The Raven finds teabags a poor icon

[Sidestreamer]

Alli, too, is mistaken. She mistakes her wierd little group as the majority of American opinion, when in fact it is nothing more than a wierd little group.

That's a mistaken characterization. While I would not call it a majority of opinion, I wouldn't dismiss it as a "weird little group" either. It's somewhere in between.

MOST of the ones I know are like me, voted FOR Obama because McCain looked simply inept during the campaign -- I said even on my radio show that if the campaign was an example of McCain's executive skills, I didn't want him anywhere near the Oval Office in my lifetime.

Obama on the other hand, ran probably the best Presidential campaign in the history of the planet. They were sharp, focused, and on target most of the time. They were organized. And Obama himself is brilliant, well-spoken, and no matter what you think of him now or no matter your stripe, you gotta admire what he's accomplished in his 48 years. A hell of alot more than I have, at the same age.

However, the problem is we wanted change, not tons more of the same. THIS is what the tea party folks are saying. Obama's already got a couple hundred broken campaign promises -- either broken or simply nothing done on -- and the folks are truly, really fed up with politics as usual in Washington. Something else Obama promised to change and has not.

Now, to be fair: I also said that saddling Obama with the same Congress Bush had would make it difficult for him, and it has. Foolishly, I believed Obama would stand up to those loons -- far more than McCain would. Now though it's apparent that's not happening, and the sick, co-dependency relationship Bush had with Congress is now a marriage. Not gonna work. It should always be an adversarial relationship.

People forget that 59.5 MILLION people voted for McCain. That's no small group, and when you add that to the MILLIONS of Indys, Moderate Dems and Moderate Repugs who voted for Obama, it's trouble in 2010 for Congress, and trouble in 2012 for Obama. History shows the party in power takes it on the chin in midterms anyway, but this time it's going to be much worse than usual.

So, instead of parroting the shrill, Big Media and Dem blather about the tea party people, you should study this more, try to be fair-minded and realize the answer isn't either extreme you see. The truth is always somewhere in the middle.

Obama got just over 10 million more votes than McCain. How many of those voters do you think are having major buyer's remorse today?

Lots. A big percentage of them.

(bolding was my emphasis)

I had a rare political discussion with a co-worker Monday after the TEA parties were done and we were looking at the number of people that showed up... we heard different estimates on the networks, some saying 50-60 thousand, a reporter on Fox News saying somewhere north of 100 thousand, a few blogs saying as many as a million. He told me he took a political science class and heard this theory while taking it, where an e-mail to a representative or senator would theoretically represent five people who feel the same way as the one writing the e-mail. The number goes up to 10 per phone call, and 100 per protester.

So, if the theory is correct and we go by the more conservative 60,000 turnout estimate, that's probably 6 million people who support the beliefs spouted at the TEA parties. How many of them registered voters, probably the overwhelming majority but that can't be determined. We had 131,257,328 people who voted for a candidate.

Obama won by a 10-million margin over John McCain as you said... Now this would tip to McCain if we assumed nearly every TEA partier was an ex-Obama supporter...that said, either way, that's a large population in the tank.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Alli, too, is mistaken. She mistakes her wierd little group as the majority of American opinion, when in fact it is nothing more than a wierd little group.

That's a mistaken characterization. While I would not call it a majority of opinion, I wouldn't dismiss it as a "weird little group" either. It's somewhere in between.

MOST of the ones I know are like me, voted FOR Obama because McCain looked simply inept during the campaign -- I said even on my radio show that if the campaign was an example of McCain's executive skills, I didn't want him anywhere near the Oval Office in my lifetime.

Obama on the other hand, ran probably the best Presidential campaign in the history of the planet. They were sharp, focused, and on target most of the time. They were organized. And Obama himself is brilliant, well-spoken, and no matter what you think of him now or no matter your stripe, you gotta admire what he's accomplished in his 48 years. A hell of alot more than I have, at the same age.

However, the problem is we wanted change, not tons more of the same. THIS is what the tea party folks are saying. Obama's already got a couple hundred broken campaign promises -- either broken or simply nothing done on -- and the folks are truly, really fed up with politics as usual in Washington. Something else Obama promised to change and has not.

