How many senate races did the tea party cost/win the GOP

[Wesley Clark]

They cost them Delware with O'Donnell.

Alaska will still be GOP (either murkowski or Miller). However McAdams didn't have a chance before the 3 way race.

Bennet just won against Buck in Colorado.

Reid won against Angle when he was set to lose before she was nominated.


It seems the GOP lost at least 3 senate races because tea party candidates made the GOP less appealing to voters.

Are there races where the establishment GOP candidate was going to lose the senate race but the tea party candidate won? Would Kentucky still have gone GOP if Paul hadn't won the nomination? Would Wisconsin still be a Feingold state if the tea party candidate hadn't won?

Rubio won anyway in his 3 way race. So the battle between the tea party & GOP didn't make a difference anymore than it did in Alaska.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Indeed, Crist actually split the Democratic vote in Florida, instead of the Republican vote.

[Jas09]

See, the answer on the up-side is very difficult. It's not that the more extreme TP candidates did better than a traditional GOP candidate (in, say, KY). It's two things:

1) GOP turnout was very good across the board, at least in part due to the TP movement
2) Independents across the board re-considered the GOP brand, at least in part due to TP presence

Additionally, to a tea-party member, having Rand Paul in KY rather than a regular GOPer is completely worth not having Mike Castle in DE.

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

Lots of focus on the Tea Party...what's this, the 15th thread?

Pretty interesting that a truly grass roots group that began less than two years ago is getting this much attention.

Prediction........ Lib hatred will increase over the next two years and the Teabaggers (might as well egg you all on) will only be more influential.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Well, I suppose I could have started a thread entitled "What Effect Will the Republican Party Have On The Election?"

I'll remember for next time.

[BrainGlutton]

Spinoff of this thread and this thread.

We've been hearing Tea Party, Tea Party, Tea Party all year. Well, the Tea Party candidates got mixed results. They got some in, but lost the GOP some seats that must have seemed in the bag for them, like Nevada and Delaware.

If the Tea Party had never existed, would the GOP still have had an "enthusiasm gap" to win on? I'm thinking yes, as voter dissatisfaction was based mainly on the unemployment rate, not deficits or health care; and that would have been the same.

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

If the Tea Party had never existed, would the GOP still have had an "enthusiasm gap" to win on? I'm thinking yes, as voter dissatisfaction was based mainly on the unemployment rate, not deficits or health care; and that would have been the same.

I think the GOP would still have done well, but *not* quite as well as they did.

[Chronos]

Pretty interesting that a truly grass roots group that began less than two years ago is getting this much attention.

Nah, the grassroots groups aren't getting hardly any attention; the Tea Party is pushing them out of the limelight.

[Lobohan]

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

Pretty interesting that a truly grass roots group that began less than two years ago is getting this much attention.

The Tea Party isn't grass roots. It's run largely by Republican operatives. Also it has bland platitudes instead of actual ideas. "Reducing the size of government" is laudable. But you need to say exactly what you're going to cut. No tea party candidate will actually say anything about what they're going to cut. Most don't seem to understand that cutting non-military discretionary spending can't balance the budget.

Anyone who thinks the Tea Party is grass-roots is simply nibbling the wangs of the Koche brothers and Dick Armey and thinking it's linguica.

[BrainGlutton]

Also a spinoff of this thread, I guess . . . But I'm not just talking about the Senate, I'm talking about all the elections, federal and state.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

The flip side is that Spector would have beaten Toomey.

[twickster]

Merged duplicate threads.

twickster, Election forum mod

[BrainGlutton]

delete

[Wesley Clark]

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

Lots of focus on the Tea Party...what's this, the 15th thread?

Pretty interesting that a truly grass roots group that began less than two years ago is getting this much attention.

Prediction........ Lib hatred will increase over the next two years and the Teabaggers (might as well egg you all on) will only be more influential.

My impression is w/o the tea party the GOP would've won 3 more senate seats than they did. They might not have won in MA in the special election though. W/o the Rubio/crist issue Crist would be the senator right now, so that is a wash.

This thread was about the senate, because if the GOP had won an extra 3 seats the senate might be tied at 50/50.

FWIW, I don't hate the tea party. I actually like them. I think they are going to bring down the GOP from the inside by pushing everyone but the most conservative 30% of the public out of the GOP.

But since the GOP has no real plans or tools to shrink government or reduce the deficit, what happens to the tea party movement in 2012 and 2014?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Indeed, Crist actually split the Democratic vote in Florida, instead of the Republican vote.

