Tea Party Tops GOP on Three-Way Generic Ballot

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Excellent. The birth of a new party mayhaps?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2009/tea_party_tops_gop_on_three_way_generic_ballot

Tea Party Tops GOP on Three-Way Generic Ballot
Monday, December 07, 2009 Email to a Friend ShareThisAdvertisement
Running under the Tea Party brand may be better in congressional races than being a Republican.

In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.

Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the Tea Party comes out on top. Thirty-three percent (33%) prefer the Tea Party candidate, and 30% are undecided. Twenty-five percent (25%) would vote for a Democrat, and just 12% prefer the GOP.

Among Republican voters, 39% say they’d vote for the GOP candidate, but 33% favor the Tea Party option.

For this survey, the respondents were asked to assume that the Tea Party movement organized as a new political party. In practical terms, it is unlikely that a true third-party option would perform as well as the polling data indicates. The rules of the election process—written by Republicans and Democrats--provide substantial advantages for the two established major parties. The more conventional route in the United States is for a potential third-party force to overtake one of the existing parties.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The standard Generic Congressional Ballot shows Republicans holding a modest lead over Democrats. It appears that the policies of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress are currently enough to unite both those who prefer Republicans and those who prefer the Tea Party route.

Data from the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that just 55% of conservatives nationwide consider themselves Republicans. Recent polling shows that 73% of Republican voters believe their leaders in Washington are out of touch with the party base.

Republican voters are paying a lot more attention to the Tea Party movement than anyone else. Forty-three percent (43%) of GOP voters are following news about the movement Very Closely. Another 30% are following it Somewhat Closely. Just 12% of Democrats are following stories about the Tea Party movement Very Closely.

Seventy percent (70%) of Republican voters have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party movement while only seven percent (7%) offer an unfavorable view. Interestingly, 49% of Democrats have no opinion one way or the other.

Among unaffiliated voters, 43% have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party efforts while 20% say the opposite.

Forty-one percent (41%) of all voters nationwide say Republicans and Democrats are so much alike that a new party is needed to represent the American people. Republicans are evenly divided on this question, while Democrats overwhelmingly disagree. However, among those not affiliated with either major party, 60% agree that a new party is needed, and only 25% disagree. Men are far more likely than women to believe a new party is needed.

As for the voting preference, the Tea Party bests the GOP among both men and women and in all age groups except those over 65.

The Tea Party candidates are the first choice among political conservatives. Among moderates, the Tea Party candidates are more popular than Republicans. However, nearly half of all moderate voters prefer a Democrat.

Among the Political Class, not a single respondent picked the Tea Party candidate.

However, among those with populist or Mainstream views, 31% prefer the Tea Party, and 26% are undecided. Twenty-three percent (23%) pick a Republican candidate, and 19% are for the Democrat (See more on the Political Class-Mainstream divide).

**Mannahnin**

Well, if that were happen, and still be alive in 2012, you might wind up with a 2000 Nader/Green Party effect. Could give Obama a considerably easier time.

**Tyyr**

In the last two decades I've come to royally despise the two party system.

**JohnHwangDD**

And that's why the two parties do anything possible to quash 3rd parties.

**Mannahnin**

Well, some of that is fair game. Other stuff, like the Commission on Presidential Debates replacement of the League of Women Voters' organization of the Presidential Debates, is pretty shady on both sides.

**ShumaGorath**

So, the tea party party is composed entirely of idiots? I mean, if it's anything like the tea party protests themselves it will be directionless, sheepish, hateful, ignorant, and reactionary. The tea parties are just fox news' puppet protests so they have populist controversy to cover, but they don't actually base themselves in any common stance, and what's there is largely illogical and hateful.

It would be nice if the conservatives split away from their neo extremist fringe and let it just kill itself, possibly damaging fox news in the process.

**Kilkrazy**

What does the Tea Party stand for? I mean, what is its platform?

