Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated

[alienlovechild 75]

Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.

They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as “very conservative” and President Obama as “very liberal.”

And while most Republicans say they are “dissatisfied” with Washington, Tea Party supporters are more likely to classify themselves as “angry.”

The Tea Party movement burst onto the scene a year ago in protest of the economic stimulus package, and its supporters have vowed to purge the Republican Party of officials they consider not sufficiently conservative and to block the Democratic agenda on the economy, the environment and health care. But the demographics and attitudes of those in the movement have been known largely anecdotally. The Times/CBS poll offers a detailed look at the profile and attitudes of those supporters.

Their responses are like the general public’s in many ways. Most describe the amount they paid in taxes this year as “fair.” Most send their children to public schools. A plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, and, despite their push for smaller government, they think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers. They actually are just as likely as Americans as a whole to have returned their census forms, though some conservative leaders have urged a boycott.

The overwhelming majority of supporters say Mr. Obama does not share the values most Americans live by and that he does not understand the problems of people like themselves. More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with 11 percent of the general public.

They are more likely than the general public, and Republicans, to say that too much has been made of the problems facing black people.

Asked what they are angry about, Tea Party supporters offered three main concerns: the recent health care overhaul, government spending and a feeling that their opinions are not represented in Washington.

They are far more pessimistic than Americans in general about the economy. More than 90 percent of Tea Party supporters think the country is headed in the wrong direction, compared with about 60 percent of the general public. About 6 in 10 say “America’s best years are behind us” when it comes to the availability of good jobs for American workers.

Nearly 9 in 10 disapprove of the job Mr. Obama is doing over all, and about the same percentage fault his handling of major issues: health care, the economy and the federal budget deficit. Ninety-two percent believe Mr. Obama is moving the country toward socialism, an opinion shared by more than half of the general public.

“I just feel he’s getting away from what America is,” said Kathy Mayhugh, 67, a retired medical transcriber in Jacksonville. “He’s a socialist. And to tell you the truth, I think he’s a Muslim and trying to head us in that direction, I don’t care what he says. He’s been in office over a year and can’t find a church to go to. That doesn’t say much for him.”

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted April 5 through April 12 with 1,580 adults. For the purposes of analysis, Tea Party supporters were oversampled, for a total of 881, and then weighted to their proper proportion in the poll. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for all adults and for Tea Party supporters.

Of the 18 percent of Americans who identified themselves as supporters, 20 percent, or 4 percent of the general public, said they had given money or attended a Tea Party event, or both. These activists were more likely than supporters generally to describe themselves as very conservative and had more negative views about the economy and Mr. Obama. They were more angry with Washington and intense in their desires for a smaller federal government and deficit.

Tea Party supporters over all are more likely than the general public to say their personal financial situation is fairly good or very good. But 55 percent are concerned that someone in their household will be out of a job in the next year. And more than two-thirds say the recession has been difficult or caused hardship and major life changes. Like most Americans, they think the most pressing problems facing the country today are the economy and jobs.

But while most Americans blame the Bush administration or Wall Street for the current state of the American economy, the greatest number of Tea Party supporters blame Congress.

They do not want a third party and say they usually or almost always vote Republican. The percentage holding a favorable opinion of former President George W. Bush, at 57 percent, almost exactly matches the percentage in the general public that holds an unfavorable view of him.

Yet while the Tea Party supporters are more conservative than Republicans on some social issues, they do not want to focus on those issues: about 8 in 10 say that they are more concerned with economic issues, as is the general public.

When talking about the Tea Party movement, the largest number of respondents said that the movement’s goal should be reducing the size of government, more than cutting the budget deficit or lowering taxes.

And nearly three-quarters of those who favor smaller government said they would prefer it even if it meant spending on domestic programs would be cut.

But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security — the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on “waste.”

Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

“I just feel he’s getting away from what America is,” said Kathy Mayhugh, 67, a retired medical transcriber in Jacksonville. “He’s a socialist. And to tell you the truth, I think he’s a Muslim and trying to head us in that direction, I don’t care what he says. He’s been in office over a year and can’t find a church to go to. That doesn’t say much for him.”

GFY, Kathy.