Thank God for Charlie Crist then!

[DigitalC]

I think without the Tea Party the Republican gains in the House would have been much smaller but they would have taken the Senate for sure. Overall that seems like a negative.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Mark Levin's whining about how Lindsey Graham and John McCain aren't conservative enough. LOL.

[DoctorJ]

Would Kentucky still have gone GOP if Paul hadn't won the nomination?

Yes. Trey Grayson would have beaten Jack Conway handily. He might not have had the national support that allowed Paul's ads to dwarf Conway's they way they did, but Conway's operation (and the KY Dems in general) would have been just as incompetent and would have found some way to screw it up.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

My impression is w/o the tea party the GOP would've won 3 more senate seats than they did. They might not have won in MA in the special election though. W/o the Rubio/crist issue Crist would be the senator right now, so that is a wash.

You are ignoring the high probability that the TP movement increased turnout among conservatives. We're talking about the movement as a whole, not just its candidates.

[DigitalC]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

You are ignoring the high probability that the TP movement increased turnout among conservatives. We're talking about the movement as a whole, not just its candidates.

Right, but the Republican gains were so big that even with slightly less enthusiasm they would have taken the House without much trouble.

[Death of Rats]

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

Prediction........ Lib hatred will increase over the next two years and the Teabaggers (might as well egg you all on) will only be more influential.

I hate to break this to you, but the teabagger movement was a one-and-done deal. They were powered entirely by hate and rage and they blew thier wad on this election. They got the Repubs a few crumbs of power but not enough to make any real changes and certainly not enough to do what they are promising. You can't maintain that voter outrage when you are in power without the rage turning on you. If they Repubs in power do not make some major economic gains and huge job growth the bullseye is squarely on them in 2012. Since the entire goal of the Repub leaders in Congress next year will be to hurt Obama, they are going to fail at anything they try to pass and will look weak and inefectual to the voter base next election.

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

Originally Posted by Death of Rats

I hate to break this to you, but the teabagger movement was a one-and-done deal. They were powered entirely by hate and rage and they blew thier wad on this election. They got the Repubs a few crumbs of power but not enough to make any real changes and certainly not enough to do what they are promising. You can't maintain that voter outrage when you are in power without the rage turning on you. If they Repubs in power do not make some major economic gains and huge job growth the bullseye is squarely on them in 2012. Since the entire goal of the Repub leaders in Congress next year will be to hurt Obama, they are going to fail at anything they try to pass and will look weak and inefectual to the voter base next election.

That's what you are hoping...but your analysis is a bit flawed.

How does one half of one branch of government = "in power"?

Obama, the Senate, an activist judiciary and the Dem special interests will continue to provide plenty of ammo for us ball-danglers to hate.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Ball-danglers? People who wear cutoff shorts?

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by Death of Rats

You can't maintain that voter outrage when you are in power without the rage turning on you. If they Repubs in power do not make some major economic gains and huge job growth the bullseye is squarely on them in 2012.

I saw an interview with Michael Steele on election night. The interviewer asked him what message he thought people should interpret from the results. Steele's answer was "pay attention."

Pay attention to what, you moron? I mean, isn't that supposed to be implicit in every election? Aren't you supposed to be paying attention to us every two years? I've never seen someone so confidently saying he got the message while simultaneously missing it so completely.

However, DoR, I don't agree with your assessment that the Tea Party has played itself out. The Partiers and the candidates who pandered to them were so non-specific and unfocused that anybody can stand in front of them in two years and claim success. "You sent us to Washington to bomb Iran and privatize the prison system, and we have!" As long as the band is playing and everybody has their flag lapel pins on straight, who's going to question them. I just haven't seen that degree of self-awareness and criticality in the Tea Party.

[Really Not All That Bright]

There's plenty of criticality. There's not a lot of critical thought.

[descamisado]

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

I saw an interview with Michael Steele on election night. The interviewer asked him what message he thought people should interpret from the results. Steele's answer was "pay attention."

Pay attention to what, you moron?

This reminds me: now that the election is over, how soon will it be before Steele is fired? Or do the Republicans still need a token to convince minority voters they're just as supportive of them in leadership roles as the Democratic party?

[Really Not All That Bright]

If the last two years weren't enough to get him fired, I highly doubt that he'll lose his job after the best GOP election results in a decade.

[descamisado]

Steele had nothing to do with that and lots of negatives besides.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Doesn't matter.