“Tea Party” Beats GOP On Generic Ballot

Filed in National by on December 7, 2009

An interesting poll from Rasmussen (so take it with a grain of salt) shows that a National “Tea Party” would beat the GOP on a generic Congressional ballot:

A new Rasmussen poll suggests that the Tea Party movement is far and away more popular than the Republican Party it seeks to influence — so much so that if it were a full-fledged political party, it would overtake the GOP on the generic Congressional ballot.

The question was phrased as follows: “Okay, suppose the Tea Party Movement organized itself as a political party. When thinking about the next election for Congress, would you vote for the Republican candidate from your district, the Democratic candidate from your district, or the Tea Party candidate from your district?”

The results: Democratic 36%, Tea Party 23%, Republican 18%.

It’s no wonder that the traditional GOP is running scared. I question, however, how popular real tea party candidates would actually be. If Hoffman is any guide, they can even turn off conservatives.

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

Opinionated chemist, troublemaker, blogger on national and Delaware politics.

Comments (33)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. liberalgeek says:

    I suspect this means that 23% of people just hate the powers that be. This is not unusual in an economy like this one. I wonder if the 18% actually represents at diminishing of the Bush 21%ers.

  2. anononthisone says:

    I’m not sure if Democrats should be worried that such a nutty philosophy has such popular support or overjoyed that it has the potential to divide Republicans and conservatives between nutty and really nutty. As people like Obama and Carper do things to keep the Democrats in the middle, for good or bad, the situation is becoming untenable for people like Mike Castle. If the teabaggers decide to rally behind O’Donnell, Delaware could be even more interesting in 2010.

  3. I think you’re right lg. I wonder how many of them understand what the Tea Party philosophy is?

  4. Ergonomic says:

    ok … so can someone provide a concise definition of the Tea Party philosophy. I know that this group invokes ire (they certainy have invoked some in me) but could whomever chooses to reply, please try to provide an objective description? Many Thanks.

  5. a.price says:

    http://www.grassrootsnation.com/Groups/GroupListing.aspx?type=Tea+Party

    that is their website and basic confederation’s company line.

    Their functional philosophy however seems to be somewhere between growing profits for Fixed News, and disagreeing with everything the Kenyan Usurper says.

  6. Ergonomic says:

    thanks a.price.
    Colorful. 🙂

  7. a.price says:

    As to your request for objectivity, i don’t think it can be done. This is a manufactured grass roots movement. While i hear it may have been started by people who aren’t wingnuts, the wingnuts have taken over. It is impossible to be objective however about them now because they are defined by Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin and all those vile people who now run the movement.

  8. Hoffman got 47% of the vote and it took both elements of both parties to beat him. You question the popularity based upon that? You are out of touch. If Dede either stayed in the race or didn’t endorse, he would be congressman. He’ll win next time now that the Democrat has been shown to be a liberal not a moderate.

  9. cassandra_m says:

    The only one out of touch is Delusional David, as usual. Hoffman was defeated because you teabaggers don’t represent much besides your own delusions.

    But leave it to this loud minority to turn out to be too lazy to even get their own movement started — there is little about the whole teabagger thing that isn’t bought and paid for by the corporate interests who continue to manipulate these people. It’s a shame, really.

  10. An unkown accountant without a party almost beats The President, Vice President, unions, had millions of negative ads spent by both parties against him, has a late start, and still basically lost because of early voting. Then you say his movement doen’t represent many people.

  11. Geezer says:

    “without a party”

    Seems like a fair description of conservatives in general.

  12. pandora says:

    The tea party isn’t recruiting from the Dems. It’s siphoning off former Republican voters – hence the split. So the question is: Will the remaining Republicans follow the tea partiers, because the tea partiers sure as hell won’t be following the R’s?

  13. nemski says:

    Delusional Dave’s eyes are covered by teabags right now.

  14. Ergonomic says:

    The more time goes by, the less I am able to subscribe to a philosophy or a politics, or a philosophy of politics, that works hard to create in-groups and out-groups.

    I’m simply unable to “do” the “you’re gay, we’re straight, you’re wrong” BS, for instance. Or, the “you are a woman seeking an abortion, I am untroubled by your circumstances, you’re wrong” BS, either. And we can go on and on here.

    These attitudes fueled the Crusades, Slavery, Manifest Destiny, Sexism, Racism, the Third Reich … any number of terrified, insular groups seeking to impose their notion of the ideal on others. No matter what the cost. So I can’t do it.

    If these attitudes are at the hard of the 9/12ers or the Tea Partyers, well … they can have it. I choose to evolve.

  15. The previous GOP candidate got 60% of the vote in 2008. Hoffman lost a substantial portion of that. Also, show with math, that early voting caused Hoffman’s loss (hint: you can’t just move all of Scozzafava’s votes to Hoffman).

