U.S. Politics XL--Double Down it

[lokisnow]

Nate Silver posts on the recent polling done of attitudes of whites on various subjects split apart by whether they strongly support or strongly oppose the Tea Party. By and large Tea Partiers think worse of Blacks, latinos, immigrants, and gays.

But on a positive note for Tea Partiers, two thirds of them think gays should be allowed to serve in the military. :love:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/new-data-on-tea-party-sympathizers.html

Parker's study shows much higher levels of intolerance among whites who sympathize with the tea party movement. To be clear, the splits compare those who strongly disapprove or approve of the tea partiers, so the differences reflect those whites with polarized attitudes toward the movement. And the study might be more instructive if it compared compared the tea-partiers views toward those of white conservatives or white Republicans, or differentiated between those who are merely empathetic toward the tea-party movement and those who have actively participated in it. But it's safe to say that those who are sympathetic to the tea party movement do not hold mainstream views on issues related to race and identity politics.

[Jaime L]

Slate has a nice article about how stupidly wrong Sarah Palin is in her criticism of Obama's Nuclear Reduction policy.

As for Palin's dig, here's the substantive rebuttal, should you need one: Obama's policy does not say we won't retaliate if someone hits us. Rather, it says we won't retaliate with nuclear weapons if the attacker has no nuclear weapons and is not in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In other words, to state the policy in the terms of Palin's analogy: If some unarmed kid on a playground punches me in the face, I'm not going to blow his head off with a .44 Magnum. (But I will beat the crap out of him every other way.)

And, WTF? Has Palin always been against START treaties (has she even heard of them?) or is she now because Republicans have fully embraced mindless opposition on every Obama policy? Think the answer is clear.

[Mya Stone]

And, WTF? Has Palin always been against START treaties (has she even heard of them?) or is she now because Republicans have fully embraced mindless opposition on every Obama policy? Think the answer is clear.

I'd pretty much guarantee it's just because she has diarrhea of the mouth. Once shit starts spewing out, she just can't shut up. She's certainly not informed of much except extreme-right talking points. She makes my skin crawl. Just ugh.

In other news, one of my coworkers tried telling me that he understand the tea-party movement and agrees with most of it (all while watching Glenn Beck) while I was listening to a podcast on my laptop the other night.

I told him I could not and would not talk to him about anything other than work-related things from that point on. :lol:

[Kabada]

Those findings are about as suprising as finding out that white supremacists have a worse opinion of black people than the average citizen.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Nate Silver posts on the recent polling done of attitudes of whites on various subjects split apart by whether they strongly support or strongly oppose the Tea Party. By and large Tea Partiers think worse of Blacks, latinos, immigrants, and gays.

I'm not so sure that survey is very reliable in terms of what it is purporting to show. According to the survey, 43% of white voters who strongly oppose the Tea Party movement refused to describe blacks as "trustworthy", and 41% refused to describe them as "intelligent". The numbers for whites who "strongly oppose" the tea parties are higher, but does everyone here really think numbers over 40% for tea party opponents are something to crow about?

Personally, if I was asked those questions about any race, I'd give a "no" response as well because you have to judge people as individuals rather than stereotyping racial groups as a whole. Poorly phrased questions, IMHO, because they will equate a refusal to stereotype as racism.

[lokisnow]

I'm not so sure that survey is very reliable in terms of what it is purporting to show. According to the survey, 43% of white voters who strongly oppose the Tea Party movement refused to describe blacks as "trustworthy", and 41% refused to describe them as "intelligent". The numbers for whites who "strongly oppose" the tea parties are higher, but does everyone here really think numbers over 40% for tea party opponents are something to crow about?

Personally, if I was asked those questions about any race, I'd give a "no" response as well because you have to judge people as individuals rather than stereotyping racial groups as a whole. Poorly phrased questions, IMHO, because they will equate a refusal to stereotype as racism.

I am glad you brought that up, I intended to point out that the numbers for whites views of blacks in either for or against Teabagging was pretty pathetic, and were also lower than I'd like to see on most issues other than gays in the military. But I didn't have a chance as I was already late to leave for work. Oh, Monday mornings, why do you hate me so?

