Alert: Pseudo-sophisticated sociological mumbo jumbo
My initial reaction to a suggested 2012 Romney-Palin ticket: Oh God. Please. No. The country can't take it. Margery had a nearly identical reaction. … But the post-rally head-scratching story of the day goes to the NYT, whose lead on the findings of a Tea Party survey goes thusly:

Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

It’s the second clause (“no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class”) that gets me. It’s utterly meaningless. But then it hit me: It’s a dreaded Sociological Journalism Story, hauled out by journalists whenever they can’t make heads or tails of an issue. The story doesn’t really say anything new that most of us hadn’t already deduced about the Tea Party movement, unless you’re shocked and frightened to learn that Tea Partiers “tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.” (I’d love to hear their definition of “tend,” since most of the local Tea Partiers I’ve talked to are women.) …

There is one intriguing stat from the poll: “25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with 11 percent of the general population.” OK, now we’re on to something. I got some on-air grief on Kevin’s show the other night (from a few callers, not Kevin, who’s always a friendly and gracious host) when I dared suggest that, yes, there is an element of racism running through the Tea Party movement, though I emphasized that the majority of TPs aren’t racist. Now we have some broad statistical parameters to work with. That 25-percent number is disturbing. But don’t forget the other 75 percent, please. ...  ¶ 7:43 AM