Now, to be fair: I also said that saddling Obama with the same Congress Bush had would make it difficult for him, and it has. Foolishly, I believed Obama would stand up to those loons -- far more than McCain would. Now though it's apparent that's not happening, and the sick, co-dependency relationship Bush had with Congress is now a marriage. Not gonna work. It should always be an adversarial relationship.

People forget that 59.5 MILLION people voted for McCain. That's no small group, and when you add that to the MILLIONS of Indys, Moderate Dems and Moderate Repugs who voted for Obama, it's trouble in 2010 for Congress, and trouble in 2012 for Obama. History shows the party in power takes it on the chin in midterms anyway, but this time it's going to be much worse than usual.

So, instead of parroting the shrill, Big Media and Dem blather about the tea party people, you should study this more, try to be fair-minded and realize the answer isn't either extreme you see. The truth is always somewhere in the middle.

Obama got just over 10 million more votes than McCain. How many of those voters do you think are having major buyer's remorse today?

Lots. A big percentage of them.

(bolding was my emphasis)

I had a rare political discussion with a co-worker Monday after the TEA parties were done and we were looking at the number of people that showed up... we heard different estimates on the networks, some saying 50-60 thousand, a reporter on Fox News saying somewhere north of 100 thousand, a few blogs saying as many as a million. He told me he took a political science class and heard this theory while taking it, where an e-mail to a representative or senator would theoretically represent five people who feel the same way as the one writing the e-mail. The number goes up to 10 per phone call, and 100 per protester.

So, if the theory is correct and we go by the more conservative 60,000 turnout estimate, that's probably 6 million people who support the beliefs spouted at the TEA parties. How many of them registered voters, probably the overwhelming majority but that can't be determined. We had 131,257,328 people who voted for a candidate.

Obama won by a 10-million margin over John McCain as you said... Now this would tip to McCain if we assumed nearly every TEA partier was an ex-Obama supporter...that said, either way, that's a large population in the tank.

The problem with the theory is, there's a big difference between emails and actually showing up at a rally. One person at a rally represents 100 other people who agree but didn't go? It's probably more like 10,000. Your friend didn't take regional population into consideration. You're not going to get 60,000 people to show up at a rally where the local population is only 100,000 or so.

If one looks at the entire bus tour and adds up the folks, one might be amazed. It was in 30 cities, not just the last one in Washington. And that's not counting the April 15 Tea Parties which were a completely separate deal.

A Political science class, huh? Heh.

By the way the only estimate I heard from Fox is "tens of thousands" but admittedly, I wasn't watching it all that closely. But clearly it's just for that one rally, in an area with what, well over 2 million population?

If the Democrat Party doesn't fear the protesters, continues to pooh-pooh them like you and your friend, continues to vastly underestimate the buyers remorse that's out there, they're going to be out of jobs come 2010. History is against the party in power anyway, in mid-term elections.

Again as I said, it's a far larger movement than you think, but not as big as some others might think.

 

[WillowTree]

MM, I would have to say that post right there is one of the best I have ever read on here on any subject.

You are stating facts w/out hyperbole and hysterics, and making reasonable hypotheses of how America is thinking right now.

I think what you said needs to be discussed in a rational manner on here, because it makes so much sense.

You are correct, the truth IS somewhere in the middle.

Thank you!

I also often said, McCain is Obama's second best campaigner. And he was!

i cannot believe someone as smart as you actually pulled the lever for obama,, didn't any of what he did and said and who he associated with ring any of your warning bells?

 

[Zoom-boing]

He fell for it because the Barry projected the cool, the smooth, the in charge, the change, the hope, the mantra. But MM never drank the kool aid and he was able to break the spell. MM is astute.

 

[Sidestreamer]

That's a mistaken characterization. While I would not call it a majority of opinion, I wouldn't dismiss it as a "weird little group" either. It's somewhere in between.

MOST of the ones I know are like me, voted FOR Obama because McCain looked simply inept during the campaign -- I said even on my radio show that if the campaign was an example of McCain's executive skills, I didn't want him anywhere near the Oval Office in my lifetime.

Obama on the other hand, ran probably the best Presidential campaign in the history of the planet. They were sharp, focused, and on target most of the time. They were organized. And Obama himself is brilliant, well-spoken, and no matter what you think of him now or no matter your stripe, you gotta admire what he's accomplished in his 48 years. A hell of alot more than I have, at the same age.

