Friday, April 16, 2010

The Anchorage and Wasilla Tax Day Tea Party Events - Part Two -- PA's Poll

During my three hours Thursday, speaking with people attending the Anchorage and Wasilla Tea Party tax day rallies, I questioned over 70 people, with 63 of them answering some or all of a set of questions I had in an informal, unscientific poll. To a degree in Anchorage, but especially in Wasilla, the polling led to extended discussion with the participants after I had concluded my questions.

I only polled people who were registered to vote and had voted in the 2008 general election.

Here are the poll results:

What Party are you registered in?


18 - GOP
16 - Independent/unaffiliated
3 - Libertarian
2 - Democrat
2 - Alaska Independence
1 - wouldn't disclose


12 - Independent/unaffiliated
8 - GOP
1 - Democrat


28 - Independent/unaffiliated
26 - GOP
3 - Democrat
3 - Libertarian
2 - Alaska Independence

Who did you vote for in the 2008 presidential contest?


31 - McCain
6 - Obama
2 - wrote in Ron Paul
1 - wrote in Baldwin


19 McCain
1 Obama
1 - wrote in Dick Cheney


50 - McCain
7 - Obama
2 - Paul write in
1 - Cheney write in
1 - Baldwin write in

How old do you believe the planet earth to be:


17 - billions of years
5 - millions of years
3 - 6,000 years
16 - didn't know or refused to answer


1 - billions of years
3 - millions of years
3 - in the hundreds of thousands of years
9 - less than 10,000 years
2 - refused to answer
3 - I neglected or chose not to ask

How would you rate these politicians for the leadership they are exhibiting right now, on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being highest (average of all who answered):


Palin - 6.2
Obama - 1.8
Begich - .9


Palin 8.7
Obama - 1.3
Begich - 2.6

Who, currently active in American political affairs and dialogue, inspires you the most right now:


10 - Ron Paul
5 - Michelle Bachman
3 - Sarah Palin
3 - Mitt Romney
3 - George W. Bush
2 - Glenn Beck
2 - Ralph Nader
1 - Barack Obama
1 - Denis Kucinich
1 - Alan Grayson
1 - Mike Huckabee
1 - Sean Hannity


6 - Sarah Palin
3 - Glenn Beck
2 - Michelle Bachman
2 - Ron Paul
2 - Newt Gingrich
1 - Sean Parnell
1 - Mike Huckabee
1 - Bill O'Reilly
1 - Rush Limbaugh
1 - Paul Ryan
1 - Rick Perry


12 - Ron Paul
9 - Sarah Palin
7 - Michelle Bachman
5 - Glenn Beck
3 - George W. Bush
3 - Mitt Romney
3 - Newt Gingrich
2 - Mike Huckabee
2 - Ralph Nader
...... and so on


Mel said...

Do you mean Michele Bachman? I've never heard of Jennifer Bachman.

(But then, I'm also not a Tea Partier.)

Interesting results.

Nate Silver had an interesting post at from a Wednesday NYT/CBS poll of Tea Partiers.

Philip Munger said...

fixed it. Thanks, Mel.

Brandon said...

More investigation is needed in your study of the inverse relationship between being an idiot and being an asshole.

These are the most hostile 'partiers' this side of a gang bang.

Anonymous said...

Interesting poll, but discouraging results. Apparently, at least in the Anchorage and Wasilla Tea Party participants groupings, intelligence is not an identifiable criteria.

This sure puts the national poll of the DC crowd in suspicion (as if it weren't already) in which reports were that the TP's were well-educated, higher-income folks.

Anyone who follows Paul, Bachmann, Palin, Romney, and Beck cannot be deemed to have much of an IQ or, at the very least, is not capable of using what he or she has.

You didn't say whether the majority of those you spoke to were male or female or the general age category.

Could you share those with us?

Thanks for the interesting post.

Philip Munger said...

anon @ 12:14:

There is more information in the polls that I haven't yet written about. I have to prepare to play bugle at a local memorial service this afternoon for a deceased Veteran.


Polarbear said...

Did you choose your neighbors, Phil :)

Anonymous said...

wow, if these people left Alaska, our collective IQ would jump up 20 points!

Chris said...

Looks like some interesting differences between dowtown and Wasilla. Wasilla seems to perhaps be more evangelical -- hence the creationist beliefs (43% in Wasilla vs. 8% ANC) and Palin support. Downtown seems more libertarian and politically diverse; more votes for Obama (20%), more independents vice GOPers, much more support for Ron Paul.

