Did the Tea Party cost the GOP the Senate?

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Horns2005, Nov 3, 2010.

  1. Horns2005

    Horns2005 250+ Posts

    Looks like it.

    I don't count Toomey as he would have run anyway without the Tea Party, and won anyway. If anything it's Sestak challenging Specter that threw the race to the GOP.

    So that leaves, WI, FL, KY, NV, CO, DE, UT, NY, and AK with Tea Party candidates from the GOP.

    They had no real chance in New York either way.

    They would have won Florida, Utah, Kentucky, and Alaska either way, though there could be some argument for party purity if you toe the party line to a tee.

    They lost Nevada, Delaware, and likely Colorado, all of which would have likely turned if the candidates didn't have an aura of batshit crazy on them.

    Wisconsin is arguably the only state they really helped change color. Though, at the cost of Russ Feingold, who while as liberal as they get by his voting record, actually writes pretty good moderate legislation.

    That's 3 losses directly attributed to the Tea Party to 1 win. If that ends up being the difference in the Senate, you know someone in the NRSC has to be banging his head, as the GOP could have effectively run the ink from Obama's veto pen until 2012.

    Ultimately the Tea Party provided a lot of winning House candidates, but put up poor candidates in CO, NV, and DE. Given the state of the economy, the Republicans were due for big wins anyway. Does it seem like they sacrificed a lot of political capital for ideological purity, even if that purity was in the form of a less than competent candidate?
     
  2. Rio Frio

    Rio Frio 250+ Posts

    Nah. I don't view the tea party as a political party (yet); rather, it's an ideological movement. If anything, the tea party philosophy is helping the GOP by reminding them of those issues viewed most important by the American public.
     
  3. Oilfield

    Oilfield Guest


     
  4. BrothaHorn

    BrothaHorn 1,000+ Posts

    No, this a fantasy argument by the talking heads and insiders to make excuses. The GOP cost themselves the Senate. If your candidates can't even win their own primary, whose fault is that? All the 'great' candidates keep getting beat by all these 'crazy' folks and it's the crazies fault? GTFOH w/ that.

    Not to mention, if it wasn't for the Tea Party, they would not have gotten the seats they did win. Let's not forget the GOP was dead in '08. If those people hadn't started making noises about the spending, nobody would have gave a damn about this midterm.
     
  5. TexasGolf

    TexasGolf 2,500+ Posts

    no, about what I figured, but they did gain more House seats than I thought.
     
  6. Oilfield

    Oilfield Guest

    The Tea Party is officially a force to be reckoned with and they need to turn up the heat now that they have some real clout. The Dems and mainstream Reps have failed to maintain any fiscal responsibility whatsoever.
     
  7. GT WT

    GT WT 1,000+ Posts


     
  8. YoLaDu

    YoLaDu Guest

    i think as the next two years proceed, the GOP is going to be happy it doesn't have slim control of the Senate. It's a practical tie right now, but politically, the Dems still own it.
     
  9. Oilfield

    Oilfield Guest

    Please keep the references of "bat **** crazy" coming. The ghost of Robert Byrd would like to welcome them to the U.S. Senate.
     
  10. triplehorn

    triplehorn 2,500+ Posts

    A better question: Did Sarah Palin cost the GOP the Senate ?


     
  11. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    How many races was she involved in where her candidate won? You can't really have it both ways.
     
  12. triplehorn

    triplehorn 2,500+ Posts

    I don't know, Prodigal. You raise a valid question.

    So you tell me, in how many other races besides NV and DE did Sarah Palin's chosen ones beat out establishment GOP primary candidates for the Senate?
     
  13. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    Per ABC:

    Endorsed 11 senators and 6 won, 4 lost and Alaska still to be determined.
    21 of her 41 House picks came out on top and several still on the board, 6 of 11 governors also won. I would grade those numbers as pretty good - again, they're stats. It's like grading a defensive coordinator based on stats against five teams without knowing who those five teams were.

    I think you can clearly debate how big a factor she was with Rubio and Paul and Haley, et al, but to just pick two races and say "she hurt the GOP" I think is pretty overly simplistic.

    I can tell you this from living in Las Vegas - Sarah Palin is not what cost Sharon Angle the election.
     
  14. triplehorn

    triplehorn 2,500+ Posts

    Prodigal - the stats you just posted don't offer any substance to the point.
    It's not important whether or not Sarah Palin endorsed however many GOP candidates that had plenty of establishment support with or without her endorsement.

    The relevant metric is how many of her chosen ones beat out more sane establishment GOP candidates in the GOP primaries
    ?

    Sarah Palin isn't the reason Sharron Angle lost to Harry Reid, but it is a main reason viable GOP candidate Sue Lowden lost to Angle in the NV GOP primary.

    Unless you can show more, I thinks it's obvious to point to Sarah Palin's primary meddling as costing the GOP control of the Senate.
     