However, the problem is we wanted change, not tons more of the same. THIS is what the tea party folks are saying. Obama's already got a couple hundred broken campaign promises -- either broken or simply nothing done on -- and the folks are truly, really fed up with politics as usual in Washington. Something else Obama promised to change and has not.

Now, to be fair: I also said that saddling Obama with the same Congress Bush had would make it difficult for him, and it has. Foolishly, I believed Obama would stand up to those loons -- far more than McCain would. Now though it's apparent that's not happening, and the sick, co-dependency relationship Bush had with Congress is now a marriage. Not gonna work. It should always be an adversarial relationship.

People forget that 59.5 MILLION people voted for McCain. That's no small group, and when you add that to the MILLIONS of Indys, Moderate Dems and Moderate Repugs who voted for Obama, it's trouble in 2010 for Congress, and trouble in 2012 for Obama. History shows the party in power takes it on the chin in midterms anyway, but this time it's going to be much worse than usual.

So, instead of parroting the shrill, Big Media and Dem blather about the tea party people, you should study this more, try to be fair-minded and realize the answer isn't either extreme you see. The truth is always somewhere in the middle.

Obama got just over 10 million more votes than McCain. How many of those voters do you think are having major buyer's remorse today?

Lots. A big percentage of them.

(bolding was my emphasis)

I had a rare political discussion with a co-worker Monday after the TEA parties were done and we were looking at the number of people that showed up... we heard different estimates on the networks, some saying 50-60 thousand, a reporter on Fox News saying somewhere north of 100 thousand, a few blogs saying as many as a million. He told me he took a political science class and heard this theory while taking it, where an e-mail to a representative or senator would theoretically represent five people who feel the same way as the one writing the e-mail. The number goes up to 10 per phone call, and 100 per protester.

So, if the theory is correct and we go by the more conservative 60,000 turnout estimate, that's probably 6 million people who support the beliefs spouted at the TEA parties. How many of them registered voters, probably the overwhelming majority but that can't be determined. We had 131,257,328 people who voted for a candidate.

Obama won by a 10-million margin over John McCain as you said... Now this would tip to McCain if we assumed nearly every TEA partier was an ex-Obama supporter...that said, either way, that's a large population in the tank.

The problem with the theory is, there's a big difference between emails and actually showing up at a rally. One person at a rally represents 100 other people who agree but didn't go? It's probably more like 10,000. Your friend didn't take regional population into consideration. You're not going to get 60,000 people to show up at a rally where the local population is only 100,000 or so.

If one looks at the entire bus tour and adds up the folks, one might be amazed. It was in 30 cities, not just the last one in Washington. And that's not counting the April 15 Tea Parties which were a completely separate deal.

A Political science class, huh? Heh.

By the way the only estimate I heard from Fox is "tens of thousands" but admittedly, I wasn't watching it all that closely. But clearly it's just for that one rally, in an area with what, well over 2 million population?

If the Democrat Party doesn't fear the protesters, continues to pooh-pooh them like you and your friend, continues to vastly underestimate the buyers remorse that's out there, they're going to be out of jobs come 2010. History is against the party in power anyway, in mid-term elections.

Again as I said, it's a far larger movement than you think, but not as big as some others might think.

My friend as far as I can tell leans right, though yeah, I am "pooh-poohing" on them because I find them hypocritical and a good number of them are only there to attack Obama rather than the entire government's spending.

I fully expect Democrats to lose seats in 2010, because the President has gotten off on the wrong foot with the healthcare debate and the "politics as usual" he promised to change hasn't for whatever reason.

As for the rally in DC, I know a couple from Jacksonville, Fla. that drove there and I'm willing to bet a number of the protesters went to multiple rallies, though I don't have any stats in front of me to suggest the true number of attendees and I don't care to do all that math right now.

 

[AllieBaba]

What does it matter if they went to multiple rallies?

That's exactly what the civil rights protesters did. They went to rally after rally after rally.

?

 

[PixieStix]

What does it matter if they went to multiple rallies?

That's exactly what the civil rights protesters did. They went to rally after rally after rally.

?

That is a good question

 

[Sidestreamer]

What does it matter if they went to multiple rallies?

That's exactly what the civil rights protesters did. They went to rally after rally after rally.

?

If you followed the conversation we're trying to estimate how many people follow the TEA partiers' beliefs... The theory is one protester==100 believers, so I'm factoring out the duplicates.