Poll: Americans See Tea Party Politicians More Negatively

[Beau_Ouiville]

Since we were discussing polls:

"Tea Party-backed politicians say voters sent them to Washington to change the tone in the nation’s capital and do the people’s work. But according to a new poll, they are increasingly ineffective in achieving that goal.

A Pew Research/Washington Post poll finds 29 percent of those asked think Tea Party members have had a mostly negative effect in Congress. That’s up 11 percent in the eight short months since most of those members took office.

There are two other pieces of bad news for members who support the Tea Party in this poll. The first is that 35 percent of respondents think the group has not had much of an effect at all. Worse is that 28 percent of independents say that Tea Party members have had a negative effect, while 24 percent of the coveted group say they have had a positive impact. In January, twice as many respondents (29 percent to 14) expected the Tea Party-backed group to have a positive effect."

politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/08/09/americans-see-tea-party-politicians-more-negatively-says-poll#ixzz1VzyU0tZD

They are saying that more Americans would vote for a Muslim presidential candidate than a tea party candidate.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

And another poll says:

"Little more than a year ago, most Americans did not know enough about the Tea Party to have an opinion. Now, more people have opinions, and they are hardly positive.

The percentage of people with an unfavorable view of the Tea Party in a New York Times/CBS News Poll this week was higher than it has been since the first time the question was asked, in April 2010. Forty percent of those polled this week characterized their view as “not favorable,” compared with 18 percent in the first poll.

In the first poll, a plurality, 46 percent, said they had not heard enough about the Tea Party to have an opinion (an additional 14 percent were undecided). Now, just 21 percent said they had not heard enough.

The Tea Party may have benefited early on from people not really knowing exactly what it was. "

nytimes.com/2011/08/05/us/politics/05teaparty.html

 

[ConcernedApathy]

And the scales fell from their eyes…

 

[SamH]

A Pew Research/Washington Post poll ***finds 29 percent ***of those asked think Tea Party members have had a mostly negative effect in Congress. That’s up 11 percent in the eight short months since most of those members took office.

So does that mean that 71 percent think they had a positive effect?

It appears these people are a pretty small minority.

 

[Jocko_VT]

So does that mean that 71 percent think they had a positive effect?

It appears these people are a pretty small minority.

No. 29 percent say members of congress who support the tea party have had a mostly negative effect. 35 percent say not much effect. 22 percent say mostly positive effect.

Also, 29 percent is actually a very large minority!

The primary point in the OP, I think, is that public opinion is swinging pretty hard against the Tea Party. I say thank goodness for that!!

 

[mary_bobo]

No. 29 percent say members of congress who support the tea party have had a mostly negative effect. 35 percent say not much effect. 22 percent say mostly positive effect.

Also, 29 percent is actually a very large minority!

The primary point in the OP, I think, is that public opinion is swinging pretty hard against the Tea Party. I say thank goodness for that!!

Yes, indeed, thank goodness. We can’t be for cutting spending and balancing the budget. The only thing the poll proves to me is that people have no idea what the Tea Party stands for. They have lapped up the Kool Aid lines the Dems are throwing out.

 

[rlg94086]

What are the positive v negative numbers for Democrats as a group, so we can compare?

 

[Darryl1958]

29 % is about the same as the percent who think Obama is doing a good job.
And given the job that he is doing, that indeed is a very large minority!

 

[bbarrick8383]

Better than the approval rating of Congress it sounds like.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The only thing the poll proves to me is that people have no idea what the Tea Party stands for.

As I see it, Mary, I agree with you that the American people didn’t know what the Tea Party stood for, and now that they are starting to see what the TeaPartyists are about, they want to have less and less to do with those naysayers.

 

[Darryl1958]

As a movement, tea party is certainly shaking up the special interests in Washington in a way that Obama only promised he would. Increase in negative numbers is a good thing, because it means that they are steppin on some well heeled toes.
What is worse news from the poll is the 35% who think that they are having no effect at all.

 

[stevegravy]

Given the sharp demagoguery lashing the tea party from the leftist media in the country, and the typical banter of the politicals ……….Joe Biden, “terrorist”….”racist”……”kidnapers” …… and on and on for the past two to three months and this is the extent of the damage among the electorate, not too bad.

 

[mary_bobo]

As I see it, Mary, I agree with you that the American people didn’t know what the Tea Party stood for, and now that they are starting to see what the TeaPartyists are about, they want to have less and less to do with those naysayers.

So are you saying that people do not want to cut spending and balance our budget? That does not make sense to me. Seems to me that those who are opposed to those things are very party oriented indeed. The Dems want to keep spending with no money to spend. They have succesfully demonized any attempt to do otherwise. I just think that is a very selfish attitude to take. If you agree that you don’ t want to cut spending and balance the budget, then tell me how we get out of the financial mess we are in.

 

[rlg94086]

As I see it, Mary, I agree with you that the American people didn’t know what the Tea Party stood for, and now that they are starting to see what the TeaPartyists are about, they want to have less and less to do with those naysayers.

