Where Tea Partiers Live
Ever wondered where the Tea Partiers actually live? The PBS NewsHour website has now helpfully mapped it out as part of their "Patchwork Nation" project (in partnership with the Christian Science Monitor), for anyone interested to see. This map isn't exactly surprising, as it shows Tea Partiers are more concentrated in traditional Republican areas. But it is interesting to see such a level of detail, measured as concentration of Tea Party members for every county across America.
The map is only as good as the data, though, and their data collection includes only actual Tea Party members (67,000 of them), from online membership databases. Meaning it doesn't capture anyone who hasn't actually signed up with an online Tea Party site -- which, due to the decentralized nature of the movement, might include a lot of folks who show up to rallies and wave signs, or even offer quiet support from home. The PBS story accompanying the map admits this freely: "That list of members does not include people who say they sympathize with the tea parties or their goals. Adding in those people would swell the group's ranks and possibly change its geographic distribution."
[Click on the tiny map below, to see the full map. You may have to, once it loads, select "Elections" and "Tea Party members (per 10K residents)" to see it. Or click the link in the previous paragraph to see a static (non-Flash) version of the map. Also, on the Flash version, click at the bottom on "Tea Party members (total) to see an accompanying map which shows total membership by county.]
The article (and the interactive map, when you roll your mouse over any county) divides the country up into different types of county and provides them with odd names (Tractor Country, Mormon Outpost, Minority Central, etc.) depending on their general makeup.
The highest concentration of Tea Partiers, they found, were in "Boom Towns" -- places which enjoyed economic success in the run up to the financial crash, but have been hard-hit since (especially in the housing market). Second and third on the list were "Military Bastions" and "Tractor Country." The lowest concentration was in "Industrial Metropolis" and "Minority Central" -- again, no surprise there.
But beyond the Patchwork Nation labels, the map does show a few interesting things. When taken together with the accompanying map which shows just the total number of Tea Party members, there are a few interesting holes in the maps, which may further define the struggle currently taking place for the control of the Republican Party.
For instance, the High Plains states have almost no Tea Party members, even though a lot of conservative Republican farmers live there. Likewise, Appalachian regions seem to be less represented than you'd think, in places like Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia. There are concentrations of Tea Partiers throughout the Mountain West, reaching down to Arizona and New Mexico -- but then, you'd expect this, since conservatism in these parts has always had a serious libertarian streak to it. The rural parts of the West Coast are also represented well, which might come as a surprise to some, but not to anyone who knows rural California and Oregon, for instance.
The heaviest concentrations appear to be in Texas and Florida, on both maps. This is one reason the Tea Partiers are taken so seriously by the Republican Party, because their electoral map back to the White House pretty much has to include winning both states, or else they're not going to win the Electoral College. Both Texas and Florida are states with very different types of Republicans, since a lot of folks retire to both from other places (giving politics there a more interesting mix than elsewhere).
But the most interesting thing about the map to me is the relatively low numbers for Tea Partiers in certain areas of the country. The first one spreads from a wide swath of the Bible Belt states in the South, up throughout the Midwest. From Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, you can pretty much follow the Mississippi and Ohio river valleys without finding significant numbers of Tea Partiers, all the way to the Canadian border. This may show a big wedge in the Republican Party itself, between social conservatives who vote based on hot-button issues such as abortion and gay marriage, and the fiscal conservatives as represented by the Tea Partiers. It's hard to believe, seeing some of the Tea Party signs, but the Tea Partiers may not be acceptably focused on social conservatism for a lot of people across this region.
Likewise, the scarcity of Tea Partiers in New England is rather surprising. New England Republicans seem like natural recruits for the Tea Partiers, since Republicans up there have been beating the "fiscal responsibility" drum for a long time -- long before it was considered cool even by fellow Republicans. So it would seem the flinty, bottom-line, balance-the-budget conservatives the New England region is known for would welcome the Tea Party message -- but, strangely, does not. One can only speculate that the Tea Partiers may come across as too unseemly for the very down-to-Earth Republicanism practiced in New England. I fully admit, though, I have nothing whatsoever to base such a speculation upon, it's just a sheer guess.
