In races where Tea party backed candidates defeat Republican party candidates, are the Tea party candidates running as Republicans, or do some states have an official Tea party that the candidates are running under?
Since we haven’t had a general election, the only way a Tea Party candidate can beat a Republican candidate is by beating them in the primary, in which case they become the Republican Candidate. If they just wanted to run under their own party, there’d be no sense in running in the GOP primary.
In at least two cases (FL and AK) their formally GOP opponents are still running as independent candidates.
I believe that so far it’s all just been Republican primaries, with candidates backed by the Tea Partiers having knocked off more mainstream candidates, to win the Republican nomination. They will then run as Republicans in the general elections.
I found some Florida races in which a challenger will run as a third party candidate under the Tea Party designation, including this one.
There is a possibility that some tea party-backed candidate won in a Democratic primary, but a quick Google didn’t reveal any.
I was thinking that the “Tea party” candidates ran as Republican, but I just wasn’t sure.
I heard about the Alaska Senate race between incumbent Lisa Murkowski and Tea party-er Joe Miller on CNN. I would say more, but that’s getting into GD territory.
The main reason I asked this question was because when listening to the news they always talk about “Tea party backed candidate” or sometimes I’m sure I hear “Tea party candidate” which just makes it sound like they’ve become an official party rather than a wing or a branch of the Republican party.
The stuff you’re seeing in the news is all about Republican primaries. The teabaggers are winning Republican nominations, not actual elections yet. I think there are one or two attempts to start a separate party independent of the Republicans, but so far that term generally refers to a faction of Republicans, not an actual third party or independent movement. Functionally speaking, it’s an extreme, lunatic wing of the Republican Party (though a lot of the voters have taken to self-identifying as “independent” because they think the GOP isn’t right wing enough).
“Tea Party” comes from the Boston Tea Party. It’s not used in the same sense as “party” in the Republican or Democratic Party. So if and when they form their own party, I guess it will have to be the Tea Party Party 
Wiki has a useful summary of the candidates who have won electionsso far.
The whole point of the “Tea Party” moniker is that it’s a pun on the Boston Tea Party and the notion of a political party. But like the above posters said, inasmuch as the Tea Party movement can be considered organized, it’s as a faction of the Republicans. Factions play a larger part in the American system than in most other countries due to having two major parties and a primary system.
Just a year or so ago people who followed that movement were called “tea baggers” because they used teabags as an antitax symbol. Suddenly the media realized that term had an unwanted subtext, so they started calling the movement the tea party. It makes perfect sense except for the confusion with organized politcal parties.
I’m sure this varies a lot from state to state, but generally if you win a party’s primary, you are listed on the ballot as being that party’s nominee. The actual party Establishment can disavow the candidate or even actively campaign against them, but they are still their nominee. This is sort of the reason why primary elections were started in the first place-- before them the party leadership would just run whoever they wanted to and so primary elections were put in place to try to reduce the power of the party establishments. So, somewhat ironically, the tea party candidates beating the establishment Republican candidates is a perfect illustration of this Progressive-era reform.
There’s also situations like here in Montana where in 2008 Bob Kelleher (a perennial candidate who wants to reform state government into a parliamentary system and who ran as a Green in 2002 because the actual Green Party of Montana didn’t have the filing fee) surprisingly won the Republican primary in the senate race. Nobody but the most die-hard “anybody but Baucus” Republicans supported him, but it still said “Bob Kelleher ®” on the ballot.
Cites?
Not exactly. It was “Tea Party” from the first. Tea Party movement - Wikipedia
Cites for what?
The teabaggers were the first ones to call themselves teabaggers. They stopped when they finally figured out people were snickering at them.
*Cites for what? *
Lunatic may be relative. Teabaggers is a very specific term.
I think he’s asking for a cite that the teafolk are a “extreme, lunatic wing of the Republican Party.” I’m pretty sure much of their rhetoric comes across as such, but there is a strong argument that they are the mainstream voice of the GOP.
Just to clarify and amplify this point… In New York state, parties whose candidates received 50,000 votes for governor in the last election have an automatic line on the ballot. Five parties qualify (Democratic, Republican, Conservative, Independence, and Working Families – the latter three generally cross-endorse Dem/Rep nominees). If you want to be on the ballot and you’re not a nominee from one of those parties, you have to submit a petitions with a certain number of signatures (the number varies depending on the office you are seeking). In 2006, four candidates petitioned their way onto the gubernatorial ballot. Six candidates are doing that in 2010.
But as others have said, the “Tea Party” label is being applied mostly to candidates who have run in republican primaries, like Carl Paladino. I don’t think any of the mare trying to get on the ballot on a “Tea Party” line, and there certainly isn’t any effort for these candidates to collaborate in the way that members of an actual political party typically would
That may be true. They may indeed be baying at the moon. They may also indeed be sucking scrotums. Their rhetoric may be advocating both. Far be it from me to arbitrate.
There are a few Democrats who have received Tea Party endorsements. But it does not appear any Tea Party Democrats have been nominated.
Tim Curtis sought the Democratic nomination for Florida’s 11th Congressional District. The incumbent, Kathy Castor, was renominated. Curtis is running as a Constitutional Democrat.
Mark Falzon sought the Democratic nomination for New Jersey’s 6th Congressional District. The incumbent, Frank Pallone, was renominated. I can’t find out if Falzon is running as an independent. However, I did find that Republican nominee Anna Little has also received Tea Party endorsments for the same seat.
Jack Wilson sought the Democratic nomination for Maryland’s 1st Congressional District. Incumbent Frank Kratovil was renominated. Wilson is running as an independent. However, he failed to get on the ballot so he is running as a write-in candidate.
Probably the biggest Democrat to receive a Tea Party endorsment was Walt Minnick, the incumbent Representative of Idaho’s 1st Congressional District. Minnick did not run for re-election as a Tea Party candidate but he did receive their endorsement after winning the Democratic nomination. He originally accepted the endorsement but he has since changed his position and publically rejected it.