my connection with the tea party

[Occhidiangela]

My Mom moved to Houston, so some day when I'm down that way I'll take you up on it for *real*.

Yes, we will link up.

Within the next year?

Occhi

[kandrathe]

This tea party, so I read, is mainly backed by a group of billionaires..... they just try to have the ignorant masses work for them for a while and when the economy goes really down the drain the probably emigrate to the Caribbean or so.

I think that is just a tactic oppositions use to try to marginalize a group. By pinning an ideological movement on "a hateful wierdo with money", who finances some PAC or SuperPac, and a bunch of 527 organizations who pump money into attack ads. Whether it's George Soros, or David Koch, they are using their "influence" to affect the outcome. They might not have the compelling voice personally, but they are willing to fund the ones who can be compelling.

All progressives are not held sway by Soros. All Tea partiers are not driven by the Kochs, or Dick Armey. And, libertarians are not all that organized and seem to be lacking in a "sugar daddy", although David Koch is a very wealthy libertarian.

Yeah, the Republican, Tea Party, Libertarian mish-mash needs to be sorted out someday. Some Tea Partiers are Republicans, Democrats and some are Libertarians. But, not all Republicans, or Libertarians are Tea Partiers. But, then again, not all Democrats are progressives, but it's a hefty majority these days. Many of the conservative democrats migrated to Republicans during the heady "big tent" of 1999 and the growth of the big government "compassionate conservatives".

The trouble with a Tea Party, or a Libertarian party is that it tends to create more of a 40% Democrat, 30% Republican, 30% other split. So, unless the third party movement can field a very popular candidate, they will end up with a Democrat which is more distasteful than the Republican.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Anyone for a Guinness while I can still afford a few?

Welcome back.

... progressives ... Tea partiers ... libertarians ... Republican ... Democrats ... conservative ...

One of the things I never liked about the Algol programming language was all those damned labels.

--Pete

[Zenda]

The trouble with a Tea Party, or a Libertarian party is that it tends to create more of a 40% Democrat, 30% Republican, 30% other split.

Where did you get your numbers? That 40% seems awfully high, considering that in 2010 only 31% of all Americans viewed themselves as Democratic.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145463/Democr...r-Low.aspx

According to the Washinton Post, polls range from 4% to 15% of tea partyers being Democrat.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/t...story.html

[kandrathe]

The trouble with a Tea Party, or a Libertarian party is that it tends to create more of a 40% Democrat, 30% Republican, 30% other split.

Where did you get your numbers? That 40% seems awfully high, considering that in 2010 only 31% of all Americans viewed themselves as Democratic.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145463/Democr...r-Low.aspx

According to the Washinton Post, polls range from 4% to 15% of tea partyers being Democrat.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/t...story.html

With these statistics being somewhat variable over time and elections, I was generalizing. If anything, the more recent trends are that the 40% are between the 30% more extremes.

[eppie]

I leave for a few months, and come back to the same conversation, all over again.

Anyone for a Guinness while I can still afford a few?

Glad to see you support the Irish economy.

[kandrathe]

Hi,

Anyone for a Guinness while I can still afford a few?

Welcome back.

... progressives ... Tea partiers ... libertarians ... Republican ... Democrats ... conservative ...

One of the things I never liked about the Algol programming language was all those damned labels.

--Pete

Yeah, it's getting as bad as protestantism.

Which reminds me of that joke,

A man was standing off the edge of the Sydney Harbor Bridge, about to jump. A passer-by stopped to attempt to talk him down, and he asked, "Stranger, are you a Christian?" to which the man answered "Yes."

The passerby exclaimed, "That is great, me too! What kind of Christian are you? Are you Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant?" The man answered, "I'm a Protestant."

The passerby exclaimed "Me too; what kind of Protestant? Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Pentecostal?" The jumper replied, "I'm a Pentacostal."

The passerby excitedly exclaimed, "Me too! Are you an initial evidence or a third wave Pentecostal?" And the man replied, "I'm more initial evidence."

Becoming very excited, the passerby almost shouted "Me too! What kind of initial evidence? Are you a AOG, CRC, COC, CCC?" To which the man replied, "I'm AOG."

Now, the passerby being ecstatic exclaimed, "Me too! Are you Premillenial, Post Millenial or Amillenial?" The guy on the bridge then replied, "I'm Amillenial"

Suddenly, the passer-by, became very angry, and screamed: "Die, you heretic scum!" then shoved the guy off the bridge.

[eppie]

Which reminds me of that joke,

It's funny because it's true.

[Jester]

The trouble with a Tea Party, or a Libertarian party is that it tends to create more of a 40% Democrat, 30% Republican, 30% other split.

Where did you get your numbers? That 40% seems awfully high, considering that in 2010 only 31% of all Americans viewed themselves as Democratic.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145463/Democr...r-Low.aspx

According to the Washinton Post, polls range from 4% to 15% of tea partyers being Democrat.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/t...story.html

If I understand correctly, he wasn't saying 40% of Tea Partiers are Democrats, but that the introduction of a third party creates an electoral split of 40/30/30, which means the Dems win almost everywhere.

-Jester

[Zenda]

If I understand correctly, he wasn't saying 40% of Tea Partiers are Democrats, but that the introduction of a third party creates an electoral split of 40/30/30, which means the Dems win almost everywhere.

If that's the case, don't you think Kandrathe would have told me so, instead of giving that rather vague reply?

[kandrathe]

If I understand correctly, he wasn't saying 40% of Tea Partiers are Democrats, but that the introduction of a third party creates an electoral split of 40/30/30, which means the Dems win almost everywhere.

If that's the case, don't you think Kandrathe would have told me so, instead of giving that rather vague reply?

