823,076 - That is the estimate of total attendance at tea party events at Pajamas Media TV aka PJTV. The political class are pretending to ignore the large number of people who spent their own time expressing their political opinions. Pretending, but they can't.
First, about the huge number - Rosslyn Smith at American Thinker Blog
As we approach the 100th day of the Obama reign the media is full of stories about how popular he is with American voters. Often these stories are supported by polling results commissioned by these media organization especially for the celebration.Second, Mark Davis in Dallas on the response from media and politicians:It is hard for me to reconcile polls showing wide based approval for Obama's actions with the information reported at Pajamas Media, which currently calculates the attendance at the various tea parties at 823,076 . That number is based on the media reports, videos and still photos forwarded to them by citizen correspondents across the country. I urge readers to visit their site and check out their coverage.
What particularly interests me is that many of these demonstrations were held in locations your average reporter for a national media outlet probably couldn't place within 200 miles of its actual coordinates without significant help from Google Earth. For example, 500 people showed up at the Tax Day tea party protest in Abingdon, Virginia, population 7800. Then there were the 100 who showed up in Alpine, Texas, population 5,800. The names of Boone, North Carolina and Branson, Missouri conjure up images of vacation condos, not protest marches, but each resort town had a respectable turnout on April 15.
It is hard for me to imagine 250 sign carrying protestors in either of the sleepy towns of Dixon, Illinois, the boyhood home of Ronald Reagan, or Fairmont, Minnesota, a southwestern Minnesota town where my father went to hunt pheasant on a friend's farm each fall. It is equally difficult to picture 300 protestors in Florence in northwestern, Alabama or, Oshkosh b'gosh, a whopping 1,000 protestors assembling at Fond Du Lac in central, Wisconsin. Add in 250 in Gillette, Wyoming. 500 assembled in Greeneville, the seat of Greene County Tennessee with another 400 marching in Newport, the seat of adjacent Cocke County, Tennessee. Then there are the 300 demonstrators in Harrison, Arkansas, 2,000 in the heart of Cajun country in Lafayette, Louisiana, 400 in Las Cruces, New Mexico, 1,000 in Loveland, Colorado, 150 in Owensboro, Kentucky, 1,500 In Rapid City, South Dakota, 650 in Traverse City, Michigan. 700 in Tupelo, Mississippi and 521 in Valparasio, Indiana. [...]
[T]he behavioral portrait that begs to be analyzed is the torrent of unhinged tantrums thrown by those repulsed by the exercise.Update: Reader Johnny gives the update:Disagreeing with tea party politics is fine. I would expect a massive pro-life event to be met with pro-choice responses or a global warming rally to be answered with constructive skepticism.
But from White House officials to actors with time on their hands, it was not enough to simply disagree with the tea party cornerstone of lower taxes and spending. The Americans attending these events had to be eviscerated as mobs of evil, violent psychopaths.
YouTube the MSNBC diatribe from Janeane Garofalo, who manages to cash a paycheck in the current season of 24, a television series that surely offends her by painting a favorable image of fighting terror. Maybe the pain of enduring such an environment fueled her attack on the generally conservative tea party crowds. "It's about hating a black man in the White House," she spewed, oblivious to the absence of that theme from the vast majority of the nearly 800 events. But why let facts obstruct a good smear?
"It is a neurological problem we are dealing with," she continued, falling back on the most dog-eared index card in the radical left's file: demonize your opponents so you don't have to address what they actually say. [...]
"...lawmakers knew constituents had no stomach for higher taxes. Nixing a planned sales-tax hike for a range of health services was the wise course considering the state's sputtering economy." Seattle Times
When was the last time democratic lawmakers gave a fig about what people thought of taxes?
Maybe - just maybe having thousands of taxpayers show up a few weeks back to protest taxes had something to do with it.
Posted by Ron Hebron at April 27, 2009 06:42 AM | Email ThisI agree, Ron -- plenty of reasons to be skeptical.
Posted by: scottd on April 27, 2009 08:01 AMJim Geraghty was doing his counts and came up with 250k but I noticed it didn't include the larger Bellingham protest. But, considering how the press counts and how accurate PJ is, I would guess the number pretty accurate and should be considered a million even.
I got into a spittin' match last week with one of the unfringed. I just sat there quoting the deficits proposed under Obama and he just sat there spittin' (literally) as he tried to blame it on Bush' deficits. This guy claims to be a medical doctor.
