There has been a meme in some rightward circles of late that the Tea Party movement is poised to burst onto the scene as a real third force in American politics as the result of some recent polling.
First, there was a Rasmussen poll a few weeks back that reported Tea Party Tops GOP on Three-Way Generic Ballot:
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.
(See Dave Weigel on that one).
Now, NewsMax is touting some numbers from a new NBC/WSJ poll:
According to the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Wednesday, 41 percent of likely voters now have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party Patriots. That compares to a 35 percent favorable rating for Democrats and 28 percent for the GOP.
The stunning conclusion: If the Tea Party Patriots were a political party – it is increasingly shifting its emphasis in a nonpartisan political direction – it would be the most popular party in America.
A stunning conclusion, indeed.
However, “favorability” isn’t the same thing as “electability” (or even popularity)—especially in the absence of an actual party, candidates, or campaign.
Beyond that, if actually look at the poll we find the following:
14a. How much do you know about the Tea Party movementdo you know a great deal about this, a fair
amount, just some, very little, or nothing at all?
Know a great deal ……………………… 7
Know a fair amount ……………………. 22
Know just some…………………………. 23
Know very little………………………….. 25
Know nothing at all …………………….. 23
Not sure…………………………………. -
The number of folks in the poll who know “a great deal” or even “a fair amount” sums to 29%, while those knowing “just some” to “nothing at all” sums to 71%. The sum of “very little” to “nothing at all” is 48%. As such, it is pretty clear that we cannot read much of anything into a plurality of respondents having a “positive” (20%) or “somewhat positive” (21%) view of the Tea Party movement.
(And note: I think that a serious third party movement in the US would be both fascinating and healthy for our politics).
December 18th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
You know, the instant they became an actual political party, their favorables would go down. Maybe not to the levels of the current parties (well, maybe to the level of the current level for the Dems). But it would decrese. Right now, you can just be a Tea Partier, and project a variety of ideas (within reason) as to what that means.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
[...] Posted by STEVEN L. TAYLOR in Politics.Dec 18th, 2009 | View commentsComments The following is a cross-post from PoliBlog: [...]
December 18th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
A third part doesn’t have to be viable to effect change. The established parties are very good at co-opting popular third parties’ agenda.
December 18th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
That is certainly a possibility.
Of course, part of my point is that the Tea Party movement isn’t even a party at this point and I question whether it has a coherent agenda to be co-opted at this point.
December 18th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
While I would very much like to see a third party, I’d much rather see a third and fourth party if this is the case, with the fourth being perhaps a progressive party. My reasoning is this: The Tea Party movement, which Libertarian in roots, seems to have mostly collected the right wing of the GOP more than anything. Having them formally become a party might cripple both groups and result in a Democrat power grab. I don’t mind the Dems at present after the past eight years, but I’m definitely NOT a fan of giving them a virtually unopposed majority while the Republicans and Tea Partiers sort this out. What I’d much rather see is a similar split in the Democrat ranks between the moderate and progressive Democrats. And who could argue with more choices, really?
December 18th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Sorry… I should have specified… A split in the Dems IN ADDITION TO a split in the GOP.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
I think to some extent we can thank Ross Perot for shining the spotlight on deficits in the 1990s and perhaps ushering in a brief period of concern (or at least lip service) for fiscal responsibility.
I think professor Taylor is correct re Tea Parties. However there is a great deal of largely unchanneled angst with our Alice in Wonderland national economic “policy.” Liberman noted this restless undercurrent in his opening remarks.
A bi-partisan movement is emerging lead by a small number of responsible members of Congress and outsiders to address the suicidal deficit spending addiction of Washington. C-Span (and apparently no one else) had coverage of Lieberman/Collin’s Homeland Security Committee hearing on the proposed statutory commission on our debt and fiscal policy. (to be similar to the Social Security commission years back)
It’s not the rancorous sound bites for MSM and Hannity you get with the Tea Parties. But it was vital and heartening to finally see serious bi-partisan discussion advanced towards alleviating what many see as our most serious problem.
Alan Greenspan pointed out that it was hard to pin-point when the deficit would blossom into an immediate full blown crisis but that that determination was largely up to the Chinese and OPEC. When our good friends like China and Saudi Arabia, etc decide to take away the keys all the angry Tea Parties Fox can muster won’t stop dollar devaluation, inflation, higher unemployment, domestic instability, etc.
How sad the degree we empower our adversaries when we approach them cup in hand to sustain our spent thrift ways.
It’s long and sobering but at least some politicians have the courage to tell like it is. link:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/290763-1