Can you include percentages in the next post?

Before everyone congratulates themselves on how stupid the Tea Party folks are, check out some polling for Americans nation-wide (, If activists who show up to TP events represent something like 3% of Americans, and if 43% of them are creationists (worst case based on Wasilla numbers), then there must be a hell of a lot more creationists out there who are not affiliated with the Tea Party! The nationwide average for people believing God created human beings within the last 10,000 years or so is consistently ~45% from the 80s to today. Which is about the same as the Wasilla results Phil found.

In fact, the ANC protestors expressed much LESS support for creationism than the average American. While Phil's data is not scientific, I'd bet with even odds that you could like up 100 random Alaskans and compare their beliefs to the ANC teaparty crowd and find that the average Alaskans are much more likely to be creationists than the ANC group.

Thanks for collecting the data. Looking forward to Part 3. The ANC results were heartening, I'm glad to see Palin's support slipping even close to her home turf.


AKPetMom said...

Thanks for being able perform this duty and calmly poll people, the majority of who do not seem to share your political beliefs, and provide us, the readers, with an overview of the feelings of a percentage of the rally attendees.

I remarked on our way to work this morning, after reading your first post, about how you are able to attend such events and post your observations without becoming partisan, much less angry.

If only all of our citizen journalists were able to observe and post in such a manner perhaps this country would harbor less anger.

I guess I'm saying, you don't feed the "hate machine" and that's a good thing.

You are a wonderful example of journalistic integrity. You also are a modern example of a renaissance man with all of your interests and various employment choices throughout your career, not to mention your gift of music.

To call you "well rounded" would be an understatement :-)

freeper said...

Ak PetMom conveniently ignores that Phil has called previously and regularly called these tea-baggers flipping idiots and worse.

But today, (at least for a few short minutes), Phil is the epitome of decorum.

(except when he's not) .....

Limited and incomplete data results in incorrect and illusionary opinions.

Heh, heh, .....

Speaking of illusions....

Of course Chris would chime in and attempt to draw a direct comparison where there is no comparison, and then offer up his ill-conceived deductions based on completely separate polls that ask completely different questions.

In one poll the question is do you believe in evolution ? Not how old do you think the earth is.

If you ask if people whether they agree with one of these three questions, polling shows that 'age of the earth is all over the map and not tied to anyone's belief or disbelief in evolution. :

"God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

"Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process."

"Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process"


Taking data from two completely different questions, from two completely different polls, and attempting to draw conclusions isn't going to produce any data that reliably tells you much of anything at all.

But people like Chris will cherry pick random odd and unrelated polling data and attempt to draw conclusions, and will attempt to base a belief on that faulty, ill-conceived conclusion.

That accounts for the inconsistent, odd and random nature of their beliefs they end up holding.

They don't know how to interpret reality, so they have little idea what reality might or might not be.

They start with ill-conceived misconceptions and attempt to create their own reality to fit the misconceptions they started with.

baja said...

Hey Freep,

Whats a matter? Did you drive everyone away from Precinct 1080 with your whole Smarter Than Thou rhetorical bullshit? You pretty much laid waste to that fourm, now you gotta come here to find new subjects to bequeath your infinite superior knowledge upon?

How about you respond with more of your trademark richly dense one sentence paragraphs filled with condescending put downs.


freeper said...

How about you find some relevance in what you think passes for your sorry existence ?

Actually being more intelligent than a randomly collected box of rocks isn't something I'm ashamed of.

If you can't follow along,

....(and you've certainly never demonstrated an ability to follow a coherent thought),

.....I suggest continuing education enrollment.

Your pissy whining isn't going to allow you to gain insight or awareness, it won't help you to acquire any intellectual maturity, it's actually a juvenile defense mechanism you hide behind to compensate for your insecurity and your illiteracy.

Run along, you're acting like that little child that isn't intellectually matured enough to join in with the adult discussion happening around him, so you, like that child, starts in with some whiny-assed screeching in order to gain whatever attention you can.

None of the adults ever think much more about that screeching. They understand the irrelevance of the distraction.

(except maybe the baby's mother, she might make some soothing cooing sounds to help calm the baby's insecurity, remove the baby from the area and allow the adults to get on with their business.....)

Chris said...

I figured Phil's questions about the age of the earth were an effort to measure the creationist views in the audience. Thus, comparing to polling data about creationist views in America at large seemed relevant. I'd prefer to find a poll that has the exact same question but I settled for something that had questions on the same topic.

