Jeg havde for nogle uger siden en klumme om emnet i Berlingske Tidende–lidt som en korrektion i.f.t. hvad jeg opfatter som danske mediers delvist misforståede og måske delvist misfremstillede gengivelse af, hvad fænomenet dækker over, og hvem deltagerne er.

Jeg var også en tur omkring DR Deadline med et lidt lignende budskab.

For de interesserede kan der læses mere dokumentation om bevægelsens demografiske og politiske sammensætning i en serie større survey.  Det gælder først og fremmest Gallup’s analyse

(“Tea Partiers Are Fairly Mainstream in Their Demographics”):  Denne indeholder de ikke uinteressante data, at TP’erne

• har færre Republikanere end ikke-Republikanere (omend forskellen er statistisk insignifikant).
• er relativt set mere middel- og højindkomster end befolkningen som helhed.
• har uddannelsesbaggrund som befolkningen.
• har stort set en tilsvarende andel “white, non-Hispanic” som befolkningen (79 pct. mod 75 pct.) & præcis samme mængde “other” (15 pct.)
• Alderssammensætningen er stort set præcist den samme som befolkningens.

Den kan sammenholdes med NYT/CBS-surveyet fra omtrent samme tidspunkt og med et sammenligneligt datagrundlag.  Her får man omtrent de samme resultater, men med nogle variationer:

• Etnicitet: “White”: 89 pct. mod 79 pct. i befolkningen. Men bemærk at kategoriseringen/spørgsmålet er anderledes. Iøvrigt svarer det meget godt til fordelingen blandt politisk aktive i almindelighed.
• Religion: 61 pct. uspecificeret “Protestant” imod 52 pct. i befolkningen som helhed. Statistisk set samme andel katolikker og jøder–forskellen ligger i andelen af ikke-troende. Næppe værd at skrive om.
• Ditto: Andelen, der klassificerer sig selv som “evangelical” eller “born again Christian” er 39 pct.–mod 28 pct. i befolkningen. Altså en overrepræsentation, men tydeligvis et mindretal af bevægelsen. (Som jeg husker det–svagt–er den tilsvarende andel blandt Republikanerne omkring 50 pct.).
• “ledere”: Glenn Beck er populær som “mest beundret” (20 pct.), men Sarah Palin ikke specielt og ikke engang nr. 2. Ingen af de to fremstår som nogle samlende personligheder for TP’erne. Andelen, der mener, at Palin ville være en god præsident: 47 pct. nej, 40 pct. ja.

Senest har også The Economist prøvet at analysere TP’erne gennem meningsmålinger.  Den har mindre information end et par af de andre, men bekræfter det overordnede billede. Mest interessant synes jeg måske, at en betragtelig del af TP-sympatisørerne ikke stemte på McCain/Palin i 2008.

Endelig er der Politicos survey af deltagerne i det hidtil eneste større TP-konvent.  Det er altså et noget andet sample. Men hvis dette skulle være “ekstremisterne”, er der et par opsigtsvækkende delresultater:

• “Tea Party attendees were exceptionally well educated: 59% had at least a college degree and about 1 out of every 4 people there had at least some postgraduate study, well above national educational levels (33% at least a college degree, and 16% postgrad) and beyond even previous measures among Tea Party supporters that mimicked the national numbers.”
• “There are no noticeable differences in the religiosity of Tea Party participants: 39% attend religious services weekly, exactly the same as the 2008 electorate.”
• “84% of tea party participants were White, compared to 75% of the overall population.” (altså igen en overrepræsentation men ikke dramatisk i.f.t. befolkningen som helhed)
• “Overall, Palin and Paul each capture the top spots when asked what politician today best exemplifies the goals of the Tea Party movement with 15% and 12% respectively.We see nearly the same thing on the forced choice 2012 presidential ballot where Palin tops the list with 15% of the vote and Paul comes in second with 14%. Mitt Romney is the only other person to break into double digits on the presidential ballot with 13%.”
• “Sarah Palin and Ron Paul represent the dueling factions of the Tea Party. Palin consistently performs better among the “traditional values” crowd, including her first place rank on the support question with 52% saying Yes, I would support her. Paul, on the other hand, performs best among those that say“government should not promote any particular values:” he ranks first on the support measure with 41%.”

Igen er det på holdningsfronten, man finder de interessante forskelle–både indbyrdes i den heterogene bevægelse og i.f.t. befolkningen:

“Overwhelming majorities of 88% and 81% say government is trying to do too many things best left to individuals and businesses, and that government should cut taxes and spending, respectively. But in terms of values, Tea Party attendees are split right down the middle. A slim majority of 51% say “Government should not promote any particular set of values”, versus 46% that say “Government should promote traditional family values in our society.” We can compare these to Gallup data collected in September of 2009: nationally, 57% said government was doing too much (among Republicans it was 80%), while 53% said government should promote traditional values (among Republicans it was 67%).So the Tea Party is actually more conservative than national Republicans when it comes to the size and role of government, but less conservative than national Republicans in terms of government promotion of traditional values. Indeed, combining the responses to some of these questions is a revealing ideological exercise: 43% of attendees said government is doing too much AND that government should promote traditional values, a distinctly conservative view; 42% said government is doing too much AND that government should NOT promote any particular set of values, an ideological view used by the Cato Institute as an indicator of libertarianism (currently 23% of all Americans fit into this category). This split between a libertarian Tea Party and a socially conservative Tea Party is reinforced when we consider the combination of all three ideological questions we asked, questions on the size and role of government, the role of traditional values, and the dynamic between taxes and spending.If we count the number of times a respondent gave the “conservative” answer (government should do less, it should promote traditional values, and cut taxes and spending), 40% of Tea Party attendees gave the conservative answer all three times, and 42% gave the conservative answer only two times.Those that gave only two conservative responses were most likely to defect on the role of traditional values.”

Mindst lige så interessante var det respekterede National Journals to artikler fornylig, som forsøger at afdække strukturen og metoderne blandt TP’erne. De fortalte mig ganske meget, jeg ikke anede før, både om mængden af organisationer og den hippie-med-Iphone agtige måde, de arbejder på.

Peggy Noonan–altid en læsning værd–havde fornylig velformulerede ord om fænomenet i sin ugentlige klumme i WSJ Online:

“For conservatives on the ground, it has often felt as if Democrats (and moderate Republicans) were always saying, “We should spend a trillion dollars,” and the Republican Party would respond, “No, too costly. How about $700 billion?” Conservatives on the ground are thinking, “How about nothing? How about we don’t spend more money but finally start cutting.” …

Nobody knows how all this will play out, but we are seeing something big—something homegrown, broad-based and independent. In part it is a rising up of those who truly believe America is imperiled and truly mean to save her. The dangers, both present and potential, are obvious. A movement like this can help a nation by acting as a corrective, or it can descend into a corrosive populism that celebrates unknowingness as authenticity, that confuses showiness with seriousness and vulgarity with true conviction.”

Det bliver spændende.

Update:  Undersøgelse fra Washington Post.