[Ali G. 37]

If there is any group I loathe and despise as much as liberal yanks it's Tea party clowns. Interestingly enough, both ideologies have extreme views that tend to ignore the realities of the 21st century or the world they live in.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

If there is any group I loathe and despise as much as liberal yanks it's Tea party clowns. Interestingly enough, both ideologies have extreme views that tend to ignore the realities of the 21st century or the world they live in.

Just remember that without those 'liberal yanks' you would still be living in a tree without fire...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Liberals invented fire? I though they hugged trees, not chop them up into firewood.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Liberals invented fire? I though they hugged trees, not chop them up into firewood.

fire was not invented, it was discovered and tamed...

[Ali G. 37]

Just remember that without those 'liberal yanks' you would still be living in a tree without fire...

You lost me. Are you saying the world should thank 'liberal' yanks for fire and the construction of homes?

[PhiLandShiR 18]

You lost me. Are you saying the world should thank 'liberal' yanks for fire and the construction of homes?

Not so surprised about that...

Lets just say, a conservative, who wants things to stay as they are or go back to some point like they were before, would not have moved to investigate a lightening strike or flowing lava to collect fire...

Only someone who was interested in change, would have done that, most conservatives I know, don't want change... unless its to go back to the way is was at some point in the past...

To advance to a new point or standing in communal structure requires a willingness to take a chance on something new. A conservative is not going to do that...

-------------

Definitions of conservative on the Web:

resistant to change

having social or political views favoring conservatism

cautious: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate"

a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas

[Ali G. 37]

Not so surprised about that...

Lets just say, a conservative, who wants things to stay as they are or go back to some point like they were before, would not have moved to investigate a lightening strike or flowing lava to collect fire...

Only someone who was interested in change, would have done that, most conservatives I know, don't want change... unless its to go back to the way is was at some point in the past...

To advance to a new point or standing in communal structure requires a willingness to take a chance on something new. A conservative is not going to do that...

-------------

Definitions of conservative on the Web:

resistant to change

having social or political views favoring conservatism

cautious: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate"

a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas

Interesting that you think American liberalism is without a doubt advancing society - advancing America. Evidently you are also under the assumption that all change is good, furthermore, that the past was always bad. Would you say the plague-like development of ghettos, gang culture and no-go zones in America are a positive change? The careless exurb sprawl, the outsourcing of jobs or the condition of some many towns and cities throughout America is a positive change?

I think neither party here is really open to change, well not unless it suits their own agenda. If you were honestly open to change, you would have realized quick-smart that a constitution written in the 1700's cannot possible apply word-for-word (without 'changes') in the 21st century.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Ali G.

[alienlovechild 75]

Lets just say, a conservative, who wants things to stay as they are or go back to some point like they were before, would not have moved to investigate a lightening strike or flowing lava to collect fire...

A prehistoric liberal would banned the use of fire as it is dangerous to humans, can cause massive destruction of the environment and a warning label couldn't be used because no one could read or write.

A primitive liberal would have doused the fire and grunted something about a no smoking section in the cave.

[Ali G. 37]

A prehistoric liberal would banned the use of fire as it is dangerous to humans, can cause massive destruction of the environment and a warning label couldn't be used because no one could read or write.

A primitive liberal would have doused the fire and grunted something about a no smoking section in the cave.

Liberals also brought light to the world the infamous yank lawyer. Furthermore, that the fate (direction) of the United States can be decided behind the closed doors of a courtroom and even by a single lawyer. Anyone who has spent 10 minutes abroad, in another first world country, would know exactly how 'highly' such undemocratic practices are regard there. Pretty much every course in AUS that was legal in nature involved a stab at ridiculous US legal rulings and payouts. Keep in mind that my lectures were all left wing; which shows you the difference in mentality.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Ali G.

[Dr. Obvious 49]

GFY, Kathy.

I thought this was amusing:

Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.

Others could not explain the contradiction.

“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”

[scandal 951]

I thought this was amusing:

"“I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”

[Niels Bohr 72]

OMG! Wealthier and Educated? Is that something to brag if you're not willing to make donation to help the poor?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You don't see the difference between "Wealth Redistribution" and "Voluntary Charitable Donations"?