  16. cassandra_m says:

    Besides, the President and everyone else who was supporting Owens while repubs were busily killing each other over Hoffman and Scozzafava. If you people had just left that district alone, the odds were incredibly good that Scozzafava would be in that seat. You killed yourselves there and continue to delude yourselves that there is some majority that you can command with this extremist right wing BS.

  17. I believe the primary issue that draws people to the tea party movement(s) is the rather vague one of size and role of government; the federal government, specifically. Republicans supported one kind of big government from 2000-2008, Democrats are now supporting a different kind of big government, and those that disagree with big government in general are bound to express support for a third way. Keep in mind, however, that while the movement in question attracts fiscal conservatives and small government proponents, its stance concerning personal freedom (drug war, gay rights, etc.) will repel left-libertarians.

  18. nemski says:

    Oh, I don’t think that the Teabaggers have been silent on gay rights. They’ve been quite vocal about their hatred of teh gays.

  19. cassandra m says:

    Apparently the teabaggers have a documentary and this one is not porn. TPM reviews it and finds it a real mess.

    This may be worth getting a bunch of your friends together to get tanked up on eggnog and getting a DIY RiffTrax on.

  20. Fire Ant says:

    TEA FOR THE GOP:
    The Tea Party’s agenda of small government, tax cuts for the wealthy, union busting and no social safety net has pushed the Republican Party further to the right and with the Club for growth’s Cannibalism there is a question if they can survive.

  21. Jason330 says:

    It is not a real tea party until someone breaks something. I’m hoping the broken item will be the GOP but will accept Glen Becks noggin.

  22. Jason330 says:

    BTW. The impotent loser in the Delaware tea party will fall in line and vote for Castle. You can bank on that.

  23. Ergonomic says:

    So… what I’m getting from all of this is that the Tea-Partyers are discontented types who are looking for a way to affix blame. If their core concern is size and role of government, it seems there may be a kernel of truth under all of the bombast. But they should be setting their sights on the size and role of corporate America, not government. All of the bail out stuff etc is merely a response to an out-of-control corporate structure in the US. Enormous, bloated corporate zombies, arms out with dull eyes … “More …. more …. must have more ….”

  24. a.price says:

    Exactly erg, however you may have given them a platform. Obama is showing troubling signs of corporate bitchatude. Goldman is doing fine, and they have their greedy hands in the government. Lets hope Obama remembers who put him in office….. it WASN’T timmy G.

  25. Geezer says:

    “they should be setting their sights on the size and role of corporate America, not government.”

    This would require a level of intelligence they don’t possess.

  26. Ergonomic says:

    ok, so these are the times when my little tiny brain begins to wonder … ‘what would happen if we just let the corporate glutton-zombies fold?’ I know, it is probably a short term, limited view. According to most lights, that would create economic apocalypse. Though that same tiny brain of mine does not always understand why.

  27. a.price says:

    If they folded, the people who caused them to fold would be unaffected. The chairs of Citi, and Goldman would receive golden parachutes, HUGE severance bonuses and probably another job with another corporation. The ones who would get hurt would be all the loyal employees who’s only mistake was trusting their employments to greedy bastards who don’t care about anyone but their wallet. If letting the giants fail would mean the ones who are responsible end up on the street, id be fine with it.

  28. Ergonomic says:

    I suppose I know that.
    Yet still wonder if we can ever get free of the out-of-control system that we seem locked into.

  29. pandora says:

    Well… we could try regulating them again.

  30. a.price says:

    socialist

  31. Ergonomic says:

    Heh.
    Yes, we should regulate them again. But, it would seem that the cat is out of the barn … or the horse is out of the bag … or whatever mixed (or unmixed) metaphor you want to use. I also believe that, with lobbying power and direct ownership of 95% of the media outlets, and the power to make kings, queens, princes, and lesser nobles … that corporate america might have an advantage in any “re-regulating” situation.

  32. “Oh, I don’t think that the Teabaggers have been silent on gay rights. They’ve been quite vocal about their hatred of teh gays”

    If you’re responding to my previous comment, I stated in the last line that the tea party movement’s stance toward gay rights will repel left-libertarians. This is significant because many of its members are libertarians (small L, not necessary LP members) and libertarians are generally supportive of gay rights.

  33. A. price says:

    many, but nit most. most teabaggers NOW are just anti Obama, anti Left conservatives.
    I have the good fortune of knowing people who are ORIGINAL Tea Party members. They disagree with Obama on many things, but disagreed with Bush more. they DONT compare Obama to Hitler and consider their movement hijacked by Fixed News and the Right. I agree with you that the Tea PArty “technically” is supportive of gays, but what the movement has become is a conservunist bastion.