How did the Tea Party do?

[Gyrate]

I'll admit that I've lost track of all the candidates who were TP-identified (or TP-enabled) but early results seem to indicate that they're not exactly taking the country by storm. Of the ones I can remember, Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell have lost, Rand Paul has won and Joe Miller may still lose to write-in votes for Lisa Murkowski.

Who else ran under the Tea Party banner and how did they do?

[Ichbin Dubist]

Carl Paladino was the Tea Party-supported candidate for New York governor, and he lost pretty badly to Andrew Cuomo. I don't think that the Republican establishment candidate, Rick Lazio, would have done any better, though.

Marco Rubio won a Senate seat in Florida, with Charlie Crist running as an independent. Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek won a smaller percentage of the vote than Alvin Greene in SC, whom I would have thought was the flag-bearer for the rock-bottom of Democratic votes. Go figure.

The Tea Party has to take the fall for not unseating Harry Reid, Angle started out with a 12-point lead in the polls and whittled it away.

[DianaG]

The revolution was televised, and it turned out to be Al Capone's vault.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

The TP also takes the blame in Delaware, and possibly Colorado.

IMHO, the problem that the TP has is its populist nature. As part of its "the people versus the government" ideology, it buys heavily into the myth that "politicians" are Bad, and "ordinary people" are Good. As a result, they tend to nominate people who are not equiped with political skills, have not been vetted by a career in politics (& thus tend to carry hidden baggage), and do not have a resume with significant accomplishment.

The TP candidates that were politicians did well, e.g. Rubio & Toomey. Where they failed were the non-politicians or minor league politicians who were out of their league, e.g. Angle, Miller, O'Donnell, Paladino.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by DianaG

The revolution was televised, and it turned out to be Al Capone's vault.

I'm not sure how the movement affected the House, Governor and other state races......

......either they had a big positive effect.....

............... or it was just "normal" voters who kicked Democrat butt.

[Captain Amazing]

The New York Times has a map here that can be played with:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/house

it identifies 129 seats with a tea party candidate on the ballot. of those, the Democrats won 82, Republicans won 39, and in 8, the Times still hasn't declared a winner.

[Jas09]

My early take on it, without having gone into all of the explicitly "Tea Party" races, is that the traditional conservative Republicans endorsed by the Tea Party did well. The non-politician candidates did poorly, especially ones that primaried more traditional GOP candidates. Counter-examples welcomed.

I was, in fact, a bit struck by how poorly non-politicians and self-financed politicians did in a year that was supposed to be about "voting the bums out". Did any true "outsiders" win Senate seats besides Rand Paul (who of course has a political lineage and name to help)?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Ichbin Dubist

Marco Rubio won a Senate seat in Florida, with Charlie Crist running as an independent. Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek won a smaller percentage of the vote than Alvin Greene in SC, whom I would have thought was the flag-bearer for the rock-bottom of Democratic votes. Go figure.

Crist drew about half of the Democratic vote, plus the vast majority of the independent vote, thanks to his veto of the (Republican-controlled) state congress' teacher pay reform bill. Meek really did everyone a disservice by not dropping out, although in the end it looks like Rubio would have won no matter what.

Florida was a clean sweep for the Tea Party, pretty much. Former health care executive and human vulture Rick Scott took the governorship and large-breasted Palinite Pam Bondi took the AG seat (which is important because we have a pending suit against the Federal HCR law).

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Jas09

Did any true "outsiders" win Senate seats besides Rand Paul (who of course has a political lineage and name to help)?

Ron Johnson in Wisconsin. Although I don't think he worked in a lumberyard there.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

The New York Times has a map here that can be played with:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/house

it identifies 129 seats with a tea party candidate on the ballot. of those, the Democrats won 82, Republicans won 39, and in 8, the Times still hasn't declared a winner.

Sounds like the TP was a net drag on the GOP this year.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Sounds like the TP was a net drag on the GOP this year.

That might be true, but doesn't folllow from CA's cite. I would speculate that the vast majority of TP House candidates were not incumbents, and even in an anti-incumbent climate, the vast majority of incumbents win.

[DianaG]

Eh, incumbents by definition aren't Tea Partiers. They may court them, they may align themselves with them, they may even call themselves Tea Partiers... but in what's marketed as a revolution, incumbents don't count.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

That claim is only relevant here if the NYT is using the same definition.

