4.26.2009

Were the Tea Parties Really a Libertarian Thing?

Last week, I suggested that the April 15th "tea parties" were an indication of the potentially increasing influence of libertarianism within the Republican Party, and noted that attendance at the tea parties had been higher in states (such as New Hampshire and the Mountain West) that are traditionally associated with having libertarian leanings. But I didn't present any evidence in support of that claim -- and so, here it is.

The best benchmark I've been able to come up with for libertarianism is the amount of contributions to Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign. Fundraising data has the advantage of being extremely clean and comprehensive -- all contributions of at least $200 are reported to the FEC and itemized by their location. Here, then, were Ron Paul's best fundraising states, as measured by contributions per adult aged 18+.

Top Ron Paul Fundraising States,
Donations Per Adult 18+

New Hampshire $0.22
Wyoming $0.18
Alaska $0.18
Nevada $0.17
Montana $0.15
Idaho $0.14
Washington $0.14
Texas $0.13
Arizona $0.11
Colorado $0.11
What do we have here? We have New Hampshire, we have Texas (where Paul is from) and we have a whole bunch of states in the Mountain West. Per capita, Paul raised about twice as much money in the West as he did in other parts of the country. In New Hampshire, he raised about three times above the national average (although we should disclaim that New Hampshire has an early primary and is generally a good fundraising state for all Presidential candidates).

Now then, which states had the most tea party attendance? Aggregating the figures from the 347 locations where I was able to find some sort of objective estimate of tea party attendance and dividing by the number of adults in that state, I come up with the following list:
Top States for Tea Party Protests,
Percentage of Adults Attending

South Dakota 0.66%
Alaska 0.47%
Wyoming 0.38%
Colorado 0.30%
Oklahoma 0.30%
Idaho 0.29%
Arizona 0.27%
Iowa 0.26%
West Virginia 0.26%
Georgia 0.25%
As measured on a per capita basis, eight of the top ten states for Tea Party attendance were West of the Mississippi. Five of the top ten -- Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming -- overlap with the best Ron Paul fundraising states. New Hampshire, incidentally, had 0.21 percent of adults attending, placing it 14th out of the 50 states.

Acknowledging that some of the tea party attendance estimates are rough and that my list was not comprehensive, it might be best to aggregate the data across the 11 political regions of the country as I define them:


The eleven regions are ranked by Ron Paul fundraising as follows:
Ron Paul Donations Per Adult 18+, by Region
1. Big Sky $0.13
2. Southwest $0.12
3. Pacific $0.11
4. Gulf Coast $0.10
5. New England $0.08
6. South Coast $0.07
7. North Central $0.06
8. Acela $0.06
9. Highlands $0.06
10. Rust Belt $0.06
11. Prairie $0.05
Note that the three Western regions -- Big Sky, Southwest, Pacific -- occupy the top three slots, followed generally by the South, the Northeast and the Midwest.

Here, by comparison, are the regions as ranked by tea party attendance:
Percentage of Adults Attending Tea Parties, By Region
Southwest 0.24%
Big Sky 0.22%
South Coast 0.18%
Gulf Coast 0.17%
Highlands 0.17%
Prairie 0.14%
New England 0.12%
Pacific 0.12%
Rust Belt 0.11%
North Central 0.10%
Acela 0.05%
The correlation (.65) is not perfect but is nevertheless fairly strong. The major exception is in the South, where there was proportionately attendance at the tea parties than there was enthusiasm for Ron Paul.



What we seem to have is an audience that was about two parts Ron Paul/libertarian conservative (with its strength out West and in New Hampshire) and one part Sarah Palin/red-meat conservative (with its strength in rural areas, particularly in the South). This is perhaps not an accident, since Paul and Palin are just about the only Republicans to have generated some real grassroots enthusiasm over the past few years.

And yes, before anyone asks, I do think the tea parties were a relatively "authentic" display of conservative grassroots activism. Certainly, it helps the cause when you have FOX News advertising on your behalf. But FOX News can't get you up off your couch, nor -- when a protest is being conducted simultaneously in several hundred different locations -- can they tell you exactly where to go. For that, you'd have had to talk to your neighbors or log onto the Internet, which is what the tea-partiers did.

