I think the people who identify with "Tea Party" in polls are a larger demographic than those who show up AT some of the events.

I think a lot of Tea Partiers are libertarians that are upset with where things went under the Republican rule - you know, namely in the "larger debt" direction - but aren't about to embrace the Democrats with their traditional "welfare state."

And you must also remember the Tea Partiers who get coverage are often the dumber, more outrageous ones, and for the same reason that the 10,000 who turn out to a Tea Party get way more attention than 10,000 who turn out for immigration reform. Immigration reform bring out opinions that's germane, consistent, well-informed and "boring."

Tea Parties are often hilarious. It's like Keystone Kops: Political Edition. So yeah, the cherry-picking is to blame (though without the cherry-picking, I doubt the Tea Party would get much coverage).

That's the problem: well-educated doesn't always sound intelligent to most people.

A lot of those hyuck-hyuck ranchers out in Texas are sitting on millions of dollars and MBAs from east coast schools.

(Whoops. Don't mistake me for accusing you of cherry-picking, Eli. I'm just not surprised most "average" Tea Partiers who choose to respond to pollsters are wealthier and more educated than the people that a camera runs into a given event might seem.)

Eli, I think the overwhelming majority of Tea Party members wouldn't go near events like that Yakima thing with a ten foot pole.

from my reading of their dregs;
after having the astoturf pulled out from under them, the tea party is quickly running out of steam.

@1: Then it seems they would have an irreconcilable public image crisis.

If in essence this is another face of Libertarians, then I really have little to worry about. I remember Perot and where that went. At the time, I had friends my age (late teens) who were ardent Perot supporters, and it never made sense to me why (except for that bit that they were far wealthier than my own roots).

Separately, I've also been pretty good chums with Libertarian, educated, and (yes) white folk who've even run for major office seats as Libertarians. They were formally educated, but I never really sensed they were the most empathetic people to carry on a discussion, politics aside. And really, while the fevered pitch of press coverage for Tea Partiers is at a peak these days, it seems highly doubtful that the momentum can continue with steadiness, just as the momentum to push the Green Party of the U.S. a decade ago eventually lost cohesion.

Call a spade a spade, but I don't think that's going to be the thing that dissolves this momentum. Where race is concerned, I sense that people will eventually hang themselves in their local communities and in the press when they slip and pull some Tea Party "macaca moment" or equivalent.

@2: Indeed!

@7: Yeah, good points. Also, Eli was in Yakima. I'm just sayin' I think polls pick up a different demographic that we less often see out on the streets via TV, as Fnarf points out.

@8: Yeah, there's that too. But some libertarians are actually principled, and we shouldn't so easily dismiss those principles, in my view.

Also, I can't wait until some idiot like Alleged gets a hold of this gem: "Most ... do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, and, despite their push for smaller government, think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost." That'll be great to watch.

Obama is a self-made man from a middle-class, at best, background. No dad, wierd mom, didn't look anything like his grandparents or most people he went to school with. He earned everything he got through hard work, self-discipline and intelligence.

How the fuck is that "not sharing the values Americans live by"? He makes me feel like a wworthless slacker.

Just because you've got a college degree doesn't mean you know fuck all. It's quite easy to get a technical degree (this includes a Medical degree), take mickey courses that meet your non-major requirements (history of film, human sexuality), and graduate knowing jack shit about humanities, philosophy, history, or basic human decency.

Too lazy to read the link, but do these sages also comment on whether they value government functions like clean water, safe workplaces, driveable roads, etc?

Dude, they PHONED them.

Think about it.

Landline people tend to have money.

And be pricks.

@4 for the Move To Somalia You America-Hating Tea Bagger win.

Wait, let me get this straight... They polled, i.e. asked some questions of tea baggers, and they didn't just admit to being racist loons? Im' stunned by this. So i guess we can just ignore their racist slogans and signs at their rallies now since thats not "really" what they're about.

Amazing work New York Times!

despite their push for smaller government, think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost.