**ShumaGorath**

Kilkrazy wrote:What does the Tea Party stand for? I mean, what is its platform?

It doesn't have one. The tea parties are just "Come on out and voice your disapproval of the liberals in government" protests, they were funded and created by conservative demagogues on Fox, then largely covered and praised by those same people. Any party based in those movements can't actually have a common stance, as their only stance is "Liberals suck".

**Tyyr**

The Democrats ran on a "Bush sucks," platform in two elections and it got Obama elected.

**ShumaGorath**

Tyyr wrote:The Democrats ran on a "Bush sucks," platform in two elections and it got Obama elected.

Actually two quagmired wars, a demolished economic state, brutally lessoned freedoms, constant constitutional abuses, hundreds of diplomatic failures, and clear corruption in the VP office got Obama elected. The bush platform worked because Bush actually sucked, and every political platform is based on the fact that it's opposing platform sucks. Thats how politics works. The tea parties just have no platform beyond liberals suck.

**JEB_Stuart**

Kilkrazy wrote:What does the Tea Party stand for? I mean, what is its platform?

Essentially they are a single issue movement: lower government spending. It is made up of fiscal conservatives, not necessarily social conservatives. Kind of like UKIP, but minus the independence part.

ShumaGorath wrote:It doesn't have one. The tea parties are just "Come on out and voice your disapproval of the liberals in government" protests, they were funded and created by conservative demagogues on Fox, then largely covered and praised by those same people. Any party based in those movements can't actually have a common stance, as their only stance is "Liberals suck".

Ladies and Gentlemen I present to you tolerance in its finest form!

**dogma**

JEB_Stuart wrote:Essentially they are a single issue movement: lower government spending. It is made up of fiscal conservatives, not necessarily social conservatives. Kind of like UKIP, but minus the independence part.

I seem to remember one of the 'leaders' of the movement stating that they were an anti-government organization. He may have meant that they're an anti-government spending organization, but I'm not certain of that; especially since the three most prominent desires seem to be "stop spending", "reduce the deficit/debt", and "lower taxes". I tend to agree with Shuma in that I believe its more of a movement centered on general outrage, though that outrage isn't really directed at the Democrats so much as its directed at Washington.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:It doesn't have one. The tea parties are just "Come on out and voice your disapproval of the liberals in government" protests, they were funded and created by conservative demagogues on Fox, then largely covered and praised by those same people. Any party based in those movements can't actually have a common stance, as their only stance is "Liberals suck".
Ladies and Gentlemen I present to you tolerance in its finest form!

That's not intolerance. The statement would have been intolerant if he had said "All Tea Party protesters should be beaten." or something similar. It isn't intolerant to give phrase to a negative opinion about someone, or something. If it were, then 'tolerance' would be defined by a combination of support, and outward indifference.

**Orkeosaurus**

I try to stay away from the concept of "tolerance" and "intolerance" completely.

They've become too buzzwordy.

**JEB_Stuart**

dogma wrote:I seem to remember one of the 'leaders' of the movement stating that they were an anti-government organization. He may have meant that they're an anti-government spending organization, but I'm not certain of that; especially since the three most prominent desires seem to be "stop spending", "reduce the deficit/debt", and "lower taxes". I tend to agree with Shuma in that I believe its more of a movement centered on general outrage, though that outrage isn't really directed at the Democrats so much as its directed at Washington.

I attended a few rallies for a journalism course I was taking, and all of them were just outraged over government spending. I don't think anyone was actually advocating the overthrow of the US government....

dogma wrote:That's not intolerance. The statement would have been intolerant if he had said "All Tea Party protesters should be beaten." or something similar. It isn't intolerant to give phrase to a negative opinion about someone, or something. If it were, then 'tolerance' would be defined by a combination of support, and outward indifference.

