12% of dems are progressives, 13% of repubs are tea partiers

[Uben]

These are the numbers I found this morning when trying to research the percentages. I got the tea party numbers from a Quinnipiac poll 3/24/10 and the progressive numbers from a Gallop poll 7/12/10.

Both movements do not have the numbers to significantly change anything, but that can change.

[kentuck]

1. And 80% don't know what the hell they are....

Whatever they think is popular at the moment.

[wavesofeuphoria]

2. The percentages are not all that worthwhile without knowing

how many are "dem" and how many are "repubs" to begin with ... add that information and "significance" can be discussed.

[Xipe Totec]

3. I'm not sure I like being considered the tea party of the left nt

[Gormy Cuss]

7. +1 n/t

[Uben]

14. Why not?

Stand for what you believe in. I believe that's what both movements are doing. Admittedly, I am not a progressive, per se. I identify as a democrat because I have never voted otherwise, but I am a little more conservative than most dems on the fiscal side of things. I believe our leaders should pay for everything and only borrow in times of dire need. If we can't afford it, dammit, don't spend it! Ie, the tax cuts for the rich or anything associated with the myth known as trickle down. The HCR bill will actually save money, according to the CBO. Obama pretty much echoes my beliefs fiscally, although I am still wanting our leaders to figure out a way we can get universal healthcare without deficit spending.

I believe we should go back to what worked. A mild policy of protectionism would be healthy for this country. Not so much for developing countries, but we should be looking after Americans first. MAnufacturing jobs with employer sponsored healthcare benefits and retirement plans worked for many years. It can again if we could get the greedy fucking board members of these corporations to care more about the workers making them the money than the ones investing in them.

[Xipe Totec]

19. You have much too high a regard for right wing nutjobs,

if you're willing to compare them to left side progressives.

[Uben]

21. High regard? No....

...making comparisons does not, or should not, imply I hold either in high regard, because I do not. I merely point out that both are fractures of their respective parties. Don't think the dems don't have their share of nut jobs, because they most certainly do.

Both tea partiers and progressives are well educated, from what I have read. Both want their parties to take a different direction, and that probably does more good for both parties than bad. We all know the status quo sucks!

[EFerrari]

23. Where did you read that tea baggers are well educated?

[Uben]

25. It was when I was researching these numbers, today

A couple of sites gave breakdown stats such as what race, income level, education, male/female, etc. Yeah, I was amazed at that, too. It said something like 24% of tea baggers had a college education and 14% had a post-graduate education. They compared the numbers to the general public and it showed baggers were on average, smarter, though the numbers weren't that far apart. So, I might have been stretching it to say they are "well" educated. "Educated" was probably a better adjective.

[treestar]

4. Fascinating

and unfortunately tea partiers have a better chance than progressives, since they don't give up nearly as easily and don't bash the Republicans nearly as quickly.

[Flubadubya]

15. Maybe so, but the Republicans don't bash them nearly as quickly...

as DINOs bash progressives! :puke:

[treestar]

16. Maybe that's because the tea partiers don't waste time bloviating

that the Republicans are worthless, as bad as the Democrats and bashing their leaders and calling them weak or spineless when they don't get even half as much?

[frylock]

20. you just never pass on an opportunity to kick libs in teeth, do you?

[stray cat]

5. what is a progressive?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

26. Everything you're not. -nt

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

27. ....

:spray:

[Ozymanithrax]

6. I don't agree that "Both movements do no have the numbers...to change anything."

Tea parters are hyper-conservative and have put a slate of their own extremist right politicians up for election, and they will elect at least one, Rubio, and have a shot at several more. They have changed the Republican Party.

The main reason that progressives can't do that is summed up in this article from The New Republic, Building the Progressive Brand. New Progressivism hos no consistent brand, few people know what it means. I have been looking for a cogent argument and explanation of modern progressivism and have not found it. I am a liberal that believes we should develop progressive programs. I have read about liberalism, I know where it comes from, and what it's core concepts are.

[MineralMan]

10. I think that "progressives" are made up of several distinct

groups, each with a powerful issue that motivates that group. While they may also support the issues of other groups, each group seems to focus primarily on its own top issue. Anti-war, green, racial, GLBTQI , anti-corporate, labor, and other issues each have strong advocacy. For each group, their primary issue has their top priority, naturally, so it's difficult to present a unified front. While there are generic progressives, they're not usually movers and shakers.

For the teabaggers, it's easy. Their entire movement is based on hatred of "not-us." They're unified in that.

Disclaimer: This is strictly my unscientific opinion, based on observation.

[Ozymanithrax]

12. Under that hate, the teabaggers have cogent message

and a unifying theme that has allowed them to get people primaried in against the desires of the Republican establishment. Modern Republicans just don't have the guts to kick the John Birchers out. Some of those people will be elected.

Progresives appear at this time to be unable to marshal the energy to save Feingold, and have not had much an affect at all in primaries.

I admit, that though I have some knowledge of the original progressive movement(late 19th and early 20th centruy), which was neithr liberl nor conservative, and some idea of progressiveism around FDR's time, a lot of it in opposition to FDR considering him too conservative, the modern movement is fractured and hasn't really let the world know what it is about.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

13. This is pretty accurate. The Democratic party is a coalition made up of groups

who have different and sometimes competing priorities. If you ask 100 Democrats randomly what their top concerns are you'll probably get 100 different rankings. If you do the same with Republicans you'll get much more agreement I would guess.

[Emperess mildred]

8. 54% of people don't know what progressive means, Gallup says

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141218/americans-unsure-progressive-political-label.aspx

[RedCloud]

9. So after a two year shit storm 13% is the best they can do? 12% after mere dormancy?

I like them odds.

[LWolf]

11. The term "progressive" can be spun to mean very different things. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

17. The Gallup I saw actually showed that a strong majority have

no idea when asked about these labels. When asked if 'progressive' describes them, more than half say they don't know.
The majority say they do not know. Which fills in some information. The implication that the majority said that 'progressive' does not describe them is clear in the OP, but that is far from the case.
11% said 'moderate' describes them. Less than said progressive. 65% said they did not know if they were 'moderates'!

[Uben]

18. I didn't dig much deeper.....

...than I had to to get the numbers. Attaining the information I did took a while to even find, and given it is based on two polls by only two polling firms, of course the numbers are going to be a bit fuzzy. I believe what we see in these polls are those who are pretty much certain they identify with the movements while the rest fall somewhere in between. It's just a "take it for what it's worth" post.

[pstokely]

22. Was this yet another poll that excluded cell phones?

?

[Phil The Cat]

If somebody calls MY cell phone

And I see a number, not a name: straight to voice mail, which I retrieve via land line!

I don't want to waste money via minutes on telemarketers and polls!

Su yes, telephone based polls are erroneous and not a good sample!

[bvar22]

24. So you think only 12% of Democrats would sign on for this?

"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.”
People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world." --FDR

[kctim]

28. Yep

and it seems the sane 75% of us are at their mercy.