It’s a false dichotomy to the extent that one believes that the TP stands a chance on it’s own. But let’s assume the conventional wisdom as to 3rd parties in the American political landscape and say that their only lasting legacy will be in terms of their affect on one of the major parties.
Strawman #1: The pubs benefit since it peels away the extreme right wing of the party who were with the pubs for the same reason most people pick their prom dates - it was the least objectionable alternative. Such people were never going to be happy with anything the pubs did and by off-loading them on the TP, they can now pursue strategies that are more middle-of-the-road and which might get them some actual votes.
Strawman #2: The dems benefit since it splits the republican vote much like Nader (allegedly) did in 2000. There’s always been lots of support for bread and butter pub issues like the anti-gay, anti-abortion stances. Those issues did in fact get voters to the polls. In areas where there will be a TP candidate on the ballot, it can only serve to hurt the pubs.
Here in Canada we have the NDP which is left of the liberals. In a similar way to the TPers, they draw off the more radical elements. Our conservatives who are closer to your republicans ideologically(than to the pubs) often benefit from this.
I should add that our Liberals are also close to your dems. Book ends, if you will. Most Canadians, regardless of political stripe are for social justice for gays and minorities for instance.
The last few elections we ended up with minority governments which likely will be the trend for the foreseeable future. This is good because bastard politicians should be squabbling with each other instead of screwing us over. Seriously, it makes them cooperate at times and thats the best for Canadians.
I keep wondering what is going to happen in 2012 will be similiar to what the Republicans went through in the 1950’s-60’s, a schism in the party between the establishment and the right wing of the party. The so called “Tea Party” people are going to like one candidate (maybe Palin) while the establishment looks to Romney, to whom the Tea Party crowd will dislike. A split party does very poorly in national elections except for 1948 (Truman’s opponents were a race baiting redneck and a goofball Communist)
So, the Tea Party more benefits Democrats who haven’t jumped ship or have one of its wings act independently, yet. I think there will be rumblings from moderates that Obama has gone too far in the wrong direction and might get someone to challenge him for the Democratic nominee in 2012, especially of Obama goes down the road he is now. Maybe (or not) Hillary or someone else. But then again, maybe not.
Has there really been all that much vote splitting between the Tea Party and the Republicans? It seems in most cases they settle on one candidate before a general election with the Democrats.
I think the biggest threat the Tea Party hold for the Republicans is that they might pull them too far off-center. If Tea-Party-approved Republican candidates are seen as too extreme, the Democrats might scoop up the majority of swing voters. The Tea Party might become the equivalent of McGovern or Goldwater - loved by the base for their ideological purity but unelectable by the general population.
The consensus seems to be that, net-net, the TP is benefits the GOP. That is, many more TP backed candidates are doing well vs the few who are not. But it’s not just about numbers. The TP candidates for the Senate have made it almost impossible for the GOP to take the Senate, which they would have had a good chance of doing w/ establishment candidates. So, it’s great for the GOP to increase its numbers in Congress, but they’d be better off with fewer overall winners if that meant they’d take the Senate.
I don’t see that happening. The Republicans are not offloading the Tea Partiers. Such people were perfectly happy with everything the Pubs did, at the time they were doing it. The Tea Partiers are former Republicans who have now coalesced[sup]*[/sup] under a new name, and are now supporting candidates who run as Republicans. The Republican Party will still cater to the various proportional factions as they have done for decades. The only thing that’s changed is the name.
What remains to be seen is whether it will have any legislative influence. Lots of people claim that the Tea Party’s unifying goal is fiscal responsibility. If they can actually nudge the Republicans in that direction, it will be a change.
There is still debate as to what the Tea Party is, and who, if anyone, represents it. If it succeeds, many will come forward claiming to have been leaders all along. If it fails, “Tea Party? What Tea Party?”