Wrong quote, my mistake. I meant to quote the one calling everyone idiots and the like. I may not agree with everyone, and I certainly don't agree with many facets of the modern Republican or Democratic parties, but I don't generally refer to them as idiots. There is something to be said about civility. Leadership however should know better, and are deserved on the criticism they get...

**Frazzled**

**dogma**

JEB_Stuart wrote:I attended a few rallies for a journalism course I was taking, and all of them were just outraged over government spending. I don't think anyone was actually advocating the overthrow of the US government....

I did't mean anti-government in the sense of outright revolution. I meant it more in terms of government size, which isn't really the same thing as government spending.

Yeah, pretty much what the statement of principles Fraz posted implies. All in all their position isn't ridiculous, though a lot of what they're asking for is nonsensical when considered together (you want spending, and taxes to drop, but also want the debt to shrink?).

**JEB_Stuart**

But the two are definitely related. You can't have a bigger government without higher spending and so on. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

**dogma**

That depends on how the spending is directed. If we turned into a police state we could probably cut the federal budget by about 1/3. Don't really need entitlements when the military puts down any unrest.

**JEB_Stuart**

True, but lets try and keep this within Constitutional bounds.

**dogma**

Federal funding to the police is within Constitutional bounds (I shouldn't have used the word military). There are plenty of neat little tricks that enable us to get around that document. Indeed, a lot of the people that advocate strict construction (and therefore the elimination of welfare) are also tough on crime as a way to account for the inevitable increase.

**JEB_Stuart**

Granted, but that brings us to the whole complex/nonsensical sphere of Federal/State/Local government relations. I was merely asking for staying within Constitutional grounds for the sake of discussion.

**ShumaGorath**

I'm not sure if I've been seeing the same Tea party protests that everyone has been then, if their stance is somehow now "lower government spending", rather than "Stop the socialist healthcare movement" and "decry bailouts". I suppose insofar as both of those are technically anti government spending, then it makes sense, but neither movement is particularly healthy for the country as one clearly refuses to actually come to the terms with the problem of rapidly escalating healthcare costs, and the other seems blind to the concept of a run on global banks.

1) All forms of government must abide by the boundaries set forth in state and federal constitutions.

Makes sense, I've never really seen the tea parties shown in a constitutionalist light though, and this ones entirely new to me as a stance that they somehow now advocate.

2) All pork and earmarks in the stimulus, omnibus bills, and bailouts must be reversed and repealed. The national budget must be balanced. Spending cuts, not increased taxation should be used to balance the budget.

This one doesn't seem to be particularly well though out considering that spending cuts during recession cause job losses, which causes the recession to deepen, thus increasing the national debt (though decreasing foreign debt through lowered currency value). Again, this seems more like an ignorant complaint guided by conservatives on Fox then it does a well formed basis for a movement. As for removing pork, good luck. No president in history has managed to avoid it, and most dictators are swimming in it, thats not a political stance.

3) Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness implies personal responsibility, not handouts, free-enterprise and capitalism, not government controlled economies. Some people choose to be irresponsible (and of course some fall on hard times due to circumstances), but it is not the responsibility of the general public, vis-a-vis government intervention, to guarantee or bailout irresponsibility and failure. Private individuals and organizations give out of compassion and generosity, not compulsion through taxation. laws, and pork barrel projects.

This, much like number 3 doesn't seem to come to terms with how global economies work. Laissez faire economies don't work. They never have. The entire history of trade and business and global economics is predicated on the fact that guild labor brought about a conspiracy against the public within business. Expecting companies to provide compassion for their workers, without requiring it, is like asking a hungry dog not to eat a slab of meat on the ground, but just watching it quietly. Exploitation in the third world should tell you immediately that this isn't a particularly good plan, and the globalized business doesn't exactly care about it's workers health at all levels, and a quick history lesson in the industrial revolution should tell you that it never did.

4) ALL elected and appointed officials are under the employment and serve at the will of We the People.

I hate it when people say "they like music". This is basically the political stance version of "I like music".

