A statistic from PPP that got little play from liberal commentaries showed that American youths — not the tea parties — are more inclined to think of violence against the US government as acceptable.
A full 17 percent of those ages 18-29 said yes, that violence would be justified, while a further 15 percent were not “not sure.” Granted, while those figures come out to a clear majority of young people — 68 percent — saying violence is not justified, it also means that 32 percent either disagree or haven’t made up their minds.
Another statistic sure to surprise some beltway liberals were the responses of poor people, who tied with tea partiers at 13 percent in saying violence would be justified. A further 24 percent said they weren’t sure, bringing their level of certainty against violence down to just 63 percent.
Compounding the potential for civil unrest, the poor and the tea parties, according to prior statistics, were two very different, separate groups with virtually no cross-over.
In a survey of Americans who voted in 2008, the nonpartisan group Project Vote found that, by and large, those sympathetic to the tea parties were white, wealthy and affluent people, whose political views represented approximately 29 percent of the electorate.
By comparison, blacks, youths and low-income voters, who turned out in record numbers to support President Obama, make up 32 percent of the electorate — and their views could not be any more different than their conservative counterparts.
The poll, published last Sept., described tea party participants as “overwhelmingly white” and “universally dissatisfied,” even though having “the least reason for dissatisfaction.”
“Only six percent [of tea party participants] reported having to worry about buying food for their families in the past year, compared to 14 percent of voters nationwide, 37 percent of blacks, 21 percent of youths, and 39 percent of low-income voters,” they added.
Discussing the partisan rhetorical fray on MSNBC last night, liberal news anchor Keith Olbermann failed to mention these figures, focusing instead on tea partiers and violent rhetoric prevalent in many Republicans’ public discourse.