According to CNN:
50% of likely voters say they'll back a Tea Party candidate.
Obama's approval rate - 42%, while 54% disapprove.
Only 37% say they're more likely to vote for a candidate backed by Obama.
GOP has a 9-point lead over Democrats, generically speaking. Half of those who say they'll vote for GOP are voting AGAINST dems, not FOR reps.
None of this surprises me except for the 50% who say they'll likely vote for a Tea Party candidate. Where are all the moderates????
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09 … index.html
Something that I heard earlier in the week said that during hard times, people are more likely to vote for a conservative candidate.
The Tea Party candidates aren't exactly conservative as far as I can see. They strike me as pretty radical--phase out Social Security and Medicare, eliminate several government departments, repeal health care reform and the new banking regulations, ban all abortions legal since Rowe v Wade 40 years ago, even pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, retain don't ask don't tell and oppose any recognition of gay and lesbian rights under the law. That's a pretty radical agenda.
Also, ban embryonic stem cell research.
I've read that article, but the odd thing is...in every other poll I could track down in an hour on the web, the highest mark was 18%. I am not sure where Keating Holland got these poll results...could be in OK or SC. Maybe he just went to K street and started asking 10 guys.
Sorry, it was 18% who would back a tea party candidate. I remember taking a political science class on polling, and then 2 statistical analysis classes, but still...I am not sure how many of these polls are worthy of anything. Who knows.
how on earth do you define "moderate"?
TEA Party issue #1 is: Government is spending too much. When you account for the fact that today every child is born with approximately a quarter million dollar deficit against his productivity in the future, and that deficit is going to grow by at least double, likely triple, before he reaches the day he gets his first paycheck, the idea that government spending and future obligations, as well as debt needing to get under control is not "radical", it is the most rational, careful, considered notion under the sun. The TEA Party is not even slightly 'radical'. It is, if you wish to get real, "the moderates". BTW, people labeled "centrist" by Democrats these days are people who are choosing, not whether to over spend massively, but just simply choose to not overspending massively on EVERYTHING.
On a scale of fiscal "prudence", 1 being "we will not spend even a dollar that government simply cannot exist without" and 100 being where Obama is at where money and debt are irrelevant concepts and where spending is determined by wishes and dreams and selfish desires... In that scale, the TEA Party is somewhere in the 20 - 30 range, the GOP is about 60 or 70 and the Democrats are about 90.
And the so called "centrists" are in the 70-80 range. Sadly, PRUDENCE is what is REQUIRED, and the TEA Party is probably a little spendthrift, and even if they elect a majority, that majority is going to have to dig into even some of the TP types sacred cows so we can get our nation's financial house in order. We need control over spending in the 5 to 15 range.
"Where are all the moderates????"
Why would a party that wants to be Conservative go in the moderates direction?
I would say Bush was a moderate he certainly wasn't a conservative.
I think a lot of folks are silent right now, waiting for election, not saying what or who.
I think many, many people are tired of the parties as well as professional politicians who clearly seem to have their own agenda and are not true representatives of their constituencies.
The term “tea party” seems to be more a media assigned catch phrase, not unlike the media term “ground zero,” that is encompassing a growing number of the citizenry that is utterly dissatisfied with their current governmental representation.
The overall feeling of almost everyone I talk to, seems to suggest both parties and their representative members have been hijacked by influences that are not in the best interest of the country or its people and these members are visibly ignoring the will of the voters.
I don’t believe any incumbent is “safe,” with the exception of those that are opposed by candidates with a radical, liberal progressive, big government stance in this election cycle and/or the next.
As more and more people reject their apathy, and begin to understand what is really happening to our nation a “real change” will occur.
I think you're right, Ready. I've always thought of us as a nation of moderates - slightly left or right of center, but certainly not a huge number in either the far left or far right. That's why the Tea Party numbers surprised me. But as you say, it might well be because they're not Ds or Rs, technically.
Thus confirming that the right wing media has donwe its job and pushed the blame for the economic crisis on to Obama's government whist steering away any link to the financial mess to the Bush regime, corporate crooks and the Banking industry.
Here in the UK the new coalition government has an agenda where any senior government minister who has a national interview begins by blaming the previous government for all the current problems (and they did cause problems through stupidity and apathy but the banks caused the real damage). The Banks are no longer mentioned as the bad guys.
This is how we live and this is how it will always be unless enough people stand up and refuse to pay higher taxes, fuel bills, insurance, food costs etc.
In the meantime the banking industry celebrate their lucky escape by offering a select few senior managers millions of dollars in bonuses whilst keeping corrupt politicians in government.
And all this B/S about cuts! The poorest will suffer and millions of middle class families will join them when they lose their jobs. Not one government minister or senior banker and those who feed off them will be affected.
And still we believe them.
It just feels to me like National politics became a giant circus with that last election, and ever since then it seems to be getting circusy-er and circusy-er.
"We're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore!"
Ok -- we get that you're mad (meaning both angry and not in touch with reality).
But do you really, really trust unbalanced people like Sharren Angle and Christine O'Donnell to represent you in Congress?
That's not progress. That's lunacy.
by Credence24 years ago
Excellent op-ed page that discusses conservatism taking two distinct tracts. Have a read and share your opinion, please. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … /?src=recg
by Credence25 years ago
I am taken back to the site 'unskewed polls' where the conservatives were saying that the mainstream polling system was unfairly skewed in favor of Mr. Obama. So, I bet I could not find them now anywhere among all the...
by Doug Hughes6 years ago
"..._Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can't afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can't afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more...
by lady_love1587 years ago
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 … s_sub.htmlBeck once called Obama a racist and I disagreed. Beck later apologized for his remarks but now I wonder was he right? If Obama isn't a racist he sure likes to...
by Ralph Deeds7 years ago
This week in Michigan enough Tea Party delegates showed up at a Republican meeting to elect delegates to the party's nominating convention for the election in November to defeat the current Republican party chairman's...
by ahorseback6 years ago
Don't you believe that the tea party is not of one party but both parties? Not just angry right but angry left as well? And by marginalizing thier anger you also marginalize yours?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.