The bottom line isn't to elect Republicans but to be effective in getting the spending and taxing under control. With guys like the good doc (who until now has always been good for a good sparring match), how can the good guys come across better?
Posted by: swatter on April 27, 2009 08:12 AMWhat is your count?
Posted by: Ron Hebron on April 27, 2009 08:18 AMSome of the events for the 4th of July will actually be held on the 27th of Juen for that reason. Here is a link for it:
http://campaign-archive.com/?u=eff95ab5dea7d55c3c184ac70&id=e969eae373
It also has a link for prinintg pink slips for Congress.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on April 27, 2009 08:26 AMPoliticians are under no obligation to 'listen' just because you got a moderate sized group together. It proves nothing except that there is a vocal minority. In the era of opinion polls we can quickly see what 'the people' really think whether it be on Iraq, taxes, or our friend Mumia. You want real change, actually work to elect people who will do what you want.
Not to mention that a fair number of the people I saw at Tea Parties were Paultards, birthers, and other conspiracy laden nuts.
Posted by: giffy on April 27, 2009 09:03 AMThese tea parties consist of much larger numbers of Americans, much more civil, much better organized and with much better questions.
It is appropriate to wonder if $65 Billion a day for the last 100 days is going to solve our economic problems, or if it is simply government money being tossed around; good money after bad.
But the left can't fathom the dissent when it is not their own. So they just descend into fits and poke fun at those who disagree.
What scares the left, is that they know that if such massive economic interference does not work as planned, Obama's days are numbered.
In the US, we don't elect kings for emotional reasons. We elect Presidents, and we expect them to perform. In their zeal to repeat Camelot, the left may well overlook the fact that kingly fantasies don't impress the majority of Americans. Just as we criticize Bush for his mistakes, we should criticize Obama as well.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 27, 2009 09:04 AMHowever, I did sample some of the largest events as reported by PJTV to learn more about their methodology. The Denver reporting was typical and instructive. The Denver Post and Colorado State Patrol estimated the crowd at 5000. Commenters at PJTV had estimates as low as 2500 to 10000. (These commenters appeared to be sympathetic to the cause, so I would suppose they had no reason to low-ball their estimates.) Naturally, PJTV picked the highest estimate they could find for their count. This pattern was repeated in the other events I looked at -- so I think you could say there was a bias to overestimate.
Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com puts the total at 262025 although he admits that some sites (mostly small) aren't in the total.
My guess is that reality is somewhere in the middle.
So, what does that tell us? We already know that almost 60 million people voted against Obama on Election Day. It wouldn't surprise me if nearly 1/100th of that many were still sore enough about losing to come out and whine about it. So what?
That being said, while I think its pretty useless, knock yourselves out. Protest all you want. Its time the right learned what a waste of time it is and how little affect it actually has. Not to mention how hard it is to keep every semi-related fringe group from showing up and diluting the message while making you look silly.
Posted by: Giffy on April 27, 2009 09:12 AMI support unconditionally the right to assemble peacefully aqnd petition the government for redress of grievances. So I do not heap contempt or scorn on the "teabaggers" even though I loathe their politics and consider their "grievances" to be imaginary.
Posted by: ivan on April 27, 2009 09:34 AMAnd, unfortunately, like my good friend the doc, you can't seem to see the forest from the trees. These deficits proposed by Obama will cripple the country. And I mean cripple as in unable to get up.
As for the polls, I am noticing that the skyrocket polls are those sanctioned by the stalwarts of socialism like the CNN, New York Times and Gallup (which lost relevance to polical polling decades ago).
Posted by: swatter on April 27, 2009 09:39 AMWitness this legislative session and the number of democratic tax increases that DIDN'T pass.
Biggest Example: State income tax A democratic wet-dream and liberal left wish list item for decades now. Even with amajority in both houses and a governor anxious raise taxes and blame it on Bush IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
The deficit is a problem, but so far we have not reached an unsustainable percent of GDP though we are getting closer. I am reasonable confident a combination of growth and slightly higher taxes will allow us to get it under control. After all that is what worked in the 90's.
As for polls, fox does them as well and the results are pretty consistent. Sure you get outliers every now and then, though more now with the proliferation of polling, but overall they tend to be pretty accurate.