Now, I also think the tea parties got more attention than they deserved, especially in comparison to things like anti-war protests of 2003 or the immigration rights protests of 2006, which had much larger aggregate attendances. Nor were they particularly representative of where the country is at as a whole. On the contrary, record numbers of Americans think they're paying a fair share of taxes.

But I do think this was one of the right's more effective moments of late, particularly if regarded as a sort of "fire drill" for 2010 and 2012. If the right somehow could fuse the enthusiasm of the Palinites with that of the Paulites -- and that isn't necessarily going to be a happy marriage -- they'd have the makings of something that could help to rebuild their damaged coalition.

49 comments

Ayn Randy said...

Did you also run overall support for McCain, Huckabee, or Romney? Right now we have a strong correlation between the Tea Parties and support for Paul, but we cannot then claim it as more of a support for libertarianism than other competing schools of republican thought

KCinDC said...

It seems to me that some of your calculation could be coming from the fact that Ron Paul donations and tea party attendance would both be correlated with the average level of political activism in a region generally.

By using raw per-capita Ron Paul donations, you're effectively counting richer regions and more politically involved regions as being more libertarian. Would it be better to normalize the Paul donations relative to total presidential campaign donations?

Dan Levitis said...

I was about to say what KCinDC just said, but instead will say "seconded."

This analysis is deeply questionable unless you show that you are not just picking up a pattern of increased Republican political involvement generally.

Nathaniel said...

Is there data available for Bob Barr donations? I know he received less money than Paul, but it seems like actual libertarian donations would be a better metric than semi-libertarian republican donations. Or you could try aggregating the Paul/Barr donations.

William Ockham said...

Nate,

Compare the total state attendance at tea parties with the raw vote totals of George Wallace in the 1968 election. There's a pretty strong correlation with the following exceptions:

Alabama (Wallace's home state) drops from 1 for Wallace to 16 for tea parties. Arizona (34), Colorado (32), and Washington (25) move up to 6,7,& 8 for tea parties. Most of the rest of the top 15 states for Wallace just move around a bit (mostly because of relative population changes).

The tea party movement is the amalgam of the libertarian west and the Southern social conservatives. That is the activist base of the Republican party today.

Wa - 7th said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Juris said...

TYPO: "where there was proportionately attendance...."

Missing word? Proportionately higher/more attendance?

BillyPilgrim said...

Pennsylvania as part of the rust belt? That's cold.

Statler N Waldorf said...

Libertarian thing? Libertarianism is anarchy for the rich and slavery for the poor. It means the government refuses to fill its role as referee ensuring fair competition and allows people with unnatural advantages based int hings other than merit to run roughshod over the disadvantaged. It represents an uneven playing field and a refusal to level it.

Anarchy is when the government gives up trying to govern and betrays its citizenry. Real anarchy is more humane.

andy r said...

come on give me a break a real grass roots movement try 4 20. no media coverage either before or after.

i am in a mountain west state. we had one one 4 20 ralley bigger then all the tea parties. this with no media.

yet 4 20 is a natural for the conservative/repulbicans to hang their hats on.

it is individual liberty. it is against big government. it is pro capatalism.

and most of all when you throw in medical marijuana it is a states right issue.

if the republican/conservatives what a come back this will appeal to more people then the anti tax.

juvanya said...

Now, I also think the tea parties got more attention than they deserved, especially in comparison to things like anti-war protests of 2003 or the immigration rights protests of 2006, which had much larger aggregate attendances.

But the conservatard bandwagon thinks the media is playing them down. lol

hgfalling said...

(from article you linked) 48% of people think they are paying their fair share of income taxes? That's close to the number who are paying none at all. Record numbers, indeed.

Peter said...

I am intrigued by your lack of capitalization and would like to subscribe to your magazine and / or newsletter.

murphro2 said...

All analysis aside -and not disputing it either- I wonder if you are not having a bit of fun at the Republicans (Rubs) expense. A Palin-Paul alliance? Whatever unity that might create in their shamble of a party would translate into what? 25-30% of the vote in the next election? A poison pill if ever there were one. But perhaps it is really just a matter of time before the Rubs implode and cease to operate as a viable national party. Palin-Paul would just seem bring that about much faster.

interstices said...

It may be more accurate to label it not a Libertarian Thing as much as a Republican Fringe Thing. Paul is a Republican, a Fringe Republican, not a Libertarian. Why not some correlation results based on Barr's votes in November?