That was the case.

[Zenda]

That was the case.

I see. It was just a side-track then, when you stated that "Some Tea Partiers are Republicans, Democrats and some are Libertarians".

So, your answer to Eppie's claim ("This tea party, so I read, is mainly backed by a group of billionaires"), is that the existance of a Tea Party makes for more Democratic voters? Is that meant as insinuation that the Democrats might be funding the Tea Party to get more votes?

As it happens, Democratic support has been dropping since around 2008 (see my earlier Gallup link).

[kandrathe]

I see. It was just a side-track then, when you stated that "Some Tea Partiers are Republicans, Democrats and some are Libertarians".

It was just a statement, that the Tea party is diverse and not a subset of Republicans.

So, your answer to Eppie's claim ("This tea party, so I read, is mainly backed by a group of billionaires"), is that the existence of a Tea Party makes for more Democratic voters?

The existence of the tea party enables the Democrats to hold a majority since the TP platform(fiscal conservative, stricter Constitutional interpretation, small government, and anti-war) attracts away more Republican voters, than Democrat voters.

Is that meant as insinuation that the Democrats might be funding the Tea Party to get more votes?

In some cases, I suspect its the Republicans who are trying to prevent the erosion of their base. They financed big tea party rallies, or bus tours, then threw their endorsements to Republicans which successfully derailed much of the tea party. The Republicans picked the rally issues where they overlapped, such as the deficit, tax reform, against Obamacare, etc. In many places they co-mingled TP'ers with Republicans until the pied piper Micheal Steele, led them off to the 2010 elections. But, enough TP candidates were elected to change the dialog in the House.

But, TP'ers are against special interest money, "big government" regulations, and fighting wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. I'd say Rand Paul is probably the quintessential TP representative.

As it happens, Democratic support has been dropping since around 2008 (see my earlier Gallup link).

That makes sense. Our politics are very polarized (bad and getting worse), so the tide of ill-informed, disgruntled voters blame the incumbents and vote for the party not in power. Obama's slogan of "Change" was one of eliminating Bush, who had been successfully demonized by democrats, and had ticked off many conservatives. People rally against the establishment, and vote in their candidate who now becomes the establishment. The next election cycle, they don't fully support their establishment tainted incumbent, who maybe wins a squeaker for re-election. So we've seen the political oscillation Kennedy/Johnson, Nixon/Ford, Carter, Reagan/Bush senior, Clinton, GWBush, and now Obama.

Now it's Obama's turn to be the demon, and he's being attacked by all sides for doing too much, and for doing too little.

[Jester]

It was just a statement, that the Tea party is diverse and not a subset of Republicans.

It might not be a strict subset of Republicans, but in practical terms, they can be thought of as right-wing Republicans without losing too much sleep. They are more Republican, ideologically speaking, than the average Republican.

Here's Gallup: Nearly 80% Republicans, three-quarters of whom are conservative Republicans. 6% are independents, and I think, given the overall breakdown, we can safely say those are mostly from the non-affiliated right.

Where the 15% or so that identify as Democrats come from, I can only guess they're either confused, or their party affiliation does not match their voting, like the old Dixiecrats, who vote right, but register as Democrats for historical reasons.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Where the 15% or so that identify as Democrats come from, I can only guess they're either confused, ...

I used to ask people what distinguished their religion from other, similar, religions. About 8 out of 10 had no idea. I suspect that 15% who identify as Democrat but consider themselves Tea Party are probably similar -- having no idea of what they believe, they have no idea of whom to identify with.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Hi,

Where the 15% or so that identify as Democrats come from, I can only guess they're either confused, ...

I used to ask people what distinguished their religion from other, similar, religions. About 8 out of 10 had no idea. I suspect that 15% who identify as Democrat but consider themselves Tea Party are probably similar -- having no idea of what they believe, they have no idea of whom to identify with.

--Pete

I suppose that would broadly apply to the electorate in general. My experience has been the same as yours. People haven't anchored their beliefs on anything tangible, but instead follow the crowd. They believe what they've been told, by parents, by friends, or by educators, but haven't learned or maybe bothered with finding out their own truths.

[Zenda]

It was just a statement, that the Tea party is diverse and not a subset of Republicans.

I'm not a fan of youtube, but at this point it would be a shame not to share this one: "As you can see, we are quite diverse."

[kandrathe]

I'm not a fan of youtube, but at this point it would be a shame not to share this one:

Hmmm, pretty insulting.

[Zenda]

You feel insulted by this? That's unfortunate, but frankly, eurotrash and idiots like me really think it's funny

[kandrathe]

You feel insulted by this? That's unfortunate, but frankly, eurotrash and idiots like me really think it's funny

I'm not personally insulted. I just find video's like that insulting, and low brow/crude [not] humor. It's just more poison for the toxic pool of public debate. Saul Alinsky, Rule 5 : "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

I don't call people names. I teach my children not to call people names, give people the benefit of doubt, and not to make assumptions about them without knowing them or more about their situation.

Someday, if I'm motivated enough, I'd like to write a book about "tribalism" where we humans seem to have a genetic trait for needing to differentiate ourselves from other groups of humans, and then engage in warfare with them. The genesis of brotherhood and peaceful coexistence on our planet is to choose to be tolerant and look beyond peoples differences, to accept that they can and will be different than you, and it's ok.

For example, some of my best, and life long friends are extremely leftist and radical (also weird ). You see, during HS and College, I was a thespian and participated actively in local theater and dance. One of my friends has been on the FBI's dangerous list since high school (30 years), where he engaged in political activism. We disagree on many things, but share much in common, and it's nice sometimes to have a friendly disagreement.