Posted by: Giffy on April 27, 2009 09:45 AMCome on, we have had a dem governor for a long time and even bigger majorities in the past. Legislators are cowards and unwilling to take chances. Big surprise.
Posted by: Giffy on April 27, 2009 09:49 AMJ
Posted by: johnny on April 27, 2009 09:58 AMI support unconditionally your right to eat whatever you want. So I do not heap contempt or scorn on the "obese" even though I loathe their lack of discipline and consider their "struggles" to be of their own making.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 27, 2009 10:12 AM*Well not originally, but post civil war.
Posted by: Giffy on April 27, 2009 11:17 AMI also don't have a problem with a modest tax increase (for a reason) to offset the spending but I haven't seen it yet. The cap and trade tax coupled with Obama's tax on heat and lights for the working schmuck isn't my idea of what will work.
Posted by: swatter on April 27, 2009 11:33 AMBut we need to decide as a country if we want lower taxes and less government services or more taxes and the same level of services as we are hitting the point where deficit spending is not going to sustain us going forward.
Posted by: Giffy on April 27, 2009 11:51 AMDO NOT let the libs define it. DO NOT let them frame the debate.
Keep on in a steady fashion and we'll gain ground little by little until we reach our goals.
It p!sses off the libs that we're using tactics they claim as their own...but are as American as America itself!
Don't Tread On Me.
Posted by: Sam Adams on April 27, 2009 01:48 PMFrankly, I thought it was a real mistake when they gave 18 year olds the right to vote. The argument was "They can go to war but they can't vote."
My counter at the time - and it continues to be - that we should up the age on the draft and joining the army to 21 then, because 18 year olds just aren't mature enough to handle complex subjects with long-term ramifications.
(That sounds like an "old-guy a-hole attitude" I guess, but we also don't let 18 years drink in this country either. When we DO see what happens when they drink anyway, it only proves to us how immature and irresponsible they really are.)
Posted by: johnny on April 27, 2009 02:25 PMIf you watch HowObamaGotElected.com, it's sad to see just how clueless voters were about basic political knowledge. Democrats did a great job of mobilizing people, but these were programmed robots, not voters. Fundamental and universal answers that every voter should know like "Who is the speaker of the House." Or, "Who is the Senate Majority leader?" ere met with blank stares. If a voter does not know the answer to these questions, they do not possess the requisite knowledge to make informed decision as a voter. Of course, these are exactly the kind of people Democrats are looking for as voters, but that's a large part of the reason that the country heads in the wrong direction. If we elect the wrong people consistently, we all suffer.
Democrats like to pretend that long term damage to the country only happens when Republicans are in office, but much of the tenor of the past century has been set by Democrat administrations, and we still haven't reached the Utopia they promise every four years. If it were up to Democrats, it would have taken a lot longer to end slavery and restore civil rights to all.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 27, 2009 03:14 PM"And by the same token, a lot of uneducated people shouldn't be allowed to vote either. Of course it would be infeasible to implement, but the reality is that a vote based on emotion isn't really a democratic system in action."
I know what you mean, Jeff. I felt the same way about those gullible morons who fell for "Morning in America."
Say hi for me to Governor Rossi next time you see him. Cheers.
Every day there is more incentive for them. Think about how the debt gets larger, more government control with the progressives in power that want to change this country so they can be the proletariat.
Posted by: KDS on April 27, 2009 06:58 PMSo the bottom line on this little tea party is that, yes, there are still a number of sore heads out there who would rather talk about Obama’s birth certificate than substantive tax and economic policy.
I’m convinced the only reason you got the turnout you did was the non-stop hype it got on FOX.
I heard most of the crowd in Monroe this last weekend consisted of record agents trying to sign Pudge.
For the record, Obama has the second lowest presidential rating of all presidents at the same time in their administration over the last 40 years. Only one lower was the Slicker. That includes Richard Nixon, too.
So, go figure your polls out or what does your gut say?
Posted by: swatter on April 28, 2009 08:27 AMI'd say you need to double-check the record:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117598/Obama-Averages-Approval-First-Quarter.aspx
According to Gallup, Obama's average approval rating over his first quarter (63%) surpassed Nixon's (62%), Reagan's (60%), G.H.W. Bush (57%), Clinton's (55%), and G.W. Bush (58%). The only one to beat him was Carter (69%).
