Joe Scum: Teapartiers are the people who voted for Clinton TWICE

Where did he pull that out of?

:rofl:

they might not get their vote anymore. So now they have to blame the Dems for destroy there good thing and keep the people confused. They may have created something that has gotten away from them and they can't control it any more. These are their base, the religious followers that believe what they are told. Ain't no Clinton follower.

Remember Bush41 'read my lips, no new taxes'? And then there was a recession and taxes went up? That's why Clinton had a sign in his campaign office saying 'it's the economy, stupid". Then everyone was making good money in 1996 so they reelected him.

not Clinton. There is no way that Clinton could get the lion's share of the Democrats and independent liberals and a large share of the libertarian/small government/no taxes people now in the tea parties and get less than 50% of the vote. I bet they were the Perot voters.

This is speculation, of course, based on election demographics and so forth. And let's recall that Clinton didn't have to compete with Perot in 96, while quite a few fiscal conservatives bought into his welfare reform efforts.

This kept Clinton slightly below 50%, which was a RW talking point for a long time - one that disappeared when Gore got more votes than Bush. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996

as in those tea baggers are self identified 70 % conservative and 20 % independent. They are only <10 % likely to be registered democrats. Given not even a majority of voting Americans voted for Clinton. It seems extremely unlikely given the group demographic.

but I started thinking about how Clinton won a lot of swing voters. I'm not reading too much into it - it seems like it was an off-the-cuff remark, but I just thought it had an aspect of truth to it rather than being total BS. Personally I don't think a lot of these super-partisan tea party types (rank and file rather than the loudest shouters) were all that partisan14-18 years ago. Like consider that NYT profile the other day observing that almost half of them thought the amount of tax they paid was 'about right', which was surprising. I think the momentum comes from people worried about the deficit eating into their retirement and only a minority of them are hard-core ideological.

...which is not much different from the other end from what I have seen of him.

He's blowing hot air out of both of them.

The fact is that Clinton got the bulk of the "Democrats", if he also got a majority of the teapartiers, who sound like libertarians/conservatives, how did he get less than 50% of the vote both times.

The likelihood is that the strongest correlation would be to Perot voters.