  15. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts


     
  16. mcbrett

    mcbrett 2,500+ Posts

    What "clout" does the TP have now? They forced moderate GOP members to pretend to be more right, they lost the GOP multiple Senate seats they otherwise would have won, and probably comprise 5-10% of one party that is about half of Congress.

    I'm sorry, but I don't see any clout, other than their ability to make some GOP members act more "Conservative" than their Tea Party competitors when they need to be. Yes, you John McCain, and several others.
     
  17. triplehorn

    triplehorn 2,500+ Posts


     
  18. majorwhiteapples

    majorwhiteapples 5,000+ Posts

    It is funny watching people in Denial.

    The Tea Party is nothing but a sub group within the Republican party. The same as unions or GL or NAACP in the Democratic party.

    It is funny watching liberals get all wadded up about Palin and the Tea Party.
     
  19. Horn-N-LA

    Horn-N-LA 1,000+ Posts

    Ahhhh keep the head-in-the-sand justifications and reasoning's that suit your hatred for the right.

    Tea Party was started primarily by republicans but had many moderates/independents/democrats that were tired of the governments tentacles growing and tightening around their necks. They are a viable group because it's an honest sincere group that isn't beholden to one political party, although more R's joined their ranks because their ideals overall were similar. And Palin is still as formidable as she was because she inspires people to do something about the situation, whether you agree with it or not.
    There is absolutely no guarantee the Republicans kicked out in the primaries, would have won. That's simpleton democrat talking points to gloss over and ignore the effect these Tea Party candidates had and will have on the electorate for years to come.
     
  20. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts


     
  21. triplehorn

    triplehorn 2,500+ Posts

    I point to the ****** economy as the main driver of people voting for change. Kind of like the last time and countless times before.

    I haven't felt political hatred since Cheney was VPOTUS. Sarah Palin is a farce, saved harry Reid, and likely cost the GOP control of the Senate.

    Where's the hate ?
     
  22. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

    I think "hate" might be a strong word for the feelings toward Palin, Angle and O'Donnel. I think in Nevada and Delaware the Tea Party and Palin supported candidates that under intense scrutiny came across as not especially smart or reasonable. Hey, they wouldn't be the first persons lacking those qualities to join the Senate. If you truly want to see government pared back, maybe a reliable vote for conservative values may be worth more to you than electing a moderate who was better able to understand issues and and shape legislation. An intelligent policy maker who does not reflect your priorities and values won't take the country where you want it to go. I don't think having legislators with average IQs is particularly dangerous for the nation, though I'd be fearful of having a president or vice president who could not understand complex ideas and reason intelligently. Palin, I think, is smart enough to understand her role. I'm betting we won't see her on a national ticket. She will be highly visible and likely get really rich for her simple articulation of conservative values.
     
  23. TaylorTRoom

    TaylorTRoom 1,000+ Posts

    You know what cost the GOP the Senate? The Constitution. Only 37 Senate seats were up for vote. If all 100 were up for vote, The Republicans would have 60 - 70 Senate seats.
     
  24. UTChE96

    UTChE96 2,500+ Posts

    Clearly the issue is the Replubicans being too conservative. [​IMG]
     
  25. hornpharmd

    hornpharmd 5,000+ Posts


     
  26. hornpharmd

    hornpharmd 5,000+ Posts


     
  27. triplehorn

    triplehorn 2,500+ Posts

    With Republicans laying blame and naming names for the failure to win the Senate, more signs Sarah Palin may have led the GOP to lose the Senate and thrust herself right off the 2012 ticket:


     
  28. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    So an article quotes establishment pubs claiming that if we had elected establishment pubs, we'd have won the senate.

    Not a peep out of where the races would have been with no Tea Party influence at all? How many of those other races would have been lost if the conservatives hadn't been mobilized and had something to rally around? I thought everyone was saying that people didn't like the GOP - apparently now the establishment GOP is the best thing going? When did this happen?
     
  29. Rio Frio

    Rio Frio 250+ Posts


     
  30. triplehorn

    triplehorn 2,500+ Posts

    Prodigal, if you're responding to my last post, the criticism is really aimed at radical purists like Sarah Palin, not necessarily the 'Tea Party' in its entirity. Sarah Palin is not The Tea Party. There were numerous TP'ers elected who are not as radical as Palin and were not relying on her personal endorsement to win even though she may have raised a finger in symbolic approval of them.

    In the two cases where winnable Senate seats were in play and Sarah Palin's chosen crazies beat out viable GOP candidates in the primaries, Republicans lost. It was critical. It was avoidable. It shows that even though the TP weighed significantly in the electoral tide of a low economy, to the extent Sarah Palin's personal touch was required for a candidate to advance through the primaries, it hurt the GOP.

    She's done for the 2012 ticket.
     

Share This Page