30-something said...

Isn't an amalgamation of economic liberals and social conservatives what the republican party has been for some time now?

Tim said...

I wonder how you assigned the regions. Did you consider a multinomial logistic regression to group states? You certainly have the data.

Dan said...

Using the term "Acela" to cover DC, MD, DE, PA, NJ, and NY is clever, but unfortunately incorrect. That's because the Acela actually travels all the way to Boston. In fact, it only hits it's highest speed for a short bit in CT. You might want to try "Power Corridor" (to imply DC to NY), Acela South, "Power to Money", or something similar.

KCinDC said...

Nathaniel and interstices, Nate is talking about libertarians, not Libertarians. Barr may be a member of the Libertarian Party now, but he doesn't necessarily adhere to all the principles that small-"l" libertarians tend to support. Of course, neither does Paul. And libertarians do disagree among themselves.

PorridgeGun said...

Were the Tea Parties Really a Libertarian Thing?




No, they were a teabagging thing.

Nickname unavailable said...

This is called "massaging the data" until you get the results you want.

I have been with 538.com from almost the beginning, and this is one of the worst posts EVER from Nate.

Rachel said...

Donations to Ron Paul's campaign =/= libertarians.

Attendance at tea parties =/= Ron Paul supporters.

Attendance at tea parties =/= libertarian. At least not on this evidence.

Also, have to disagree with your categorization of Pennsylvania - Western PA may be Rust Belt, but Eastern PA is part of the Acela. Philadelphia dominates the eastern half of Pennsylvania the same way that Chicago dominates Illinois. The whole color-map is actually pretty iffy, and I don't think it's very effective.

Dan Zahn said...

Long time reader here. I greatly appreciate your work, but I must agree with the previous posters- this is a weak analysis. You're playing too much with numbers and categories- redefining them until you've gotten meaningful data- aka data fishing.

Additionally- taking PA out of the greater northeast and adding it to the rust belt is strange. is it because it extends too far west, abuts ohio a bit too closely? Philadelphia has the plurality of influence in the state, and the state as a whole associates more with New York than anywhere else.

Matthew said...

Having been reading the news through most of the 2000s, I've noticed that newsstories don't tend to have a very long shelf life. The tea parties were two weeks ago, and don't seem to have led into a national swelling of anti-tax rage.

Remember the massive immigration reform rallies in... May 2006, was it? Are those still big news? Not really, and those were massive rallies.

I am surprised that the Tea Parties were even mentioned here, I don't know if anyone even remembers them anymore.

Mark said...

Interesting data, interesting study, however, basing the tea-parties only against Ron Paul fundraising is a little lacking of a fundament...

Shaun Martin said...

I must agree with those who see data manipulation here, Nate. Which is disturbing, and not what I've come to expect here (and hope it's not an incipient trend). For example, why make (artificial) regions at all when you can run a simple state-by-state correlation? Incredibly dubious analysis here.

mcc said...

Nate:

Are you sure Ron Paul is really representative of "libertarians", or is for that matter a libertarian at all?

Jesse said...

with all-due respect to the number-crunchers, this question is not one that can be resolved via quantitative analysis. a researcher from the humanities or social sciences (anthropology, political science, cultural studies, or the like) would need to actually get in there ON THE GROUND and analyze the rhetoric of the people who participated and the groups that organized it. analyze the rhetoric, and preferably talk to as many people as possible and try to discern political patterns.

people's politics are, in general, not necessarily coherent, static, or internally consistent. this blog often seems to imply that's a bad thing, or an irrational thing, but it's not. it's because each issue is different and people bring different experiences to their decision making process. the only thing that makes that "bad" is that it then can't be captured by numbers! which, really, is fine.

i really like this blog and check it daily, but i think some methodological thinking is in order: what questions are and are not appropriate for numerical, quantitative analysis? this is definitely one of those issues that can NOT be fully understood in all its complexity via a simple number crunching exercise, no matter how well one can defend the arbitrary regions (which i agree with other posters, is not possible).

dbw said...

Less convincing than usual, Nate.

Simon said...

...on the positive side, those are some fancy-ass looking graphics, Nate.

Mithridates said...