Again, the maps should only be seen as partial data. The Tea Party movement is constantly in flux, and measuring just those who sign up online can miss huge demographics -- like people who are not computer-savvy, or have no local Tea Party to sign up for (the map does not differentiate between "No Tea Partiers" and "No data"). This could miss quite a few older folks, or rural folks -- in exactly the areas where they're missing from the map. So, while it shouldn't be seen as the definitive map of Tea Partiers, from the data available to them, it is indeed an interesting snapshot of the movement's actual current membership.
The upcoming fratricidal battle within the Republican Party seems inevitable, at this point. The Tea Partiers themselves (or a goodly chunk of them, at least) have not shown any interest in attempting to form a true national third political party. Which leaves open whether this may happen rather organically at the state or regional level. The situation in Florida may be the most interesting and most-watched this year, especially if Charlie Crist decides in the next few weeks whether he's going to "pull a Lieberman" and run as an independent candidate in the general election (rather than badly lose to a Tea Party-style candidate in the Republican primary). But if the map is not in fact misleading, the Republican Party is going to find itself pulled in two directions by two different groups -- the Bible Belt social conservatives, and the Tea Party fiscal conservatives. And since both of these groups are rather famous for kicking those out who don't agree with their priorities and agenda, this could lead to a sort of mutual excommunication in some election races, or in some geographical areas. Which side wins this struggle could shape the Republican Party for years to come, one way or another.
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
-- Chris Weigant
I honestly believe that the fracture or friction you expect won't come to pass..
At their foundations, both groups share the same view of government. It should be as small and limited as possible. In short, both groups are Republican at the heart. And the ability of Republicans to come together, forget petty differences and present a united front in the face of a common adversary is legendary.
An ability, I might mention, that has been noted with admiration on this forum on many occasions..
So, I don't see the kind of civil war that ya'all are hoping for within the GOP...
Michale.....
Chris,
Thanks for pointing out this map! I love these kinds of things.
And it will definitely be interesting. The Tea Partiers here in the Ohio Valley have some influence as many tend to be fairly affluent.
It's just also still not clear to me how they're different from Republicans - though maybe it's as you've argued that they're more focused on economics and not social issues. But it still seems like what they would do if in power would resemble the deregulation platform of Republicans.
-David
p.s. I happened to see this article this morning which brought joy to my heart so thought I'd share.
It sounds like Obama and the White House have realized their position on a judicial pick. Namely, that it doesn't matter who he picks, Republicans are going to scream. So this frees him up to pick whomever he wants.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/wh-gops-recent-obstruction-liberating-for-obama-to-make-supreme-court-choice-without-bending-to-repu.php?ref=fpb
Also, another indicator that Obama may be reading this blog! :) Now if only he would hire Chris to help out w/ PR!
You mention something in a previous comment, David, that is appropriate here, so I hope you don't mind that I bring it up..
You said that you are against the Tea Party because they are for the deregulation by government..
I would say you are dead on ballz accurate ("it's an industry term" :D) and THAT is why they appeal to mainstream America..
Because we have seen what happens when government wants to OVER-regulate.. We see what happens when government tells the American people, "F.O.A.D.. *WE* know what's best for you and you are going to get it, whether you want it or not!!"
Are you happy with the government telling you what kind of healthcare you need?? Are you happy with the government telling you what kind of car to drive or how much salt to have in your food...
Is THAT your idea of a "good" government???
So, yes.. Yer right. The Tea Party wants less government...
And THAT is why they are so popular..
Because mainstream America wants less government as well...
Michale.....
I'd ask you, Michale ...
- Are you happy with our financial crisis?
- Are you happy with the rising cost of healthcare?
- Are you happy with bank fees and credit card fees and convenience fees?
- Are you happy with the rising gap between the extremely wealthy and everyone else?
On the face of it, less government sounds like a great thing. And it is a good thing in many instances. For instance, you wouldn't want the government spying on you? Oh wait ... you would.
And it would be great to scale back our military ... oh wait ... you want more government there too.
Ok. I'm getting off track here.
I think, #1, mainstream America wants an economy that works again. And that is going to take a greater amount of regulation.