...and this is exactly why I can't stand the Tea Party folks when they yammer on about "Obamacare". If they had an ounce of intellectual consistency, they'd be pushing for ending Medicare in addition to opposing health care reform. They won't, as that would be self-defeating, both financially (for most of them) and politically.

@16: Some are. But it's really only the less-informed, Fox News talking points-fed people you see complaining about Medicare cuts and government takeovers in the same breath.

Many more are principled conservatives want to see "comprehensive entitlement reform" that eliminates/privatizes Medicare for the people who don't currently have it (ie. Paul Ryan) instead of a universal coverage plan ala health care reform. This is a position I respect much more greatly than "keep the government's hands off my Medicare!"

Others are just Medicare recipients who could care less about the rest of us so long as their entitlement doesn't get cut. That's less intellectually consistent. But among them are people that don't really mind a government takeover, they're just terrified they'll lose their Medicare now that the bill passed. Most of them will probably change their minds on the bill when their Medicare stays the same, so I'm not really sure how much of the "Tea Party" that really represents.

Just when you thought the Teabaggers couldn't get more ridiculous: A grass-roots movement (instigated, funded, and controlled directly by Fox News) wants smaller government (and more Medicare) calling for violence against a center-left middle-class self-made president (and there's nothing racist about it nuh uh no way, they just think he's a Kenyan Muslim in spite of all the evidence to the contrary) made up of the well-educated and well-off (who can't spell).

--can't spell, can't tell the difference between Fascism and Socialism, don't understand that the current administration and Congress has a legitimate mandate, but their still somehow well-educated and well-off...

...Surely their Stupid has to be approaching critical mass?

Please?
Please God?
Tell me it's so?

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-par…

"Tuesday's Tea Party crowd, however, thought that federal taxes were almost three times as high as they actually are. The average response was 42% of GDP and the median 40%. The highest figure recorded in all of American history was half those figures: 20.9% at the peak of World War II in 1944."

If you define "Tea Bagger" as someone who has actually participated in a "Tea Party" protest, you'd get an entirely different demographic picture than this.

Look. I've watched many clips, videos and interviews over the last few months, with tea baggers, and before I would ever concede they are "more well-educated" than the general public, I'd want to see their College Degrees first.

People do lie, over the phone, as well, you know. Even when taking a poll. My guess is they're tired of being portrayed as uneducated, so they inflate that aspect of the polling. If I wanted the person taking a poll to think I was smart enough to know the "whys" of what I'm doing, I could tell them I have my PhD too. Boy, then wouldn't the poll numbers look impressive.

As my proof, I'd say most people with a higher education are less racist. The percentages just don't fit the profile.

@23 because there's a difference between thinly veiled white nationalism and the kind of reasoned, "legitimate dissent" you're talking about.

@23 because there's a difference between thinly veiled white nationalism and the kind of reasoned "legitimate dissent" you're talking about.

White male entitlement worried that it's going to lose its position of privilege?

Oh my, that doesn't sound plausible to me at all.

The teabaggers are lunatics, but they're the public face. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there's a bit of a silent partnership behind the scenes, providing the money.

@23 Hyperbole and exaggeration do not qualify as "legitimate dissent". Hyperbole and exaggeration have plainly shown themselves to be the cornerstones of Tea Party ideology.

@23: I don't really have a problem with their dissent. But I can disagree with it, can I not?

The country is moving back in a positive direction, in my viewpoint. When it was moving in a negative direction, I was "dissenting."

So yeah. No one is impeaching anyone's right to dissent. But that's totally different from responding to viewpoints you disagree with, even if those viewpoints happen to be "dissenting" ones.

@29: I dunno about that. I think this depends a little bit on what how one defines "legitimate."

That being said, we can safely identify hyperbole and exaggeration as "stupid." I tend to disagree with stupid dissent, though I might acknowledge it too has a place in our free exchange of ideas.

If nothing else, it's there to be totally hilarious.