Great post and I agree...except for the very last sentence. Palinites and Paulites don't agree on almost anything so any marriage in the first place just couldn't happen. I agree that about two-thirds or so was composed of Paulites (I remember the Tea Party fundraising for Paul in 2008), but the rest were more astroturf remnants of 2008 that were brought in through FOX and other anti-Obama media sources. That's probably what gave this year's Tea Party such an incoherent message, because it was composed of a large number of people that were protesting under the same message (a Libertarian one) even during the Bush administration and thus ideologically consistent, and the rest just kind of dropped in after losing the last election and having nothing better to do but spout some anti-Obama rhetoric and believe that they've been ideologically consistent re: balanced budgets and the like even though they were the biggest cheerleaders for the government during the last eight years.

The GOP will need to get rid of these people if it ever wants to win an election again.

markymark said...

My guess is that the teaparties were a frustrated right wing thing trying to make the right look like a popular alternative, rather than any serious political movement.

They are a bunch of frustrated people at the moment, with an inbred dislike of the new administration but no real sense of why they hate them, so the tax thing comes up (and everyone likes to moan about taxes after all!) and they have an outlet for there frustrations.

Bozo said...

The Ron Paul contribution metric has a financial weighting that isn't reflected in the % of population attending the Tea Parties. How strong is the correlation of contributors to attendees if you weight the Ron Paul contributions vs. the per capita income, GDP or some other measure of the money supply in each state. Or maybe just measure the number of contributors per adult vs. the dollars.

Lulu said...

I agree with the similarities. I think Tea Party Go-ers probably would even buy into Ron Paul's view on the Gold Standard and the Fed as well which would likely be the hardest parts to sell to normal voters.

One major tangible ideological difference between many Ron Paul supporters and any Red Meat conservatives fueling tea parties is going to be legalization. Ron Paul took very traditional libertarian stances here.

I know many people who supported Ron Paul because he looked to be serious about legalization. I am not sure what will form out of this sentiment, but I hope it secular in nature and based on ethics not religious thought.

I am not yet convinced the Religious Right will end up being the major player in a new 'right coalition'. I think they have now alienated more votes and dollars than they bring to the party.

I suppose we will have to wait to see.

Reverend Professor Stephan said...

The Teabaggers really ticked me off and the whole "let's ignore torture and just move on" thing is more than I can bear. So, I just had the idea for a sort of counter protest, a Lemonade Stand. With two months until July 4th, there is plenty of time to get a genuine grass roots event planned. The Bushies gave us Lemons, make Lemonade and take a Stand. Stand in support of our President. Stand for a special prosecutor. Stand up and tell America that tortuers should be prosecuted, even if they were 'just following orders'.

David said...

Paul/Palin 2012!

Seriously, Nate, has that showing on Baseball Tonight still got you off your game? This is pretty shady use of statistics here, the kind of thing I've come to expect to not find on this site.

Jason Henriksen said...

To all the people criticizing Nate:

There's not really a tonne of things going on number crunch right now. He's just posing a question that interests him and doing some playful analysis on it.

Take it for what it is: Thinking out loud and playing with some numbers to create discussion. Don't try to claim he's doing a bad job at research, he's just napkin scratching here with a bit of factual basis to add to the discussion.

Chris Rich said...

Boomer narcissism needed an ideology and there was libertarian held in the bony claw and turgid prose of Ayn Rand and Boomers, Gen X and other lovers of empty self looked and saw that it was good.

Then came a tea party day when their solipsist muscle would flex only to be flabby, bungling and ineffectual as a means to will prevailing.

Yo solipsists, you do realize that group action requires easy facility and familiarity with cooperation and collective decision making...right?

No wonder you suck at media spectacles. This canary fart in the national sawmill recalls those pitiful PUMA types from the election drama.

Alex S. said...