[DianaG]

What definition ARE they using, by the way? Seriously, it's not clear to me. As I hover around that map, I'm seeing a bunch of Independent candidates, but that's not exactly a meaningful identifier.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by DianaG

What definition ARE they using, by the way? Seriously, it's not clear to me. As I hover around that map, I'm seeing a bunch of Independent candidates, but that's not exactly a meaningful identifier.

I think they're using candidates endorsed by a tea party group.

[DianaG]

But that's going to be any republican, absent a tea party candidate in that race.

[Captain Amazing]

I don't think the tea parties formally endorsed every Republican candidate, did they?

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

Ron Johnson in Wisconsin. Although I don't think he worked in a lumberyard there.

Ah yes, thanks. That's the one I couldn't remember.

He did not defeat a party-backed candidate in a primary, but is clearly a political newcomer.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

I think they're using candidates endorsed by a tea party group.

That would be a good definition to use if the agenda was to minimize the effect of the tea party movement.

I'd suggest that they affected turnout in a way that got a good number of Republicans elected.

[Evil Captor]

Well Tea Partiers tend to vote Republican if there are no Tea Party candidates to vote for. So let's say you get a Tea Partier to the polls cause he's so enraged and all that sick people are getting health care. There are 14 contested races, two with Tea Party candidates. He votes for the two Tea Partiers and the 12 Republicans. Net win for the Pubs, no matter how the two races with Tea Party candidates go.

[ShibbOleth]

Marco Rubio is an interesting case. He started calling himself a teabagger sometime in the last year or so, but he's hardly a political outsider. He's spent most of his adult life in the Florida Republican party and has all of the normal weaselly traits of a career politician, using his political connections to enrich himself. He was the Speaker of the Florida House for two years before beginning his latest power grab. I'm sure he's planning to be the first Latino/Cuban PotUS.

He did screw up the establishment balance by making his move for the Senate, though, and Crist would have probably won had Rubio not entered the race. Rubio could have then grabbed Nelson's seat when he retires. Rubio is a shrewd political player and nothing like some of the others mentioned here who got in way over their heads.

I went back and found this Slate article on Rubio from late May, 2009 and although Rubio had already decided to challenge Crist at that point, it was seen more as hard-right conservative versus moderate at that time, and there is no mention of Rubio and Tea Party in the same breath.

Rubio has been branding himself as a "fresh ideas" Republican for a while now. It will be interesting to see if he sticks to that or leads the inevitable attacks against Obama instead.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Well, one of his "fresh ideas" is "come to Jesus", which isn't very fresh at all.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

It's been claimed that liberals and Democrats are particularly opposed to minority conservatives, even more than they are to white conservatives, because they fear the impact that these might have as role models in the minority community. Past examples would include Clarence Thomas and Miguel Espada. It's been suggested that the intensity of opposition to Rubio is based on this fear.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps

It's been claimed that liberals and Democrats are particularly opposed to minority conservatives, even more than they are to white conservatives, because they fear the impact that these might have as role models in the minority community. Past examples would include Clarence Thomas and Miguel Espada. It's been suggested that the intensity of opposition to Rubio is based on this fear.

Has it been "claimed" and "suggested"? By anyone in particular besides you?

The obejctions to Clarence Thomas had a lot more to do with his jurisprudence record (which was not particularly strong for a Supreme Court candidate) and the whole Anita Hill mess. The only objections to Rubio I've heard anywhere were on political grounds; he was a right-wing candidate who unseated a more moderate Republican liked by (some) Democrats. I don't know enough about Espada to comment.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Well, one of his "fresh ideas" is "come to Jesus", which isn't very fresh at all.

Then maybe he just needs to vary it a little. "Come in Jesus" would be fresh . . .

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Has it been "claimed" and "suggested"? By anyone in particular besides you?

What's the difference? Suppose it was only me?

But as it happens, it has been suggested by a lot of others. One example, from the WSJ

Former President Bill Clinton tried to persuade Florida Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek to drop out of his U.S. Senate race and support Gov. Charlie Crist's independent candidacy in hopes of thwarting a victory by Republican Marco Rubio.