So while it's a great crowd pleaser to rail against government and blame government, getting rid of government is not going to help the economy. Remember, that's what got us into this mess!
-David
p.s. Now to Chris' earlier point about making sure this idea gets heard. That's what needs to happen. The link between regulation and an economy that works needs to be promoted to the public.
- Are you happy with our financial crisis?
- Are you happy with the rising cost of healthcare?
- Are you happy with bank fees and credit card fees and convenience fees?
- Are you happy with the rising gap between the extremely wealthy and everyone else?
No to all of the above..
But everything the Democrats have done HAVE MADE THINGS WORSE, not better...
Remember?? We HAD to pass the stimulus to keep unemployment below 8%...
Geee whiz, what's it at now??
We HAD to pass CrapCare to reign in healthcare costs..
Gee whiz, there are so many loopholes and gotchas that health insurance is going to go UP!! Plus it's a 360 BILLION dollar boon for the insurance companies...
How about a little more commonsense and a little less lobbyist/corporate entitlements from Democrats, eh?????
Let me ask you something..
Why is Goldman Sachs et al Stocks GOING UP????
Because the investors know that when Democrats "fix" things, corporations make more and more money...
No wonder the Tea Party is so popular... The spending and taxing orgy that the DP'ers have instigated is turning Americans towards the Tea Party..
I have asked this question a dozen times and no one has answered it..
Why do ya'all think that the way to salvation is to have a government tell you what to buy, what to eat and how to breathe??
I guess the lack of answer is an answer in itself, eh?? :D
Michale.....
Well then, Michale. What would you suggest doing?
I mean other than complain about those who are working to come up with solutions.
Return to the deregulation agenda that got us into this mess?
-David
p.s. You're not much of a stock analyst either, are you? Goldman's yearly high was approximately $185 a share on April 12th. Since then, it's down $25 a share to below $160.
But I'm sure that this isn't real and is just a bunch of lefties making things up about it.
Well then, Michale. What would you suggest doing?
Oh, I dunno...
How about some common sense legislation that actually WORKS!???
Geee whiz, what a concept...
I mean other than complain about those who are working to come up with solutions.
What a role reversal eh? :D
I was saying the same thing to all of you back when ya'all couldn't complain enough about the Bush Administration and it's counter-terrorism policies...
:D How ironic, eh?? :D
Goldman's yearly high was approximately $185 a share on April 12th. Since then, it's down $25 a share to below $16
Stocks Rise as Goldman, Other Banks Gain
http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-04-22/stocks-in-u-s-drop-on-qualcomm-ebay-earnings-euro-area-budget-deficits.html
I just find it rather interesting that for all Obama's talk of taking on the banks and financial institutions, their stocks are rising.
Maybe they know something about Obama's plan that we don't, eh? Something that makes them a good investment..
Add to that, the million or so that Obama took in contributions, the timing of the SEC civil complaint and all the visits by the CEO of Goldman Sachs... What does that say to you??
I betcha a million quatloos it says something completely different than it would have said to you if it were happening under the Bush administration, eh? :D
And here again we see the Mainstream Media showing it's Left Wing bias by NOT reporting on any of this, by NOT demanding investigations and answers..
Answers and investigations that were demanded daily by the Mainstream Media during the Bush years...
I know, I know.. You still think it's not a Right vs Left issue..
But as long as you believe that Democrats are better than Republicans, it will always be a Right vs Left issue..
Michale.....
Everyone wants better legislation, Michale. But how do you get there despite the influence of lobbying.
What I'm interested in is what do you personally believe you should do to help combat the lobbying influence?
For example, do you support the Tea Party? Do you support either of the major parties? Do you support any particular candidates? Any other strategies?
I support Democrats because I believe they have the right idea about how to make things better - government as a balancing agent between corporations and people.
But, at the same time, I also support electing better Democrats who will better execute on this vision. For example, I recently wrote my Congressman urging him to pass financial legislation that actually helps everyone - and not just Wall Street.
We'd love to have you fighting against corporate lobbying, Michale, as you have a great passion for politics and I think most progressives share your frustration with corporate lobbyists.
