That’s insane. The way these things work the SotH would have to be a Pub from the rump.
What part is insane? I mean we’re presuming the Republican Party has just split in two, so things are already crazy. It could also happen that the newly independent Tea Party agrees to vote for a different R Speaker as long as they get all the committee chairmanships. Or the R’s support a TP speaker but feel free to vote with Dems on things like the debt ceiling. IF the split happened, I think it’s most likely Pelosi (or another Dem) becomes Speaker again, but who knows.
Tennessee is strongly Tea Farty.
They would get a good showing here.
Yet Sen. Lamar Alexander, targeted by national TP interests, is considered very safe.
Of the nine members of the House from Tennessee four are considered Tea Party, two are Democrats, and three are non-Tea Party GOP. The current Representative from the 4th, who came in on a Tea Party wave, Scott DesJarlais, is widely expected to lose the next time to more traditional conservative GOPer, Jim Tracy. I am not going to research each district and suspect some are safe TP even with the conservative vote split between a TP candidate and a non-TP conservative put up by the GOP … but **Manda JO’**s point will be pertinent even in some Tennessee districts.
Do you honestly think that moderate Pubs would prefer Pelosi over Boehner? Even neglecting the fact that the rump Pubs would be handing committee assignments to the Dems, there’s no way the Pubs would hand the reins over to Pelosi. If you proposed a moderate or conservative Dem you may have a chance but even then not really.
The Republican Party won’t split. It will dwindle to a teaparty-dominated rump with permanent minority status. This movement will be accelerated by the migration of big money to supporting Democratic candidates. This will happen because money doesn’t have an ideology and there’s no point in trying to buy influence with a party that always loses.
The result, in the short run, will be a gradual drift toward single-party Democratic rule. For a while the real power struggles will be in the Democratic primaries, not the general election. This will eventually culminate several decades from now in the breakup of the Democratic Party into progressive and moderate factions.
That is a beautiful typo.
Who wins and who loses if the Tea Party splits off from the Mainstream Republicans?
Not in political terms, in money terms.
The Tea Party can’t offer much, financially. Lower taxes and less regulation would be their top draws. But Mainstream Republicans already advocate this. Repealing Obamacare gets them little: the money from new registrants is going to private firms, not the government. They can claim drastic cutting of governmental programs, but the reason those programs haven’t already been cut is that they have powerful backers.
I see the Tea Party as a social issues coalition. That makes their natural allies the large percentage of people who are unemployed or underemployed and probably will always be. That would make for a populist movement. In fact, it would be similar in interesting ways to the 19th century Populist Party. But such a coalition is impossible today. Populist movements want to government to do more for them, to stop legislating for the rich and powerful. The Tea Party can’t move a foot in that direction. And many of the people in the falling middle class are people that the Tea Party has been demonizing, especially minorities and immigrants and urbanites.
Mainstream Republicans - except for a few loony billionaires, who will always be with us - are already trying to put down this rebellion because it is bad for the money interests. The money doesn’t always win every fight, but it’s the way to bet. And for sure, you don’t start a movement that antagonizes the money. The Occupy movement never had a chance of being anything other than performance artists.
Is the Tea Party crazy enough to try to start a minority party with no national funding and the opposition of both established parties? Sadly, no. It would be fun from the outside to watch the death throes, but it ain’t going to happen.
Not necessarily.
(Yes, of course, loonies will always be with us.)
I’ve merged this post into DSeid’s thread.
Eat the rich ?
I like mine with the Hot Barbecue Sause, please.
I’m not sure I see it happening. Consider the current situation if the parties were split. The Tea Partiers histrionics would be amusing, but since they wouldn’t have the Republican Party to boss around, the issue would already have been resolved. The Tea Party wouldn’t split from the Republicans voluntarily because they have outsized political power by using the Republican party. Conversely, the Republican party would immediately become a minority party, no longer holding control of any branch of government, except maybe the judicial branch, therefore becoming temporarily irrelevant. It looks like a suicide pact either way. For the foreseeable future, both groups need each other.
Unless the Tea Party is really so “pure” that they are willing to make some sort of political theater out of leaving the Republican Party and cut off their nose to spite their face.
I’m just wondering if there is any chance that there are at least a handful of principled Republicans who are willing to throw themselves under the bus, end their political careers, and publicly refudiate (sic) these guys.
I just read a fascinating book about the history of the John Birch Society, by Claire Conner, called Wrapped in the Flag.
Conner grew up in a Bircher family and her parents were founding members. She came to her senses sometime in adulthood when family relations became increasingly strained. In this family, anyone who disagreed with them, even slightly, was automatically branded a Communist, a traitor, and the enemy.
I acquired the book after hearing a lecture by Conner where she made the accusation that Tea Party members are just Birchers in new clothing. It was a compelling argument.
Alas, this premise is not investigated further in this book. It ends about where the Tea Party begins. Still, it is a worthwhile read and you can see where she is coming from.
If Conner is right, then splitting the Republicans might lead to the same result as 1964.
I’ve got to disagree with you on this. The Tea Party believes the Bible should run this country and not the Constitution which means that their draws are those that believe homosexuality is wrong and abortion is wrong and legalized marijuana is wrong (because guess that’s in the Bible somewhere). Here’s an example from my state’s Tea Bag affiliate which as you can see is a mix of Fundamentalist preacher and Sovereign Citizen bullshit. THAT’S who they appeal to.
Not sure you two are disagreeing much. “Social issues” usually means Bible based values (or more precisely how certain Christians have interpreted Bible based values.) “Small government” to a Tea Partier usually does not include keeping government away from imposing these social values on others. And mostly rural lower middle class or poor White is the voting mass even if based on funding from a few billionaires.
Those are the groups I said the Tea Party was demonizing.
Social issue groups tend to divide the world into Us and Them. Economic issue groups are similar only in that the rich are Them, but the very diverse non-rich are the Us.
That’s a huge limiting factor for the Tea Party. Its definition of Us is tiny, an imaginary reflection of a lost America. It cannot incorporate Other into their core. In that way it is indeed like the Birch or KKK movements, and the undercurrent of racial hatred against the very existence of Obama as President shows that it is expressed in their everyday politics.
A party with a very hard core can be locally successful. Nationally less so, for it cannot expand outside those localities that are largely Us, as they define Us. My belief is that the Tea Party has hit the limits of that expansion. The only real question left is whether the Mainstream Republicans can figure out a way to co-exist with them. I think they will if only to fend off party suicide. A true populist party offers some intriguing coalitions, but the demonization makes those impossible. Probably fortunately for the rest of us.
My objection was with the statement that their allies are un/underemployed. I think Tea Baggers are actually the socially conservative and wealthy in the country who already got theirs. Think social Darwinism. The un/underemployed are more of the occupy Wall Street crowd.
There is an interesting piece in Salon today exactly about this question.
In other words, locally wealthy people who are very exposed to changes in the market but may have lower individual human capital investments than coastal elites.