[alguien]

Yeah, that poll's numbers were just... sad anyway you look at it. :stillsick:

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yeah, that poll's numbers were just... sad anyway you look at it. :stillsick:

As I said, I think the questions were poor, and don't lead to the conclusion that some seem to think. It would have been much better to ask about the negative stereotype, i.e., if people agreed with various minorities being "not trustworthy" or "lazy", or "less intelligent". If someone agrees with a negative stereotype, you've got better evidence of racism than if someone rejects a positive steretype.

[Shryke]

As I said, I think the questions were poor, and don't lead to the conclusion that some seem to think. It would have been much better to ask about the negative stereotype, i.e., if people agreed with various minorities being "not trustworthy" or "lazy", or "less intelligent". If someone agrees with a negative stereotype, you've got better evidence of racism than if someone rejects a positive steretype.

Even if we accept your problem with the question, it still shows a strong correlation between "White People who are Tea Party supporters" and "White People who are racists".

[Jaime L]

I'd pretty much guarantee it's just because she has diarrhea of the mouth. Once shit starts spewing out, she just can't shut up. She's certainly not informed of much except extreme-right talking points. She makes my skin crawl. Just ugh.

Agreed. Is there any doubt at this point that it wasn't Katie Couric making her look bad? The extent of her political abilities is to make a rousing speech based off what someone else wrote. But when it comes to expressing her own opinions or answering questions intelligently, she comes so far short of what we'd expect of someone aspiring to the kind of offices she does.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Even if we accept your problem with the question, it still shows a strong correlation between "White People who are Tea Party supporters" and "White People who are racists".

No it doesn't. First, "Tea Party Supporters" was not a category they measured. It was "strong supporters" and "strong opponents" whose attitudes were measured, and we have no idea what percentage of people identified themselves as "strong" supporters or opponents versus the total number who may just "oppose" or "support".

Second, to reiterate the point I made above, the questions are phrased so that opposition to stereotyping equates with racism, which obviously isn't the case.

Hey, if you want me to admit that there would be more anti-black "racists" who would describe themselves as Tea Party supporters rather than as opponents, I wouldn't argue that. That's likely true. Of course, I think you might have more anti-white racists on the other side, but the point worth discussing is how many. And this methodolgy was so bad I don't think the results have much validity.

[Annelise]

I read that some of the local Tea Party movements are advising their peeps on how to watch their image: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/tea_party_warns_members_no_pre-gaming.php?ref=fpa Good for them.

Unfortunately, then there's stuff like this that gets national attention:

An online news outlet in New York state has obtained dozens of emails, many of them racist and sexually graphic, which it reports were sent by Carl Paladino, the Tea-Party-backed Republican candidate for governor of New York, to a long list of political and business associates. One email shows a video of an African tribal dance, entitled "Obama Inauguration Rehearsal," while another depicts hardcore bestiality.

Paladino's campaign manager, Michael Caputo, would not comment on specific emails, but acknowledged to TPMmuckraker that Paladino had sent emails that were "off-color" and "politically incorrect," saying that few such emails represented the candidate's own opinion. Caputo accused Democrats of wanting to change the subject from substantive issues to "having sex with horses."

The news outlet that obtained the emails, WNYmedia.net, a western New York media company, says it confirmed that at least some of the emails were authentic by contacting several people who had received them.

Paladino, a wealthy western New York real-estate developer, has become a darling of the Tea Party movement over the last year, and launched his campaign for governor last week after being urged to do so by Tea Party leaders. Paladino is staunchly opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage, and has said he considers himself "the only Republican in the race who agrees 100 percent with conservative values."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/tea_party_gov_candidates_racist_sexually_graphic_e.php?ref=mp

[Shryke]

No it doesn't. First, "Tea Party Supporters" was not a category they measured. It was "strong supporters" and "strong opponents" whose attitudes were measured, and we have no idea what percentage of people identified themselves as "strong" supporters or opponents versus the total number who may just "oppose" or "support".