For example, I first saw the link between Goldman donations and Democrats at HuffPo. And there's a lot of progressives who write about the influece of corporate lobbying. One of my favorites is Thomas Franks. Trust me, progressives are not fond of the influence of corporate lobbying.
But I don't think the answer is to run off and join the Republican party (whose views are even more pro-corporate).
What's your strategy, Michale? Who do you support if you think everyone is equally egregious? (And yes, maybe I just wanted to work in the term "egregious" :)
-David
p.s. I really do enjoy these conversations, Michale. Sometimes I might get a little passionate so I hope you don't take anything personally. I figure if you're still making Quatloo jokes, things are probably good.
Everyone wants better legislation, Michale. But how do you get there despite the influence of lobbying.
What I'm interested in is what do you personally believe you should do to help combat the lobbying influence?
Sever the connection between lobbyists and the Administration.
Something Obama said he was GOING to do. One of the reasons that I voted for him. One of the reasons why I am so pissed. I hate being taken...
What's your strategy, Michale? Who do you support if you think everyone is equally egregious? (And yes, maybe I just wanted to work in the term "egregious" :)
I noticed that.
"It's a freaky word"
-Chris Farley, BLACK SHEEP
:D
With me, it's simple. I don't vote Party. I vote people. You say you support Democrats because blaa blaa blaaa.. (I don't mean to be disrespectful to your comments, but it's not necessary to my point as to WHY you do) But, as we have seen, some Democrats (by your own admission) are as bad as Republicans..
And, there are some Republicans that are as "good" as Democrats...
My whole point is that it is ridiculous to support a Party ideology. It leads to illogical and irrational behavior, as we have seen demonstrated time and time again.
It's better to support PEOPLE and their ideas, rather than a Party that rarely, if ever, serves anything but itself...
p.s. I really do enjoy these conversations, Michale. Sometimes I might get a little passionate so I hope you don't take anything personally. I figure if you're still making Quatloo jokes, things are probably good.
Oh, the fact that I am still posting is pretty much all the indication you need that I don't take anything too seriously.. :D
If I really got into a snit, you would see me sulking in a corner, muttering, "I just won't post any more!!! THAT'll show 'em!!!" :D
Michale.....
It's better to support PEOPLE and their ideas, rather than a Party that rarely, if ever, serves anything but itself.
Ok. So which people and which ideas?
One of the Democrats I admire is Sherrod Brown. He and Ted Kaufman have introduced a stronger amendment to financial reform to keep banks from getting "too big to fail".
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/93783-sen-sherrod-brown-caps-on-bank-size-could-win-bipartisan-majority
Brown is pushing Democrats to do the right thing and trying to enlist Republican support as well. And I get to meet him at a pancake breakfast tomorrow here in Southern Ohio :).
Any questions for Senator Brown? I plan on thanking him for pushing better financial reform and, if I get one question, I want to ask him: How can the average person help make government better?
You say you support Democrats because blaa blaa blaaa.. (I don't mean to be disrespectful to your comments, but it's not necessary to my point as to WHY you do)
I believe it's absolutely essential to understand the ideas driving different parties and different people. Otherwise you're just voting for a brand - a pretty face or someone who seems to have something in common with you. Or just voting party line. The WHY not only matters, but is most important.
Because I would absolutely vote for a Republican or Independent that shares these views. There just aren't many that do.
Sever the connection between lobbyists and the Administration.
Why just the administration? Why not all politicians?
If that's the case, I'm with you. If you want lobbyists out, let's sever the connection for all politicians.
Cheers
-David
Michale (if you're still reading this, I'm backlogged on comment answers, I know) -
Still think there won't be a TP/GOP split? You live in Florida, don't you? Aren't you about to get a lively three-way race down there, with Crist's expected announcement tomorrow, hmmm?
[4] First off, as a self-appointed Grammar Policeman, I applaud your new correct usage of "FOAD" -- we appreciate your attention to detail here. Heh.
As for gummint regulation, 66% of recently-polled Americans want exactly that -- more regulation of Wall Street. As for cars, if there wasn't gummint regulation, do you think Toyota really would have 'fessed up to the problem if the government regulators weren't there?