Perhaps you could utilize your Google-fu to find a better poll with a direct comparison?

Don't feed the trolls,

Philip Munger said...

I suppose I could have created a better set of questions, but I went with those.

I'll get around to writing a part four, putting together what I've learned abut this strange movement since last year.

freeper said...

What might seem relevant to a unintelligible moronic idiot has no relevance of any substantive merit.

Especially, not the relevance the moron aspires to assign it.

As to continuing to 'assess' this 'movement'.

That's already been done.

It's been rehashed hundreds of times, to the same result.

Your readers would be better served if you moved beyond the promotion of insensate spectacle and illusion.

Drop the infatuation with diversionary media driven illusions and get back to substantive content.


Chris said...


No worries. I think it was a legit question. I think it is fair to say that "creationist beleifs" are highly correlated with a view that the earth is "thousands" of years old.



The link you provided is an opinion piece authored by a political writer, not a substantive piece. It is not strong evidence for backing up your claims because the sourcing is highly suspect. Furthermore, while it makes those tea party people look pretty darn stupid, it doesn't compare them to the American people as a whole. The real question is not if they are uninformed, but whether they are more or less informed than the average American.

A poll from CBS found that 88% of Americans as a whole did not realize that Pres Obama cut taxes ( Moreover, nearly half of people pay no federal income taxes at all (and 80% of those actually get a refundable credit back), but I bet that a lot more than half of people think that they pay income taxes. Tea Partiers aren't the only ones who are not well informed on these issues -- most Americans seem to have a hard time differentiating between income taxes, payroll (FICA) taxes, 401K plans, and other monthly deductions from their payroll.

I realize that I got an $800 "making work pay" one-time tax credit. However, I also realize that the new taxes on rents imposed by the healthcare bill will be directly passed down to renters (like me at the moment), that the new tax on dividends for the wealthy in the healthcare bill will eventually be paid by me due to inflation, and that the massive deficit spending we've experienced will be paid by me, either via taxes (VAT on its way?) or inflation.

Also, nice job changing topics away from discredited "Tea Partiers are all creationist hillbillies" meme.


alaskapi said...

Am waiting for your next post here. Am hoping you will share some of what came out of "...the polling led to extended discussion with the participants after I had concluded my questions."

And just in case freeper is still waiting to pounce on every remark here, I'm leaving the form fill-in-the-blanks-insult here..
_______moron____already been done___wasting _____blah,blah, blah...

Anonymous said...

You say the real question, Chris, is whether the tea-baggers are more uninformed than the general public.

That question has been definitively answered. Over and over again.

With most even barely intelligent people being able to discern as much in a quick first glance perusal of the batshit craziness emanating from the tea-baggers right from the start.

Only the densest few left need confirmation from polling data. Your infatuation with the data puts you in the latter category.

In every poll taken, on nearly every question, once you break them out into their component parts, ie the actual questions and not your armchair analysis, the tea-baggers poll as being right around at least twice as uninformed as the general public.

And if tea baggers and the general public are generally not well informed, it's simply because, like you, they're obsessed with media driven spectacle and illusion, and they ignore reality. A trait you share more with the tea-baggers than the general public.

As to the tea-baggers looking pretty darned stupid, the more you, and they try to give credence to what are essentially classic Repugnant talking points, or idiotic Libertarian talking point, the stupider you both look.

You've stepped in your own excrement. Chris, trying to smear it around while you try to get it off your shoe hasn't helped your predicament.

You mentioned the other day that there ought to be a way to get more of those 47% who don't pay income tax to pay more.

That was classic. Right out of the Frank Luntz Republican talking point playbook.

Those 47% don't pay now because they don't have any money, they don't make enough money to make ends meet, let alone make enough to pay the way for the wealthy and the corporations too. They've had a foot on their necks for decades and you suggest squeezing all the more and cutting off any air they might have left.

Your suggestion, ( which just happens to be an exact reproduction of one of the latest Repugnant talking points,) to squeeze the poor even more, and create more poverty so the wealthy can be free to amass even more wealth, and can shove even more onto the backs of the poor and squeezing down harder with that foot on their necks.

You're an unthinking drone who regularly and willingly spews talking points of the Repugnants and the looney tune Libertarians.

You've once again repeated several more in this last post of yours.

Your total indoctrination has been achieved.

You've made Frank Luntz and his clients very happy.



Anonymous said...