People familiar with the matter said the former president and other top national Democrats worry a win by the charismatic Mr. Rubio, a 39-year-old Cuban-American, would make him a political phenomenon capable of boosting the GOP's chances with Hispanic voters.

[I happen to think they're right to worry, BTW, and unless Rubio messes up, there's a very good chance he's on the ticket as VP nominee in 2012. Not just a Hispanic guy, but from a major swing state too (& better looking than Christie ).]

The obejctions to Clarence Thomas had a lot more to do with his jurisprudence record (which was not particularly strong for a Supreme Court candidate) and the whole Anita Hill mess. The only objections to Rubio I've heard anywhere were on political grounds; he was a right-wing candidate who unseated a more moderate Republican liked by (some) Democrats. I don't know enough about Espada to comment.

Well of course the party line is not going to be "we particularly oppose him because he might hurt us politically".

I thought that was understood.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps

It's been claimed that liberals and Democrats are particularly opposed to minority conservatives, even more than they are to white conservatives, because they fear the impact that these might have as role models in the minority community. Past examples would include Clarence Thomas and Miguel Espada. It's been suggested that the intensity of opposition to Rubio is based on this fear.

It's fair to say that liberals are particularly sceptical of minority conservatives. In part, that's because many of them are batshit insane, like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

Rubio is not crazy at all, but he is a reactionary. I doubt anyone is more opposed to him than, say, Jim DeMint, however - except other Florida Hispanics, who largely despise him.

I happen to think they're right to worry, BTW, and unless Rubio messes up, there's a very good chance he's on the ticket as VP nominee in 2012. Not just a Hispanic guy, but from a major swing state too (& better looking than Christie ).

Don't bet on it. Obama was supposedly too inexperienced to be President, and in 2012 Rubio will have the same amount of experience.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Rubio is not crazy at all, but he is a reactionary.

Like most other "reactionaries", he'll probably tone it down if he starts getting national aspirations.

Obama was supposedly too inexperienced to be President, and in 2012 Rubio will have the same amount of experience.

You can quibble about that, and plus there's a difference between president and VP (that's why I'm not suggesting that Rubio might head the ticket).

But more than that - Obama was nominated and elected anyway.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps

What's the difference? Suppose it was only me?

Then I would prefer that you had avoided that particular phrasing. Having heard the "people are saying" thing used in less honest circumstances in the past, it does make a difference who is saying what and why.

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

It's fair to say that liberals are particularly sceptical of minority conservatives. In part, that's because many of them are batshit insane, like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

Or Alan Keyes.

Rubio is not crazy at all, but he is a reactionary. I doubt anyone is more opposed to him than, say, Jim DeMint, however - except other Florida Hispanics, who largely despise him.

I thought the Floridian Cuban population trended conservative (with a small c) as they tended to prefer the right-wing "no compromise with Castro" approach. Or at least the older generation; the younger ones may be more liberal.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Rubio's a large C conservative; he left the Catholic church for an evangelical one.

So the Cuban American population likes him, but doesn't love him, and the remainder Hispanic population (roughly the same size) does not.

[ShibbOleth]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Well, one of his "fresh ideas" is "come to Jesus", which isn't very fresh at all.

Do you have a cite for that or were you just making a joke? I tried looking up his "100 ideas" but won't buy the book just to see what they all are. Most seemed actually pretty mild or some of the same (lower taxes). What I have seen on it seemed that they intentionally stayed away from most social issues.

[Really Not All That Bright]

His stated positions are pretty much universally anti-gay and -abortion, and he proposed several measures in the state legislature to reintroduce prayer in Florida schools (though I can't find any of them at the moment).

[ShibbOleth]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

His stated positions are pretty much universally anti-gay and -abortion, and he proposed several measures in the state legislature to reintroduce prayer in Florida schools (though I can't find any of them at the moment).

I don't doubt that's the way he'll vote, just thought he might be too clever to put that stuff in his book.

[Really Not All That Bright]

His book was technically about other people's ideas - he did a tour of the state asking people what they thought, and condensed it into 100 Things To Do.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Rubio's a large C conservative; he left the Catholic church for an evangelical one.

So the Cuban American population likes him, but doesn't love him, and the remainder Hispanic population (roughly the same size) does not.

According to this source, Rubio won 55% of the Hispanic vote. This seems to bely your contention.

