Poll suggests Tea Party Patriots more popular than GOP, Dems

I'm wondering where the phone list for the poll came from... The Republican party?

Or was it a random calling ?

That would definitely change the characteristics of the results from any poll

We are probably witnessing the end of political parties in America. This is agodd thing since Washington in his Farewell Address warned against Political Parties.

They need to release their collection data.  Most of us here know the statistics can be manipulated to read just about anything they desire. 

If it was a FOX news poll I would agree with you, but it's NBC/WSJ.  I think people are frustrated with the two major political parties.  There should be no surprise in this outcome, just look at the charade going on in Congress. 

I don't think we are seeing the end of political parties.  A political party is a political philosophy to which a group of people ascribe. Core beliefs are the heart of political movements/parties, but they are constantly in flux, which is their ebb and flow strength.  When they stop adjusting to their believers/followers, the numbers can diminish and party direction is reassessed.  This has happened in both major parties over the years.

Tea Partiers are a reactionary movement.  Once the GOP begins to assimilate some of the tea party demands, they will disappear.  This will happen next year as elections begin, the GOP will seek out those votes, and the process of assimilation will begin.   

That process has already started. 

Nanute and A211423, thanks for all that info.  Yes,  I would guess that to be the case,  the disaffected and the Libertarians coming together---and Pocci:  grrrrr

One big TeePee.

JEEZ! Imagine that! None of this is surprising to the average American that has been paying attention to what the politicians are up to lately.

I've mentioned on this site that the time for a viable third party to emerge is ripe. It takes a while for Americans to catch on to what their politicians are up to.When economic times are good, Americans continue their preoccupation with  material distractions. However, when economic times are bad, Americans give more thought to what their politicians are up to and how the politicians screw up their lives.

But it's a lot more than just poor economic conditions that is causing anger among American voters.

Any American that is paying attention to U.S. politics these days (unless they're a blind ideologue) can't help but notice that things have gone completely awry in Washington D.C. 

A prime example is the obsession that the Democratic party has with passing health care reform legislation. The majority of American voters have private health care insurance. And 80 percent of them are satisfied with their health care coverage. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy resembles a depression more than it does a recession, notwithstanding all the rosy economic forecasts and absolute spin that the MSM (as a result of its collective "progressive" bias) puts on the economy in order to make the Obama Administration look better than it really is.

I and others have posted a number of economic stories on this site which incorporate real economic data taken from the same sources that the rosy economic recovery forecasts are derived from. But our data contradicts most of what the MSM and the Obama Administration is telling the American public about the economic recovery. PIM has done the same, but in a much more detailed and comprehensive manner--he can add two and two and come up with four . . . .

"It's the economy stupid" aside. The bottom line is this: America and Americans hold certain traditions and values near and dear--for better or for worse. The rest of the world has no idea of what Americans are all about in spite of the fact that Americans often hear tell of what Americans are all about from the rest of the world. And in spite of the massive influx of immigrants from non-European countries, throughout the past three decades, and in spite of all the PC rammed down their throats,  Americans remain Eurocentric and steeped in Judeo-Christian ethics and beliefs.

What the average American sees and perceives, in view of and on the part of the Obama Administration and the Democrat controlled House and Senate, is a radical leftist and ideological axe to grind against America's traditional core of being. In other words, the majority of American voters have the same visceral reaction to the Obama Administration and the Democrats in the House and Senate that liberals and "progressives" had (and still have) toward Nixon, Reagan, and Bush. But the difference between "average Americans" and "progressives" is that there's a lot more "average Americans" than there are "progressives" out there . . . .

Only those Americans that are completely and totally blinded by their ideology--to the point where they've lost all touch with their American core of being and, indeed, reality--would believe that someone such as Obama, in conjunction with the Democrat controlled House and Senate, can tear down America and rebuild it into a new nation.

It is amazing and striking  the parallels that can be drawn between what NYC one-term mayor, David Dinkins, attempted to do to New York City, and what one-term president, Jimmy Carter, attempted to do to America, and what Obama and the Democrat-controlled House and Senate is attempting to do to America . . . . Three absolute and perfect parallels.

