HOME / politics: Who's winning, who's losing, and why.

The Poll Heard Round the WorldCould a Tea Party candidate actually win an election?

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN).One key to the success of the Tea Party movement is that no one has bothered to measure it. Democrats pump up Tea Partiers—or, in their preferred nomenclature, tea baggers—as a fringe coalition of nativists and neo-Nazis taking over the Republican Party. Moderate Republicans dismiss them as a small but vocal band of gripers. Conservative Republicans claim they're a vibrant cross-section of concerned Americans like you and me. The argument, and the publicity, is endless, because no one knows how many Tea Partiers there are.

Until now. Rasmussen Reports took the first crack last week at measuring the strength of a third-party "Tea Party" candidate on a generic ballot, and the results are in. "Suppose the Tea Party Movement organized itself as a political party," the survey asked. "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?" Democrats led the way with 36 percent. Republicans pulled in 18 percent. And the Tea Party candidate got 23 percent. The Democratic National Committee would like to point out that 23 is more than 18.

Many poll watchers, especially liberal ones, view Rasmussen with some skepticism and say its results tend to favor conservative politicians and positions. (See Pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal for possible explanations.) While the survey interviews "likely voters," it doesn't define exactly what that means. It doesn't release party-identification cross-tabs, so we don't know how many of those interviewed are Republicans or Democrats. Many of the questions seem worded to elicit a conservative response. ("Whose judgment do you trust more—the American people or America's political leaders?") And they often do: Compare the Rasmussen results in recent congressional polls with all the other surveys. Furthermore, the fact that the phone poll is automated, rather than conducted by human beings, raises eyebrows.

But none of those concerns should provide much comfort to Republicans. For one thing, the poll jibes with other recent Rasmussen surveys. In the three most recent Rasmussen national congressional ballots, Democrats poll at 37 or 38 percent. Republicans, meanwhile, hover at 44 percent. In the Tea Party survey, the Democrats' number doesn't move—it remains at 36—whereas the Republican number plunges. This suggests that respondents aren't professing allegiance to some generic independent third party. Rather, they know what they're talking about when they say they support the Tea Parties. Ideally, the question would have listed a generic independent third party, as a control. As Blumenthal puts it: "How much of this is the Glenn Beck-, Fox News-inspired movement that those of us who cover politics know so well, and how much is third party identification?" But the fact that nearly all of the support came from the Republican side suggests it's the former.

That's not to say that, if an independent Tea Party were founded tomorrow, it would beat the Republican Party in an election. Scott Rasmussen admits as much in his write-up of the survey: "In practical terms, it is unlikely that a true third-party option would perform as well as the polling data indicates." But it's the closest number we have, so far, to identifying how large a segment of the population identifies with the protesters we see on TV (or, for members of Congress, outside their windows).

Rasmussen cautions against attaching a number to the movement itself. "You can get a sense of it," he says, "but you can't pretend to have real precision." It's like measuring the size of the "investor class." Ask people, and they'll probably say they're not part of it. Ask them what they own in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds, and you may get different results. Likewise, the number of people who self-identify as Tea Partiers is going to be different from the number of people who want lower taxes, deficit reduction, and smaller government.

If anything, the uncertainty about their actual numbers benefits the Tea Partiers. As John M. O'Hara, author of the upcoming book A New American Tea Party, puts it: "In a way, the inability to pin down an exactly number speaks to the broad appeal of this movement." On the other hand, it may also reflect a vagueness of mission. Some oppose cap and trade. Others care about the deficit. A third group really, really liked John Adams.

But the poll's real significance is that it upends the spoiler equation. Until now, a conservative running on a third-party ticket, as Doug Hoffman did in New York's 23rd Congressional District, was considered a spoiler for dividing the GOP coalition. If Tea Party supporters outnumber Republicans, who's the spoiler then?

Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
Christopher Beam is a Slate political reporter. Follow him on Twitter.
Photograph of Michele Bachmann by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.
COMMENTS

The NY-23 election result is seen by some as a victory for the Democrats, who won that Congressional seat for the first time in memory. But, in fact, the Right did achieve its purpose in that race. Next time, whoever is running for the Republicans in NY-23 is going to make sure his or her positions are consonant with those of the Conservative Party (on whose line Hoffman ran), or else not make the race for fear of what happened to Scozzafava. This is not a new strategy. New York's Conservative Party has been doing it for almost fifty years, and indeed there are very few Republican candidates in New York who DON'T have both Republican and Conservative support. As a way to push your POLITICS as opposed to simply winning elections, it worked.

The problems with this strategy are: a) it's a long-term strategy -- you run the risk of getting someone you don't like elected every now and then; and b) it doesn't work well in periods when the mood of the electorate has swung against you. When Ronald Reagan and George Bush were riding high, Republicans won a lot of elections and the Conservative Party strategy of forcing Republicans to the right gave them Congressmen more to their liking. But New York is now down to only two Republican Congressmen, from 12 just a few years ago. People there stopped voting for right-wingers in 2006, and that was all the Republican Party was offering.

And that really is what the Tea Party Movement is all about -- convincing people that the American people, in one short year, have had a total epiphany and now realize that they should have elected McCain last year, that it was wrong to have passed a stimulus program, wrong to have saved the banks from a full-blown crash, and it's wrong now to reform the health care system, even though Obama ran on that, won decisively, and is superintending a reform bill more or less along the lines of what he said he would favor. IF the teabaggers can pull this off, then their move in NY-23 will bear fruit. The next Republican will run far to the right, and if the people in that district truly believe that they were mistaken when they voted for Obama in 2008, they'll vote for his exact opposite in 2010.

This does not seem very likely to me. Even assuming that unemployment is still at 10% next November, why on Earth would an unemployed person vote for a right-wing Republican, whose message to him is "we need to go back to governing the way we did in 2007 and 2008, only without so much worrying about another Depression." People may be confused by what Obama is doing on health care or Afghanistan, but they are NOT confused about what the Republican opposition is doing, and every single poll shows Obama's ratings higher than those of generic Republicans. The Repubs may win back some seats in 2010 if Democratic turnouts are low, but they will get completely skunked in 2012.

The idea that the teabaggers represent anything REAL has no evidence to support it. The teabaggers look, to me, like classic right-wing Republicans. They don't represent anything NEW in the political fabric -- they're just sore losers who have a sympathetic national TV network trying to portray them as something they aren't. In order to represent a third force, they'd have to be organizing a real third party, and there aren't any signs that any of them are doing that.

The teabagger movement would be, without FOX network, a mere rumor, and FOX network is not interested in principles -- just power. If the teabaggers actually make noises like they're really thinking of going independent, count on Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes to shut them down.

-- the_slasher14
(To reply,
click here)

What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
TODAY'S DOONESBURY
TODAY'S VIDEO
I want to hold your hand.89/091208_TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on global warming.18/091208_TC.jpg
They shoot engineers, don't they?90/091208_TD.jpg