Personally, I don't think this kind of polling tells you much. You would expect presidents to have high approval ratings in their first quarter -- after all, they were just elected to office.
What's more interesting is that the number of people willing to admit to being Republicans has dropped to the lowest level in 25 years. In recent polls, only 1 in 5 Americans identified with that party. Self-identified Democrats outnumbered them 7-to-4.
Ron seems to think those numbers are suspect because a few hundred thousand sore losers were willing to go out and wave their tea bags for the cameras -- that's just wishful thinking on his part.
Posted by: scottd on April 28, 2009 09:09 AM"...lawmakers knew constituents had no stomach for higher taxes. Nixing a planned sales-tax hike for a range of health services was the wise course considering the state's sputtering economy."
When was the last time democratic lawmakers gave a fig about what people thought of taxes?
Maybe - just maybe having thousands of taxpayers show up a few weeks back to protest taxes had something to do with it.
Go ahead and tell us again how popular Obama is right now, but then remember that opinions change. Jimmy Carter was an incredibly well-liked guy initially too, until people realized that a southern drawl didn't stop him from being a weak-kneed whiner with a red streak.
Posted by: johnny on April 28, 2009 09:12 AMBe in D.C.!
Posted by: DennisR on April 28, 2009 12:08 PMhttp://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/28/baracks-in-the-basement/print/
BTW, scottd, I hate polls and pols for that matter.
Posted by: swatter on April 28, 2009 12:36 PMWith good time management - it is very possible to raise a family, pay your mortgage, work at least 40 hours a week (who does just that?) and pay high taxes - while still allowing sufficient time to coach a team, volunteer, and protest from time to time.
Resolve those deeper issues Scott.
Posted by: BA on April 28, 2009 01:11 PMObama Averages 63% Approval in His First Quarter
Highest first-quarter average since 1977
Since this was based on the average of multiple polls from multiple sources, I'd say it's more representative than the single data point carefully cherry-picked by the Moonie Times.
I mostly agree with you regarding polls -- I guess the only reason you brought one up @35 was because you thought it proved something.
P.S.: The Moonie Times lied to you. Their editorial of April 28 claims that Obama's latest approval rating is 56%. If you check Gallup's site for the latest number (covering April 23-25), you'll see that his approval is 63%. During his entire term, Gallup has never reported a number as low as 56%.
You really need to read more reliable sources.
Posted by: scottd on April 28, 2009 05:56 PMSilver Lining..... Conservatives can further the cause of patriotism by vocally and vociferously rejecting extremist incitements of succession as made by Texas Governor Rick Perry and support with significant financial contributions the candidacy of Kay Bailey Hutchison.
There is no need to ignore those who would use this movement solely for political gain by winking and nodding to extremest treason mongering idiots.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on April 29, 2009 11:42 AMWriting on a blog seems to make it easier to avoid exercising that restraint.
Posted by: BA on April 29, 2009 03:39 PMHis point, if you read the entire thing, was that just because Obama wants to lead us away from what has made this country great doesn't mean we all have to follow him.
More to the point, he was making the point that socialism wasn't on the ballot in 2008 and Obama had very much denied he wanted to take us that direction when asked.
Now he's in the whitehouse and taking us that direction. Why would he think we would put up with that?
I was proud to be a "tea-bagger" at the Everett event.
I think it is time for Atlas to Shrug.
If you are employed, or an entrepreneur, then YOU are Atlas in this context. The government is riding on your back. Time to shrug it off.
To do this, spend less money. Live frugally. This way you can make it possible to earn LESS. If you earn less, you will legally pay less in federal income taxes. If you spend less, you will send less sales-tax money to Olympia.
This is peaceful non-cooperation with the government that oppresses us, that uses our own productivity against us. Gandhi and Jesus would have approved.
The story in Ayn Rand's great work "Atlas Shrugged" is playing itself out in real life these days. This explains why the second most infulential book in history (after the Bible) is enjoying increasing sales these days, even though it first came out in 1957.
Get a copy today! Great book. Ragnar and Lysander will agree with me that it will change your life!
Our greatest threat to our safety, liberty and prosperity comes not from terrorists or foreign governments these days. It comes from our own government, that we fund with our tax dollars.
Time to shrug. This means you.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 2, 2009 09:42 PM