As for salt, as I understand it (could be wrong, but I bet I'm not), the health folks at the government didn't propose some sort of ban on salt, or even new regulations -- they tried to raise awareness of the issue, in the hopes that the folks who make heavily-processed food would stop mixing so much of it in. There's no "salt police" in the imminent future, and you're free to shake as much of it on as you'd like. So what's really the problem? The government made a non-binding suggestion ("plea," really) to the food giants to rethink their ways. Of course it was fodder for late nite comics, but it wasn't anywhere near what it's been suggested, as far as I know.
[6] As for the 8% unemployment thing, Obama made that (wrong) prediction over a year ago. You're still getting mileage out of it. My personal belief is that economics is voodoo, and any prediction should be taken as such. I am consistent on this -- I say the same thing whether the guy making the prediction is named "Bush" or "Obama," as you well know. You're right -- it was wildly optimistic. But go out there and try to find a serious economist now from the right or the left who wouldn't admit that "things would be worse now if we hadn't passed the stimulus." I've heard some serious right-wing folks begrudgingly admit this of late, personally. So unemployment got worse (but not as bad as under Reagan), but now its getting better. You need to update your talking point, that's all I'm saying.
Here's my question for you: should the Tea Partiers be out there protesting Wall Street? If you answered "yes" then why aren't they?
[8] AS for stocks going up, well, stocks (and the economy) almost always does better under Democratic presidents. Look it up. Perhaps it's just part of the natural boost having a Democrat in the White House gives the economy, eh? Heh. Couldn't resist.
As for Obama taking money from Wall Street, I actually think you've got a good point on this one. You're right - the MSM is missing this. Like they miss a lot of stuff (I think it's just that they can't remember back past the middle of last week, myself, but that's just me). It's not just Obama who is vulnerable on this, either, lots of Democrats are just as wide-open to this sort of exposé. But you've got to ask yourself, who do you trust more -- a politician who takes the money, and then doesn't do what the folks paying the money want (ie, Wall Street reform) or those who take the money, and then do Wall Street's every bidding (Republicans, and some Blue Dogs)? Which is better, in other words, in your book?
[9] David, nice usage of "egregious" there. Gold star for you!
:-)
[10] Michale - Obama's White House has been the least lobbyist-influenced administration in the past 30 years (which, incidentally, includes Clinton in there). He has passed stronger anti-lobbyist rules than ANY other adminstration EVER. What exactly has annoyed you on this front? Congress is still down in the swamp with lobbyists, but Obama doesn't control that situation personally.
OK, I can't resist. You vote people -- so who are you leaning towards in the FLA senate race, assuming it's a three-way race?
And, please, don't stop posting. I would have to watch Fox News to find out what the countervailing arguments of the day are, in that case, and I don't know if I could stomach it!
Heh.
[11] David -
Oh, dang. That's what I get for falling behind on the commentary. I would have said: "Tell Sherrod Brown a big thank you from Chris Weigant for being the only sitting member of Congress to publicly endorse his book!"
But then, I freely admit, I'm biased.
:-)
OK, onwards to the next article...
-CW
PS. On a personal note, this article is one for the record books for me, as I got an all-time high of 410 comments on it over at HuffPost. Woo hoo!
Postscriptum -
Political disagreements aside, y'all (to quote Michale) have just got to agree -- that's a cool map, eh?
:-)
I'm a sucker for cool graphics, I'll admit it.
-CW
Still think there won't be a TP/GOP split? You live in Florida, don't you? Aren't you about to get a lively three-way race down there, with Crist's expected announcement tomorrow, hmmm?
Crist's split from the GOP has nothing to do with the TP.. IE he is NOT a Tea Party candidate... I have read several articles on the issue and not one has mentioned anything about the Tea Party.. There may be some out there, but I haven't read them..
Crist's split is no more significant to the GOP than Lieberman's split was or was not significant to the Democrats..
It's simply a politician trying to survive. Like Lieberman.. etc etc etc...
No more, no less...
I will say that the GOP is likely to treat Crist a LOT better than Dems treated Lieberman, present company included.. :D
I'll address the rest later..
Sorry to hit and run like this, but it's a really swamped day around here..
Michale.....