I’m not sure what conclusions to make based on what Americans, in general, think. Where is the breakdown by likely voters? By party? Did they ask similar questions about Democrats, in general? What do the American people think about that group?

 

[Jocko_VT]

Yes, indeed, thank goodness. We can’t be for cutting spending and balancing the budget. The only thing the poll proves to me is that people have no idea what the Tea Party stands for. They have lapped up the Kool Aid lines the Dems are throwing out.

Everyone is for cutting spending and balancing the budget. The budget was balanced during the Clinton administration, after all (a bi-partisan effort). The trouble is that the Tea Party folk represent something quite more than a desire for fiscal responsibility, and their fiscal philosophy is itself in question.

No need for hateful comments (i.e., Kool-Aide) in a Catholic forum, is there?

 

[rlg94086]

So are you saying that people do not want to cut spending and balance our budget? That does not make sense to me. Seems to me that those who are opposed to those things are very party oriented indeed. The Dems want to keep spending with no money to spend. They have succesfully demonized any attempt to do otherwise. I just think that is a very selfish attitude to take. If you agree that you don’ t want to cut spending and balance the budget, then tell me how we get out of the financial mess we are in.

No. People wanted deeper cuts…and a tax increase. From the NY Times article:

. There were signs that the repeated Republican calls for more spending cuts were resonating with the public: 44 percent of those polled said the cuts in the debt-ceiling agreement did not go far enough, 29 percent said they were about right and only 15 percent said they went too far. More than a quarter of the Democrats polled said that the cuts in the agreement did not go far enough.

But by a ratio of more than two to one, Americans said that creating jobs should be a higher priority than spending cuts.

Though Republicans prevented tax increases from being included in the debt-ceiling deal, half of those polled said the agreement should have included increased tax revenue, while 44 percent said it should have relied on cuts alone. That issue is likely to be revisited soon: Congress is preparing to appoint a special committee to recommend ways to reduce the deficit. Sixty-three percent of those polled said that they supported raising taxes on households that earn more than $250,000 a year, as Mr. Obama has sought to do — including majorities of Democrats (80 percent), independents (61 percent) and Republicans (52 percent).

 

[SamH]

Everyone is for cutting spending and balancing the budget. The budget was balanced during the Clinton administration, after all (a bi-partisan effort). The trouble is that the Tea Party folk represent something quite more than a desire for fiscal responsibility, and their fiscal philosophy is itself in question.

No need for hateful comments (i.e., Kool-Aide) in a Catholic forum, is there?

Sorry, but you are wrong. The budget was never balanced during the Clinton administration.

treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

That national debt increased every year.

USA Today did a story about it:

Congress and the president are able to report a lower deficit mostly because they don’t count the growing burden of future pensions and medical care for federal retirees and military personnel. These obligations are so large and are growing so fast that budget surpluses of the late 1990s actually were deficits when the costs are included.

**The Clinton administration reported a *surplus of $559 billion ***in its final four budget years. The audited numbers showed a deficit of $484 billion.

usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-02-deficit-usat_x.htm

 

[mary_bobo]

Everyone is for cutting spending and balancing the budget. The budget was balanced during the Clinton administration, after all (a bi-partisan effort). The trouble is that the Tea Party folk represent something quite more than a desire for fiscal responsibility, and their fiscal philosophy is itself in question.

No need for hateful comments (i.e., Kool-Aide) in a Catholic forum, is there?

And please tell me what more the Tea Party wants besides fiscal responsibility. The budget was balanced during the Clinton administration after the GOP took control of the House where spending originates. They also drug Clinton to reform the welfare system which has since fallen by the wayside. Sorry if you were offended by Kood-Aide. I was trying to think of a less caustic way to say what I wanted to say than what I was thinking. Since you are so opposed to the Tea Party objectives, tell me how we fix the financial mess the country is in. In view of this, please note that Ohio and Florida’s credit ratings have been raised in response to just the kind of measures the Tea Party has suggested.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

And please tell me what more the Tea Party wants besides fiscal responsibility. The budget was balanced during the Clinton administration after the GOP took control of the House where spending originates. They also drug Clinton to reform the welfare system which has since fallen by the wayside. Sorry if you were offended by Kood-Aide. I was trying to think of a less caustic way to say what I wanted to say than what I was thinking. Since you are so opposed to the Tea Party objectives, tell me how we fix the financial mess the country is in. In view of this, please note that Ohio and Florida’s credit ratings have been raised in response to just the kind of measures the Tea Party has suggested.

Mary, if the Tea Party is God’s gift to American politics and they want not a single thing more than fiscal responsibility, why are they losing ground among the American electorate?

You didn’t say a word about raising some taxes along the cuts the TeaPartyists propose, which is what even some Republicans want.

 

[SamH]

Mary, if the Tea Party is God’s gift to American politics and they want not a single thing more than fiscal responsibility, why are they losing ground among the American electorate?

Proof of this?