America is not a democracy--it's a republic. And it remains a republic, to this day, in spite of the "progressive's" calling it a democracy in hopes that by relentlessly spreading that big lie, long and hard enough, America will somehow devolve into a democracy. The potential problem for  "progressives",  is that if they get their way and America does turn into a "democracy" it will inevitably devolve into a mobocracy. And there is not one historical account that suggests a "democracy" benefits humanity . . . .

Good lord,  Rory,  I thought America was a democracy and a republic?  : (   What about "making the world safe for democracy"?   I understand that Plato, in The Republic,  had many scathing things to say of democracy, and I know Nietzsche had little defense for it either,  but I thought this was what America had been based on?  You mean we are NOT living in a pluralist democracy as I had thought???  : (

Yes,  Rory, I have seen on many historical sites that we are in fact not a democracy,  but a Republic ( I just did a search)--Yikes,  I was a Phi Beta Epsilon honors student and am just finding this out? : (

OK,  if you see below, the "liberal elites"  are not adhering to democracy either. 

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

Hmmm,  sarcasm, huh?   :  ( ---Yes ,  I liked De Tocqueville's philosophy,  but did believe that America had always been serious about democracy as well.....

While it is certainly true that from a technical definitional point of view our government is a Republic. People that know the difference between a Democratic and Republican form of government sometimes use the terms interchangeably. With the exception of the election of the President, all of our elected representatives are elected by a majority vote. Hence, a democratic election. In all cases, elected representatives are limited by the supreme law of the land; The US Constitution. To say Once those "representatives" get into office, they can do, virtually, any damned thing that they want to do until their term is up. (Rory's quote), dismisses the role the judicial branch plays in our form of government. Now there are individuals that don't like the "activist" nature of the courts overturning the rule of the majority through elected representation, but I would argue that it is in fact the role of the judiciary is to insure that the rights of individual citizens  are not subjugated to the majority rule.The Framers were much concerned with the limitations and dangers of representative Democracy, and set the judiciary up as the umpire to settle questions of what is Constitutional. Marbury v.. Madison settled that question and has not been overruled; yet. 

From the abolition of slavery to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, progressive liberal minded citizens has sought to insure that minorities and the disfranchised rights are protected. It took the passage of the 14th Amendment and a Civil War to secure inalienable rights and full citizen status to African Americans.It took progressive minded thinking to extend the right to vote to women. If the notion of insuring that all citizens are to be represented and protected under the Constitution is considered a ideological leftist, liberal desire to force the will of what's right on the rest of society, I would say that is an ideological argument from the right. 

Framing the argument from a perspective that seeks to dismiss and marginalize a point of view with cliche's and invective does nothing to foster an attempt to seek common ground. The current political situation in America didn't just happen overnight. In fact, I would argue it dates back to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and some individuals in our society are still fighting the Civil War. That is not to say that it is all about race. The southern strategy developed by the Republican Party under the leadership of Richard Nixon was the catalyst for dividing Americans along racial identity lines. Perhaps this may explain why many liberal progressive American's still have feelings of animosity towards him. It wasn't personal, it was a disgust with the ideology.

Today, we see strong economic power consolidated and controlled by a small minority of "citizens" (corporations), that are shaping and controlling rights of individuals based on concentrations of wealth. I'm not arguing for redistribution of wealth, don't be confused. What I'm saying is that there is a minority power that is in effect acting as a majority that is diminishing and negating the concept of individual rights.

The current health care debate is a classic example. We can argue about whether or not, health care is a fundamental right to be expected by Americans. The question is do we as citizens have a responsibility to provide and insure that no American should die or become impoverished as a result of not having health care. (Am I my brother's keeper?) If you think that the corporations should control the system, and the government should play no role, that's fine; just say so. 

Democrats are not immune form criticism. As of late, they too have been showing a propensity to be influenced and co-opted by powerful interests, and with the exception of the much maligned liberal progressive wing, seem willing to hand the health care and pharmaceutical industry control over the uninsured population. 

Is the country ripe for a third party? Possibly, but not a probable solution to our current or future condition. The entrenched powers of the 2 party system, coupled with the concentrated power of the economic elites make  this option a remote proposition. I don't dismiss it as out of hand. But see the movement of groups like the tea party as a minority faction of the Republican Party. It is not a matter of Democrats good, Republicans  bad. That is a polarizing metaphor.