Republicans: Tea-Party and not Tea Party

[Jacob]

... an academic paper on the subject:

In this paper we examine Republican Party factional differences between Tea Party Republicans and non-Tea Party Republicans. We find, first, that at the mass level Tea Party supporters constitute a majority of Republican identifiers--particularly among those most active in Republican campaigns. We examine the large and significant differences between the two factions. We then turn to an examination of Tea Party (potential) activists, relying on a survey of almost 12,000 supporters of the largest Tea Party membership group: FreedomWorks. Although very similar to the mass sample of Tea Party Republicans on issue positions, this group is far more negative towards the Republican Party. We examine the sources of this negativity in ideology, issue priorities, partisanship and political style.

Utilizing both a national sample, over-representing Tea Party supporters, and a large sample of potential Tea Party activists, we have assessed the seriousness of divisions within the Republican Party, and attitudes of potential Tea Party activists towards the Republican Party and the Tea Party. Our findings suggest that the current attempt of the Republican Party to moderate, and even, in some cases, shed Tea party supporters is problematic.

We find that issues, ideology, issue priorities, and political style considerations differentiate Tea Party Republicans from non-Tea Party Republicans. The Tea Party supporters are not just a faction within the Republican Party: they are a majority faction within the party, particularly among active Republicans. The divide between the two groups of Republicans is so wide that on four of eleven issues, the non-Tea Party Republicans were actually closer to the mean of the Democratic identifiers in the sample than they were to the Tea Party Republicans. Bridging this gap will present a challenge for the party, particularly for leaders more in sympathy with the non-Tea Party group and those most committed to expanding the base of the Republican Party.

The activist FreedomWorks sample shows a general lack of positive feeling towards the Republican Party. That more rate the Republican Party below average than above average is problematic for the party, and is reinforced by almost a quarter of the sample who choose "other" as their party and are particularly negative towards the Republican Party. This negativity is dwarfed by their antipathy towards the Democrats. But, in primary campaigns between establishment and Tea Party Republicans, there are no Democrats, and appeals to pragmatism appear likely to fail (particularly given the lack of willingness to compromise on issues about which they feel strongly). The success of groups like Karl Rove's committed to a more pragmatic brand of Republicanism is very much in question.

Finally, we found significant effects of partisanship, ideology, issue priorities, party style and demographics in explaining Tea Party-Republican Party preference. Once again the conservatism, issue priorities and concerns about compromise explain the Tea Party preference over the Republicans. Only partisanship gives the Republican Party leverage over the Tea Party. How this will play out in the next two years is an open question, but it is likely that the Tea Party will continue to be a major, often dominant, force within the Republican Party.

40+ page document here: http://wmpeople.wm.edu/asset/index/rbrapo/republicanfactionalismandteapartyactivists

Languish thoughts?

[Viking]

TLDR


it's 40 pages ffs.

[mongers]

Trying to understand nutters, an exercise in futility ?   

[crazy canuck]

...it is likely that the Tea Party will continue to be a major, often dominant, force within the Republican Party.

And thus it is likely that there will be no Republican President for years to come?

[OttoVonBismarck]

OvB Republican:



Respectable but Wrong Flavors of Republican:



Bad Republican:



Tea Party:

[garbon]

I don't understand. Didn't the Tea Party get smacked down in the last election? If they are the dominant type of Republican, why didn't more Tea Party candidates get elected / stick around?  Or is the notion that Dems outnumber the Tea Party repubs in key places so it doesn't matter?

[fhdz]

fahdiz Republican:



Highly Respectable and Not Too Far Off Flavor of Republican:



Not Really Interested In Most of the Other Flavors.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Please, Teddy is above all partisan comparison as the First God-King in the American Pantheon. Barry Goldwater is a loser, he doesn't even get to lick Nixon's left nut.

[Eddie Teach]

Tea Party:

As far as Republicans go, those two don't have all that much in common.

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh Republican:


A few others will do

[derspiess]

Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio are better Tea Party examples.

And I'm a Reagan Republican.

[mongers]

fahdiz Republican:



Highly Respectable and Not Too Far Off Flavor of Republican:



Not Really Interested In Most of the Other Flavors.

No love for Ike ?

[Neil]

Proper Republican:




<-------


Bush 41 was pretty good too.

[CountDeMoney]

Somebody tell Hansy I want my old party back.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't understand. Didn't the Tea Party get smacked down in the last election? If they are the dominant type of Republican, why didn't more Tea Party candidates get elected / stick around?  Or is the notion that Dems outnumber the Tea Party repubs in key places so it doesn't matter?

My impression is that the authors of the study overegged the pudding of Tea Party dominance.