I’m bit reluctant to post this link, since it’s to Mother Jones and I know how that’s considered. But I found it through a series of links myself and the actual content is quoting a book by political scientists on the primary process. I haven’t read the book, The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform, by
Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller but it looks interesting, mainly because it’s a bunch of high-powered academics saying exactly what I’ve been saying here.
Here’s the link to the Mother Jones article that has a long quote from one of the authors of the book. Remember, I’m quoting the book’s author, Hans Noel, not the blogger.
I’ve been saying all along that straw polls don’t count. Debates don’t count. Media noise doesn’t count. Profile doesn’t count. Ideas don’t count. Or, to be more exact, they don’t count except indirectly to the real things that count. And the real things that count are fundraising and organization and acceptance by the party bigwigs. As they say, this is exactly as true for the Democrats as for the Republicans, and was seen throughout the 2008 campaign.
That’s why I’ve said that Romney will be the nominee and the Tea Party, though it will get behind an anti-Romney candidate, won’t get their wish. No Tea Party candidate has a chance with the big-money people, who do not want to see the government shut down, are not overly concerned with social issues, and want a favorable business climate without uncertainty. They may not be enthused about Romney, but they’ll hold their nose and back him because they hate the alternatives. Even Roger Ailes has been regretting what he set in motion.
What you are saying is correct as it applies to mainstream Republicans. But I would say they are going through their own civil war right now, with a substantial minority pushing to the right. So far, the mainstreamers have been and are continuing to empower TP people by buying into their rhetoric and even promoting many of their policies.
It remains to be seen whether the extremists can be reined in, or will take over the party’s brand name. I would also say they are winning, as moderates have been leaving the party and more extremists joining it. The strongest evidence I can point to is the last election, when a number of moderates lost to extremists in the primaries. Then there is the House, where John Boehner seems to have lost control of the Republican caucus. He can no longer reliably speak on behalf of his party, or count on their votes even on legislation that he supports.
I disagree. As evidenced by the debt ceiling debacle, they will never compromise their principles. If Romney is nominated, they will run a thrid party candidate, regardless of the futility of the effort. They would rather split the Republican Party than vote for a candidate that would comrpomise with anyone less conservative than they. So, they will either vote for a Tea Party candidate like Michele Bachman, or they will stay home . They would rather be right than in the White House.
I’m assuming that in your example, “they” are the Tea Partiers. I think you are correct about many of them individually, but I’m doubtful that they are organized or coherent enough to run a third party candidate. The money behind them won’t find that in their interest either. The Koch brothers and there ilk will be more interested in keeping the Republican brand name and casting the moderates out, maybe to eventually form another party or not.
Like I said, it’s a civil war for the party, and you don’t win the war by leaving and forming another party.
OTOH, there may be someone like Bachmann or Palin who will run independently out of sheer ego, and expect TPers to flock to them. And some will, and I agree with you that they will have no chance and will also probably eliminate whatever small chances of the mainstream Republican candidate.
The key point to remember here is that the Tea Partiers have primaried out electable mainstream Republicans, and have run third-party spoiler candidates who handed the race to the Democrats, in Senate races. Any theory which says that’s impossible at the Presidential level has to explain how it nonetheless happened, several times, at the Senate level.
66 Republicans voted against it; that is over one fourth of the Republican caucus. They represent the insane wing of the party, the same wing that would rather destroy the country than compromise their principles.
Well, what I’m saying right now is that given what we know of the past and given that the present looks very much like that past, then Romney will be the nominee unless something extraordinary happens. People keep saying that the Tea Party is that extraordinary thing. All I’m saying is that no evidence backs them up.
The campaign has been on for six months and we’re right back where we were when we started. The mainstream Republican candidate is Mitt Romney and the opposition is trying to find a candidate to embrace. And failing. Over and over. That hasn’t been for a lack of red meat. On the very rare occasions when a candidate strays from orthodoxy, an apology immediately follows. See Rick Perry and “heartless.” Yet this incredible level of pandering hasn’t worked. The race for the presidency is a whole nother animal than state elections. Extremists don’t get the nomination. Obama won by appearing more moderate than the others. McCain won by appearing more moderate than the others (and then lost that position with a non-moderate VP). Has the Tea Party, with its maximum 20% share of the population and negative approval rating, risen to the level of extraordinary? Not so far, despite the level of attention it garners.
Can the right wing of the party come together, find an acceptable candidate, and overcome the mainstream wing of the party? It’s possible. It could happen. If it does I’ll be fascinated to watch it play out. I care more about how this election fits into history than about the daily silliness of the campaign.
But it’s like how many impossible things can you think of before breakfast? How many impossible things have to happen for the Tea Party - a minority of all Republicans nationally, and an unknown percentage of primary voters - to get every last thing right for the next six months? That’s what we’re talking about. Everything has to come together. They need a viable candidate. They need the money. They need local organization. They need to overcome the overwhelmingly rich and successful and powerful and vehement opposition inside their party. And they haven’t yet reached the starting line, let alone make major inroads.
It’s always fun to watch the world turn upside down. But that’s not the way to bet.
How many of them voted against it because they knew it would pass anyway, though? The fact that it passed even though it was spoken out so strongly against by tea party people suggests that the Republican party, when push comes to shove, is going to let practicality win out over idealism.
If Mitt Romney gets elected, the tea partiers aren’t going to run a third party. Some of them may stay home, but most of them are going to hold their nose and vote for him.
I think he’s talking about the 2011 special election in New York’s 26th district, where Democrat Kathy Hochul beat Republican Jane Corwin, in part because of a third party run by Jack Davis, who ran on the Tea Party line. It’s a little more complicated than that, because two of the main Tea Party groups in New York actually endorsed Corwin, and the group that endorsed Davis, the Tea Party Coalition, had split off the main Tea Party group, TEA Express.
And NY-23 where the Tea Party spoiler Doug Hoffman handed the election to Democrat Bill Owens. And the 2008 Senate races in Delaware and Nevada, which the Republicans probably would have won, if they had run sane candidates.
Who was the sane candidate that would have won in Nevada, if not for the Tea Party spoiler?
I’d go so far as to challenge the very premise of your argument, that there were more Republican candidates busted in the primaries by their own party than normal during 2008 and 2010 elections.
Also, using the example of Sharron Angle and whats his face in Delaware is moving the goalposts. You’re speculating that a different candidate could have beaten the Democrat incumbent, while ignoring that Tea Party candidates did plenty of winning during the last election.
The thing about NY-23, though, is that Hoffman had the Conservative Party line, and also that Scozzafava withdrew from the race and endorsed Owens. If she had stayed in, Owens probably still would have won, but if she had dropped out and endorsed Hoffman, he might have pulled it off.