[Really Not All That Bright]

He doesn't say where the number came from and I'm willing to bet he's wrong (though Rubio got a lot more of the Hispanic vote than I expected).

ETA: Actually, it looks like it's true.

[furt]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Has it been "claimed" and "suggested"? By anyone in particular besides you?

Leaked memos indicated that democratic staffers had identified Estrada as "dangerous" because he was Hispanic. Cite.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

His book was technically about other people's ideas - he did a tour of the state asking people what they thought, and condensed it into 100 Things To Do.

Clever. Its a way to have ideas without actually having to propose or advocate anything.

-Joe

[Really Not All That Bright]

I haven't read the book, and don't plan to, so I'm not sure how much of it was actually other people's ideas and how much was stuff he wants to pretend someone else came up with.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

I haven't read the book, and don't plan to, so I'm not sure how much of it was actually other people's ideas and how much was stuff he wants to pretend someone else came up with.

Not really much of a difference either way. Again, he can have "ideas" but if they're unpopular he can say "Hey, it wasn't me, it was some guy in Tallahassee". As a true patriot I thought he should be heard.

-Joe

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps

The TP candidates that were politicians did well, e.g. Rubio & Toomey. Where they failed were the non-politicians or minor league politicians who were out of their league, e.g. Angle, Miller, O'Donnell, Paladino.

Toomey is not a Tea Party candidate. He ran six years ago and almost unseated Specter in the primary. It is believed, at least locally, that Arlen Specter went Democratic because he couldn't beat Toomey in the Republican primary, only to lose to Sestak in the Democratic primary.

Toomey didn't need the help of the Tea Party, and other than a few positions that aligned with them I don't recall too much support for him from them. He won on his own, more or less.

[InterestedObserver]

Overall, 61% of Tea Party backed candidates lost. If the election was (as they claimed) a test of the Tea Party, they failed it miserably.

Not that THEY are spinning it that way, but looking at the overall results reveals a more accurate picture of their power than indivdual races.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Well, if the Tea Party did so poorly then we can thank normal every day voters for the Democrat shellacking...... That works for me!

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

Well, if the Tea Party did so poorly then we can thank normal every day voters for the Democrat shellacking...... That works for me!

The 'shellacking' was accomplished by returning mostly incumbents and political insiders to Congress. Is that what you had in mind?

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

The 'shellacking' was accomplished by returning mostly incumbents and political insiders to Congress. Is that what you had in mind?

Gosh, I'm confused Maybe the Democrats did better than I thought.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

Gosh, I'm confused ...

I'll say. 435 seats were decided in the House, 62 changed parties, and even less were supported by Tea Party groups. 37 seats up for grabs in the Senate, and only 7 change parties. How can you conclude most of the winners were somehow not incumbents and insiders?

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

The 'shellacking' was accomplished by returning mostly incumbents and political insiders to Congress. Is that what you had in mind?

Even in that context it was a big win for the Republican Party, if not for the Tea Party Republican faction. Incumbents are generally returned to office at about a 90% rate, and the Republicans took many more seats than could ordinarily be expected based on historical trends. It was a big loss for the Democrats, and there's not much you can say to lessen that except to say that they still have control of the Senate, which should be some small consolation.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF

Even in that context it was a big win for the Republican Party, if not for the Tea Party Republican faction. Incumbents are generally returned to office at about a 90% rate, and the Republicans took many more seats than could ordinarily be expected based on historical trends. It was a big loss for the Democrats, and there's not much you can say to lessen that except to say that they still have control of the Senate, which should be some small consolation.

You misunderstand what I was arguing. The Tea Party was all about throwing out all the incumbents and Washington insiders. In that respect, the Tea Party failed miserably.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

You misunderstand what I was arguing. The Tea Party was all about throwing out all the incumbents and Washington insiders. In that respect, the Tea Party failed miserably.

That's what they said they were about. You don't actually buy that, I assume.

-Joe

[What the .... ?!?!]

[quote=Fear Itself;13172224]You misunderstand what I was arguing. The Tea Party was all about throwing out all the incumbents and Washington insiders. In that respect, the Tea Party failed miserably.[/QUOTE

That's all they were about....excuse me, are about?

I'm sure the majority found pulling the "R" lever quite acceptable..... either that or [see post #43 above].