Well, it's really strange, but Paulites and Palinites, no matter how far they are apart on social issues, meet each other on the issue of secession and anti-Washington-mentality. Ron Paul called secession "deeply American". Sarah Palin's husband was a member of the Alaska Independence Party (maybe even Sarah herself), and she endorsed Gov. Perry of Texas even before Sen. Hutchison has announced her campaign to challenge him.
There seems to be a hidden political strain that has infiltrated the Republican Party and that is based on some kind of anti-establishment sentiment, that can turn into anti-Washington sentiment, anti-central government sentiment, and anti-union sentiment. There are also these connections between the movements of states' rights and jingoism. Now add Ron Paul's relations to the white-supremacy movement and Sarah Palin's weird theology.
I have also read a few comments (from Daily Kos' columnists and Republican strategists) that link the Teabagging movement to the "angry moderates" of the Ross Perot campaigns. And I think that there is some truth in there. Perot was a complete outsider. He belonged to neither major party. He was the one to vote for if you really hated the establishment, if you were mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. Nowadays, I suspect that the choice of Sarah Palin to be John McCain's vice-president was the attempt to energize exactly those angry moderates, essentially apolitical people, who just go to vote to express their frustration with the system as a whole, and who usually don't get the chance to vote for a candidate of their liking. Also remember how Sarah Palin continuously disappoints the Republican establishment by not showing up to important events and fundraisers. In a way, Sarah Palin is not behaving like a Republican, it's just her chance to enter the political system because the 2-party system doesn't give a lot of choices.
According to this theory, the McCain/Palin ticket was meant to match the votes of Bush Sr. and Perot against Clinton's/Obama's vote.
But in the end, as Nate already said, there are too many conflicts between the Paulites and Palinites, and there's still the Republican establishment that has got problems with both of them. There is no real coherence, because there is no real "theory", no reflection, it's all just a movement depending on the frustration of the moment. Any further thought would break this alliance. And there is no great personality to bridge these contradictions.

Ed said...

Ron Paul supporters aren't libertarian as much as are Federalists. They don't believe in freedom, they just believe the individual states should oppress the people, not the federal gov't.

UtahGamer said...

Love the analyses, Nate. For some of these analyses you may want to look at spatial statistical methods. They have the capability of taking into account spatial autocorrelation (nearby areas are likely more similar than distant areas). A multiple spatial regression analysis that accounts for spatial autocorrelation could be just the ticket to tease out the effects you are looking for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_statistics

The Religious Left said...

I still say a correlation of online porn watchers to teabaggers in Provo is in order. This will let us know how many Mormons are more into surreptitiously watching naughty things and images versus how many Mormons get into a hot tub and shock those already in the tub with scrotal gags. This profound insight will then let us know just which direction the Republican party is heading: closet jerk-off reactionary politics or in-your-face Yale frat boy politics.

Steve said...

Re: Paying a fair share of taxes: I attended my local tea party not because of how high my taxes are, but because of how they're being spent. Not to mention how my children's children's taxes are being spent in advance, by the current government.

Billy said...

I agree with Ed - well said. My old man definitely falls into the "local dictator" camp.

And to everyone criticizing the analysis, I don't think Nate set up the state categories or the comparisons to fit the numbers. This is just a first pass at a workable theory.

By the way, the same comparison with Romney would reveal whether this is simply a Republican activist phenomenon.

And kudos to andy r for pointing out how astroturfed this whole tea-bagging charade was.

the-pathogen said...

I think you missed one critical point, that I observed at the Tea-Party I attended.

These Tea-Parties were certainly sponsored by Republicans, but were hijacked by Libertarians. There were people handing out Campaign For Liberty fliers at mine, and I handed out marijuana regulation and taxation information - I certainly wasn't encouraged by the event coordinators, nor were the folks from CFL.

SpinDozer said...

"FOX News can't get you up off your couch, nor ... can they tell you exactly where to go."

Above the fold article of the local paper provided that info, as did the local FOX news/talk radio. It was a " "authentic" display of generalized whining about the Guh-mint. Not sure that your nuanced differentiation of "libertarians" & "red meat republicans" applies to this bunch (at least the ones I saw).

jefftheteacher said...

Worry not Nate, you will NEVER get anywhere when it comes to the Paul supporters. It is completely blind faith. I went to the Tea Part Paul spoke at. Forget the statistical analysis. You are RIGHT!

Rebecca said...

To get a true analysis of who attended the Tea Parties, you need to also look at the numbers of people attending who identify themselves as "conservatives" and "liberals." You look at one group of people, Ron Paul supporters, and automatically assume they made up the most in attendance because of monetary support?

Where did you get this data from? Did you have people assigned at each event asking them what policital party they associated themselves with? Probably not, and therefore this graph is hogwash and so is anyone who quotes this graph as if it's the Holy Grail.

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,