my question wasn't really directed at you. Substituting "anyone" for "you" would have more accurately conveyed my intent. So, sorry.

I was challenging the honesty of the Rassmussen/Schoen survey on the assertion that the Tea Party was making inroads in the Democratic Party.

John

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

I suspect that some current Blue Dogs might find that some of their agenda meshes with the Tea Party types. Where there's money and votes to be gained, there you may find a politician, whatever their party affiliation.

Lest we thing the Rasmussen / Shoen findings are a fluke, here are some indicators from earlier this year:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...rty-obama.html

It all depends on how you ask the question. Other polling information shows that over 80% of tea party activists lean republican, while only 13% lean democratic. I'm not aware of a single candidate for national office who identified himself or herself as a tea party activist and ran in a democratic primary.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

before, and it's a rejection of both political parties.

We saw the same thing accelerate in 2006, 2008, and 2010. All three cycles, voters were voting against whoever is in charge. I tend to look at their actions as enormously consistent rather than flipping from one party to another. They are simply saying, "We don't like the way things are going, and we want to take down whoever is in charge."

XXX

Therefore, this isn't about Obama. Its not about Republicans or Democrats, per se. Its about power, and who controls it, and how its used. Those who might align with the Tea Party, if polling is correct, are saying that those in power, whomever they may be, aren't listening to those who elected them.

Coincidentally, I heard Rassmussen interviewed as I was on a long drive this morning. He made the point, and its alluded to in this post, that while in-roads are being made in Repub primaries with Tea Party candidates, there is also an effort towards making in-roads on the Democrat side. This suggests that the "populist" message of the Tea Party is resonating with moderate Dems.

I can see that, and believe there is much truth in it. The Tea Partiers I know do feel disenfranchised and ignored by political leaders in general. Problem is, the Tea Partiers that I know personally are people who SHOULD be ignored and marginalized, IMO.

Dave

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

I think this, and subsequent posts, miss the point. Here's the quote that really got me:

Is this a new phenomenon?
RASMUSSEN: This is clearly a different version of a phenomenon that has been seen throughout American history. The nation was founded with basic instincts that are distrustful of concentrations of power, whether that power is in corporate hands or in government hands. You can't read through the Federalist Papers without seeing some echoes to what we're seeing in the tea-party movement today.

I do think the current version has very strong ties to the Ross Perot era. Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, and the majority of Democrats in Congress lost control of Congress. George W. Bush came in, and he lost control of Congress. That's never happened in back-to-back administrations before, and it's a rejection of both political parties.

We saw the same thing accelerate in 2006, 2008, and 2010. All three cycles, voters were voting against whoever is in charge. I tend to look at their actions as enormously consistent rather than flipping from one party to another. They are simply saying, "We don't like the way things are going, and we want to take down whoever is in charge."

XXX

Therefore, this isn't about Obama. Its not about Republicans or Democrats, per se. Its about power, and who controls it, and how its used. Those who might align with the Tea Party, if polling is correct, are saying that those in power, whomever they may be, aren't listening to those who elected them.

Coincidentally, I heard Rassmussen interviewed as I was on a long drive this morning. He made the point, and its alluded to in this post, that while in-roads are being made in Repub primaries with Tea Party candidates, there is also an effort towards making in-roads on the Democrat side. This suggests that the "populist" message of the Tea Party is resonating with moderate Dems.

Just because it is published does not make it fact and this article is all about the conclusion drawn by it's author.