That's right, Chris, you epitomize the morons that Frank Luntz based his playbook on, and you're just the moron the Repugnants and the Libertarian loons were looking for.

Vedron said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chris said...


Freeper mad libs! Brilliant! Humor may be even better than just ignoring him/her.

I agree, I'm curious as to what else Phil found out.


Anonymous said...

Being unable and unable to address your own lame support for increased taxes on the poor, Chris, you think more spectacle and illusion will protect you from being the butt of your own joke.

Proving it's just as I suspected, you burble any talking point you hear, and have no clue what you're talking about.

Chris said...

While we are waiting on Phil, I found another interesting article:

Looks like I'm not the only one that has identified an ideological divide in the Tea Party. The notoriously radical right-wing publication "Politico" writes:

"Tea party activists are divided roughly into two camps, according to a new POLITICO/TargetPoint poll: one that’s libertarian-minded and largely indifferent to hot-button values issues and another that’s culturally conservative and equally concerned about social and fiscal issues...

The results, however, suggest a distinct fault line that runs through the tea party activist base, characterized by two wings led by the politicians who ranked highest when respondents were asked who “best exemplifies the goals of the tea party movement” — former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a former GOP presidential candidate."


freeper said...

As yet another instance of Chris's cherry picked half-truths he ignores the rest of the data which runs counter to his arm-chair assessment.

quote from same article

""Among the respondents, the two prominent figureheads polarize. Fifty-three percent of those surveyed said they would not even consider voting for Palin if she ran for president in 2012; 59 percent said the same thing of Paul.""

Worse yet for Chris to think he can assess what this 'poll' means, it was lacking in several usually accepted means of both, controls and methodology, it was a targeted poll.

457 randomly selected adult attendees at one April 15 so-called tea-bagger event were asked to complete the self-administered, anonymous questionnaire. The response rate was 58 percent, and the sampling error is 5 percentage points, either way.

The so-called poll was run by none other than TargetPoint Consulting, a market research and knowledge management firm that works with Republican and corporate clients.

Did you catch that description TargetPoint uses to describe their 'services'.

* -- a knowledge management firm --*


freeper said...

Chris is a perfect target for TargetPoint. All of Chris's 'knowledge" has been carefully managed for him.

Chris slipped up and stepped on his own slip though, (that's the trouble with not being able to think for himself, or fact checking his various half-baked assertions.

Politico really is a right wing hack haven.

Politico is just a relatively new source of right-wing crap; it was created to supplement or replace some of those old totally right-wing “news” and “analysis” sources, the pajama media like Red State, which have become totally discredited.

Re-branding the same crap with a new name doesn't change it's nature.

Just because Arthur Anderson, the Enron consulting/accounting firm now calls itself Accenture doesn't mean it's not the same firm.

Here again we have an instance of Chris camping out like a wingnut mole planting links and references to fabricated and managed 'news' that's tailored for wingnuts and biased towards conservative talking point crap.

Politico’s president and CEO, Frederick J. Ryan chairman of the Reagan Library’s board of trustees.

The extremist conservative bona fides of owner Robert Allbritton run especially deep, Allbritton is the former CEO and chairman of Riggs National Corp.

Yepper, ladies and gentlemen, that Riggs Bank, the favorite Washington banking company for laundering slush funds and scandal payouts, best known for its ties to Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator

Oh, yeah, that 'question' that Chris glommed onto that's supposed to describe the favorite tea-bagger candidate ?

It always helps to read the actual poll, and not give two cents for the 'analysis' some wingnut tries to assign to the data.

More of the respondents answered they didn't know who might be the best candidate, or chose 'other'. 46%

Palin and Ron Paul a mere 15% for Palin, 12% said Ron Paul.

It was a multiple choice question with a bunch of looney choices, Bachmann, DeMint, etc, they even had a choice to pick, "Republican".

That's some scientific polling data there, eh ? Every one of the choices was a Republican. And if that's not bad enough, they had a generic " Republican" choice added to that list as if "Republican" was another actual candidate.

A good part of the poll was taken up with leading questions like "How angry are you" and then listing the talking point issues you should be 'angry' about.

The don't ask for the respondents to describe Obama's policies, ----- they ask instead if you agree Obama is pursuing a socialist agenda.

This 'poll' is a fraud.

Politico is a fraud.

Chris is a fraud.

The tea-baggers aren't relevant. They're batshit crazies, the same batshit crazies that have always hung around the fringe.

They're nothing new. There's nothing to their crap.