At this point in the process the issue is which party has the fewest apathetic voters. Those who self-identify as “Tea Party” are energized and right now they are coming out to vote. They are not a large number overall (only 11% of potential voters, half as big as the Religious Right (RR) and only 1 in 4 of those who identify as being in the RR also identify as TP). But with few others very excited, and for that matter no one else doing anything all that exciting for the media to focus on, they control the agenda.
Will they come out for the GOP candidate in the elections that their preferred choice lost the primary?
Will the mainstream GOP voters come out to vote against the Democrat even thought they do not particularly like the TP candidate when the TP candidate carries the flag?
How many who would vote for the Democrat if they bothered to vote are going to just stay home vs come out to vote if the candidate is fairly run of the mill GOP versus how many if the candidate is TP?
I’m sure what the answers are but I think those are the questions. I suspect that the overall effect will be a wash. When the candidate is TP there will some increased turn out from that 11% that is TP (which is about 1/4th of reliable general election GOP voters) and the rest of the GOP reliables will likely still come out to vote against the Democrat, but that may be neutralized by more Democrats actually being motivated enough to bother to vote as well (against the TP candidate, not for their guy/gal) and many swing voters who might otherwise vote against the party in power (which this time means Democratic) just sitting it out.
Come Presidential cycle - well if the TP candidates all tank then a moderate wins the nomination and the outcome depends on how the economy does over the next two years - if they do well then a TP acceptable will win the nom for sure and be unlikely to win the general even with the economy not much better than it is now. And then TP fades.
The “party” in tea party doesn’t refer to a political party. If they wanted their own political party, they would become something like the “tea party party”. As you point out, 3rd parties have a checkered history…
(For now) They are a faction within the Republican party.
In the long run, I think they hurt both. The Republicans need to be sane, and the Democrats need to have sane opponents. Oh, sure, one party or the other will gain seats (in the short run, that looks like Republicans, but who knows longer term), but there’s more to “good for a party” than just winning seats.
In the short term, the Tea Party will benefit the Republicans, because that’s what they really are; they’re just the far right fringe of it. If their candidate loses, the Tea Party will coalesce around whichever Republican is running. They’re not going to vote for a Democrat under any circumstances and they’re not going to sit on their hands.
In the long term, the Tea Party will benefit the Democrats because, as someone alluded above, both parties ultimately need sanity in order to succeed, but the Republicans still haven’t realized it, and probably won’t until the reality that social conservatism is a loser slaps them across the face.
And please, don’t respond with that tripe about how the Tea Party is all about fiscal responsibility unless you mean ‘fiscal responsibility’ as a code phrase for ‘get that black man out of the White House,’ because I truly don’t believe they want anything much deeper than that. The election of the president after Obama, whether he or she is Republican or Democrat, is when you’ll see the Tea Party begin to fade into the background, not a moment sooner.
The tea party has benefited Republicans. Yes they’ve nominated a few candidates that can’t win, but that’s dwarfed by the huge effect of the enthusiasm gap that they’ve generated.
If it comes to the Tea Party putting forth a candidate that looks even halfway viable, the Republican Party is going to fold faster than a limbo dancer. Too many years of too many pundits putting forth that “might makes right” and “the ends justify the means” have convinced those on the right wing that all that matters is that the winner calls him/herself “Republican”-actual policy be damned straight to hell. I predict that many of those on the right(including some on this very board) who currently say that common sense will prevail, will find themselves publicly supporting Tea Party candidates.
What I cant get is why Tea Party candidates like Sharon Angle and Rand Paul don’t have seniors of all stripes (except the wealthy ones, of course) so scared that they dampen their Depends. The Tea Partiers and many Republicans DO plan to welsh on those Social Security promises … you can Depend on it.
In Alaska the tea party candidate, Joe Miller, won the primary for the republican vote verses Sen. Lisa Murkowski. Murkowski is now running a write in campaign. This has the potential of splitting the republican vote and having the democrats take the seat.
I think it will ultimately depend on how the elected tea partiers govern. Everyone is for fiscal solvency, but it’s hard to achieve those goals once you are in office without making tough choices.