5) Excessive tax burdens kill prosperity.

Correct, now define excessive, because the tea party members have never lived in a country that had "excessive tax burdens".

6) Excessive national debt is generational theft, and stealing the future of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

No one ever said that the tea party memebers were economists, and since they haven't decided to define what "excessive" means this ends up being "I like music" all over again.

7) Neither major political party is "clean" on these issues. Both Democrats and Republicans have taxed excessively and neither have restrained the hand of government effectively. There are certainly individual representatives who have been faithful to their constituents and to the Constitution. However, too many are engaged in protecting their congressional positions and turf. The majority of government officials have insulated themselves from the people they serve, and hold themselves above the law. We are simply saying, "No, you aren't above the law".

Yeah, thats exactly what they're doing.

8 ) The American public at large is ignorant of the purpose of government, the founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers. As a result, they allow politicians to sell them false hope and "rights" and "entitlements" that are not guaranteed by the Constitution. By educating the American people on the foundations of our history, we hope to bring sanity to the election and legislative processes.

Considering how little they understand any form of economics this one seems pretty Ironic.

9) As a group, we are appalled at the audaciousness and arrogance of our government in the last few years, particularly the proposals and bills passed in the last few months, despite massive public disapproval.

Like I said, they are founded on nothing. Bunk populist economics (total deregulation? Really? After lax regulation caused the failure that brought this group about?), bunk anti corruption policies (Pork is bad! Using the power of our big signs we can stop all forms of graft in governmental spending policies that we don't understand!), and a bunk populist sentiment about the quality of governance in the last few years also predicated entirely on a backwards and dysfunctional view of economics cultured by glenn beck.

That's not intolerance. The statement would have been intolerant if he had said "All Tea Party protesters should be beaten." or something similar. It isn't intolerant to give phrase to a negative opinion about someone, or something. If it were, then 'tolerance' would be defined by a combination of support, and outward indifference.

All Tea party protestors should be beaten. I don't believe the government should do it, that would be wrong, and I don't believe that the people should do it, as that would be mass chaos and violence. They just deserve to be beaten. I guess I'll have to just imagine it really hard.

**Frazzled**

All right, now that we have the Democratic talking points out of the way, can someone proffer the Republican talking points for better hallway vision?

**Ahtman**

I remember wandering around one when I got locked out of the house. I observed the following:

1. Lots of conspiracy books being sold
2. Lots of undercover police
3. Neo-nazis - it was about 8~10 out of 800 people or so
4. Lots of Jesus = America rhetoric
5. I would say lots of white people, but it was pretty much only white people.

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:I remember wandering around one when I got locked out of the house. I observed the following:

1. Lots of conspiracy books being sold
2. Lots of undercover police
3. Neo-nazis - it was about 8~10 out of 800 people or so
4. Lots of Jesus = America rhetoric
5. I would say lots of white people, but it was pretty much only white people.

Don't forget the occasional seccesionist and politician trying to get in with the group.

**JEB_Stuart**

@Dogma: Does his response qualify now?

**Ahtman**

Frazzled wrote:
Ahtman wrote:I remember wandering around one when I got locked out of the house. I observed the following:

1. Lots of conspiracy books being sold
2. Lots of undercover police
3. Neo-nazis - it was about 8~10 out of 800 people or so
4. Lots of Jesus = America rhetoric
5. I would say lots of white people, but it was pretty much only white people.

Don't forget the occasional seccesionist and politician trying to get in with the group.

I have no doubt, that is just what I remember. Mostly it was just frustrated but well meaning people, it is just that neo-nazis stick out more.

**Frazzled**

Seccessionist may be a local thing.

**JEB_Stuart**

Dude Fraz, its Texas. What do you expect?

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:All right, now that we have the Democratic talking points out of the way, can someone proffer the Republican talking points for better hallway vision?

I quoted the republican talking points.

@Dogma: Does his response qualify now?

I hope so.