Second, to reiterate the point I made above, the questions are phrased so that opposition to stereotyping equates with racism, which obviously isn't the case.

Hey, if you want me to admit that there would be more anti-black "racists" who would describe themselves as Tea Party supporters rather than as opponents, I wouldn't argue that. That's likely true. Of course, I think you might have more anti-white racists on the other side, but the point worth discussing is how many. And this methodolgy was so bad I don't think the results have much validity.

And, again, none of what you bring up as "issues" disproves the graphs.

They called up a bunch of people and asked them questions.

The Results:

People who say they Strongly Support the Tea Party are more bigoted then those that strongly oppose the Tea Party.

Also, "anti-white racists". Yeah, it's a burgeoning group to be sure. :rofl:

[sologdin]

I'm not so sure that survey is very reliable in terms of what it is purporting to show. According to the survey, 43% of white voters who strongly oppose the Tea Party movement refused to describe blacks as "trustworthy", and 41% refused to describe them as "intelligent". The numbers for whites who "strongly oppose" the tea parties are higher, but does everyone here really think numbers over 40% for tea party opponents are something to crow about?

is there a rightwing school of falsification about which i am unaware? the statistics quoted supra are not relevant, except by comparison to the numbers for those strongly opposed to the teabaggers, which were universally better than the pro-teabgging crowd's. the point is not to celebrate those who are strongly opposed to the teabaggers, but to expose those who support the teabaggers as reactionary fuckwits.

[Mad Monkey]

It also shows that polls can't be agreed upon as a measure of trustworthy fact. I'll just file this way, not really as proof that teapartiers are racist or anything, but as evidence when they say something obviously dishonest like "the American people are all against the health care law" and try to use a poll as "evidence".

[Kalbear]

Even if we accept your problem with the question, it still shows a strong correlation between "White People who are Tea Party supporters" and "White People who are racists".

If you removed the 'who are tea party supporters' I think you'll be most accurate.

[Trebla]

And, again, none of what you bring up as "issues" disproves the graphs.

They called up a bunch of people and asked them questions.

The Results:

People who say they Strongly Support the Tea Party are more bigoted then those that strongly oppose the Tea Party.

Also, "anti-white racists". Yeah, it's a burgeoning group to be sure. :rofl:

well, as Stephen Colbert said, when it comes to racism these days "whoever smelt it DEALT IT!" ;)

[Elrick]

What I don't understand is why doesn't the tea party protest the war spending, that is something I can agree with at least but NO they have to protest the healthcare bill, helping others. I simply don't understand this type of thinking. It bothers me in more ways than one.

Helping people bad but war spending is okay and justified to the tea party's mind. It's inexcusable.

[Lord Mord]

Shryke,

The Results:

People who say they Strongly Support the Tea Party are more bigoted then those that strongly oppose the Tea Party.

Could you please outline why the results necessarily mean that? I mean, as a matter of logical progression. If A, then B, A, therefore B kind of stuff. Because what you're saying is not actually a disputation of FLoW's statement, in the sense of a reasoned, constructed argument, but merely a flat refusal to accept his interpretation, without any description why your evaluation is any better.

If the question is put to me, "White people tend to be really smart -- agree or disagree?" and then I say, "Well, being white has nothing to do with it either way," I'm going to answer, "Disagree," right? But according to your logic, that means I must be anti-white. Are you seeing the distinction being drawn, now, as to why the questions are bad and the results don't tell us what you think they do?

Also, "anti-white racists". Yeah, it's a burgeoning group to be sure. :rofl:

Agree with you here. I say, show me the necessarily anti-white sentiment, and moreover, show me on what basis you suspect such a large population.

[Le Communard]

What I don't understand is why doesn't the tea party protest the war spending, that is something I can agree with at least but NO they have to protest the healthcare bill, helping others. I simply don't understand this type of thinking. It bothers me in more ways than one.

Helping people bad but war spending is okay and justified to the tea party's mind. It's inexcusable.

I don't know about on the whole, but I do know that certain tea party elements I've seen are against the war, on grounds of overreaching of power and unnecessary government expenditure.