Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
It seems reasonable to assume the researchers calculated rally size as a % of the population.
Although geographic split of Tea Party supportership probably does correlate with prevailing weather.
Very nice article C.K. The arguments are very convincing.
I append one thought -
Protests no doubt can affect which way the wind blows in elections. Protests are proactive.
There is another way to affect elections.
This way perhaps even more critical to the outcome of elections.
This way, ideally, takes place before protests.
This way consists of obtaining some KNOWLEDGE of FACTS, how things work, as well as not work. History helps to inform on this effort.
FACTS are not spinned by the machinations of politics and politicians. They are FACTS. Whether sprayed with grafitti, or white-washed by paint, or fogged by the skilled rhetoric of demogogues, FACTS are FACTS. They are not alterable.
When one has the FACTS, one then knows better which side to protest for, and against.
The acqusition of KNOWLEDGE of FACTS entails work. Work means a lot of learning. Learning is not accomplished by watching Reality TV, or following tabloids.
It is not to be assumed it is easy to tell what is tabloid what is not. Reading, watching - the mill of data assemblage for sound judgment and reason-based decisions - requires a judicious commander-in-chief - the Mind.
Above is the thought I append.
"The researchers found that in places where it rained that day, rallies were half the size of places where it stayed dry."
So, if it were dry everywhere that day, all those rallies in different cities would be of exactly same size? such data is hardly believable. It's just for one day, one data point for each city, without population data...
It's far more likely that it happened to have rained in cities with fewer tea party supporters.
"There are lies, damn lies, and fake statistics"--- Confucius (?)
Ha! I don’t recall The Economist or the whole MSM for that matter talking about the Tea Party in such favorable terms at the time. Weren’t they the “astroturfers” bound to disappear without any trail and have no impact at all in the elections, or in the messiah policies because they were just a bunch of “racists” or in more modern terms “deplorables”?
To this day we are dealing with the making of the Tea Parties: senators in KY, FL, WI, MS and a whole bunch of state representative and state legislatures that continue to be the majority.
I’m not saying those women marches will not have similar impact, but if 90% of them already voted for clinton, it may take a larger number of them to really make an impact at the polls. For one thing pro-life feminists have been rejected from the whole movement and seems to me the pro-lifers in general are gaining ground.
This is an interesting piece. But I wonder if there is a risk that things might work out rather differently. I wonder if one reason why Trump got some of the votes that he did, was because Clinton became a kind of women's cause (although this was muted by Sanders), and that this really got some people's backs up. It is only a hypothesis, which would need to be tested. But while protests can serve to mobilise people, may they not equally serve to push a party towards extreme positions, and thus alienate people who might otherwise have voted for them, and motivate strongly people who feel threatened by, or just strongly antipathetic towards, the cause round which people are being mobilised. Clearly, if both the alternatives are pushed by protests towards extreme positions, the effect will not operate. But I suspect - and indeed hope - that there will be a reaction against protests and populism, and that people instead start to vote for people who offer a more level-headed approach to public policy.
Go back to the election - c 45% of women vote for Trump (incl most white women) and c 55% for Clinton. These marchers are the "extremist" end of the Clinton support base, protesting in Clinton places. They are not a "Women's Movement" per se, there are no dangerous new ideas (maybe apart from wearing a woolly vagina on your head), it's all the same old same old from the election and that's done and dusted . Why would a Trump government give a rip, they'll never vote for him - arguably it's better they do this and are seen to do this as they'll just persuade his supporters they need to get out and vote.?
Thanks for the sarcasm, showing that some people completely fail to understand the difference between fact and faith. I take it from your poor punctuation and grammar that you were showing that poor education is aligned with this failure.
I'm really looking forward to the 2020 race between Trump and Clinton. Crooks, plutocrats and liars. I guess you just choose the plutocrat who sort of resembles you physically? "He snarls like me!" "Her hips are like mine!!" "Thats why my candidate is the right candidate!"
I just want to point out though, Ron Pauls tea party was co-opted by the alt right pretty quickly and morphed into something completely different than its original intent.
The women involved in the protests were not demonstrating against female unemployment. So what is your point?
Its a fact that Jesus rised from the dead.
Even if the only women who vote in 2018 and 2020 were the same as those who voted in 2016, there is likely to be an impact from the protests, who will get women thinking about the issues and likely some changing their minds.
But the set of voters in future years is not the same as the set from past years. Older voters tend to die off more than younger voters, and younger voters have more progressive and more anti-Trump positions than older voters. The protests are likely to energize these younger voters more, as they look around and realize other women like them are as outraged as they are. They, like anyone else, need to have hope that their voices and votes matter.
I think the article's point was to look at the impact of the Tea Party's rallies on elections, not to be favorable or unfavorable about what the TP stood for.
" c 45% of women vote for Trump (incl most white women) and c 55% for Clinton. "
On precisely what grounds do you consider 55% of women in the USA are "extremists"
By what measure is Texas a "swing state"?
It doesn't look like it to me. Religious belief and practice in the USA are now in long term decline.
Women's unemployment is the lowest in years, thanks to Trump. Ah, but hating him is much more important than the facts!I t fells soooo good!