It’s a muddy thing, but I have. They tend to hold conservative views on social issues, but think social issues shouldn’t be heavily legislated. A sort of “I don’t care what disgusting things those gays do in their own homes” or “those addicts can ruin their lives however they want” form of tolerance.
This view comes less from Tea Party “leaders” but more from random folks I’ve known that tend to affiliate with the label.
That’s very wrong. Civil rights is an obvious example, but assuming you were talking strictly about the economic agenda, the Southern Dems were such a pain in FDR’s ass even on that count that he mounted a personal campaign to defeat as many of them as possible in the 1938 midterms. His effort was a total failure.
There has never been a majority liberal Congress and there probably will never be one. Liberals love to cite all the great things they’ve accomplished, but when you compare their record to the record of left parties in Europe, it’s actually pretty meager.
That’s why I said “(among Democrats yes, among liberals no)”.
Ah, I get it. But Democrats can’t govern without moderates and conservatives. They just don’t have the numbers. Much like libertarians, they tend to speak with a louder voice than their actual numbers justify.
I think you meant to say “liberals,” not “Democrats”; Democrats do have the numbers, there are more registered Dems than Pubs. The party does need its moderates – but it does not need its conservatives, the sooner the Blue Dogs and Boll Weevils die out the better.
So do the Tea Partiers, but they do seem to be getting their way nevertheless.
The party can’t actually have a majority without conservatives. For a time they tried to fake their way through it by having faux conservatives, but in 2014 the red state voters caught on to the game and now Democrats are back to square one.
So, if the Tea Party is so powerful, I guess the GOP must be nominating die-hard, foaming at the mouth conservatives for President every 4 years, right?
Mitt Romney… Yeah, there’s a Reaganite for you.
John McCain? I think not.
When Jeb Bush inevitably gets the nomination in 2016, are you going to try to paint HIM as a right wing extremist, too?
Let’s look at the Tea Party’s success/failure rate in 2014.
Cornyn won handily.
In Kentucky, the Tea Party tried to unseat incumbent Mitch McConnell with cockfighting enthusiast Matt Bevin. Bevin lost.
In Louisiana, the Tea Party supported Rob Maness over Bill Cassidy. Cassidy won.
In North Carolina, the Tea Partiers were split between Greg Brannon and Rev. Mark Harris. Establishment candidate Tom Tillis won.
Even in the South, the Tea Party loses more often than it wins in Republican primaries. The notion that you have to be a right-wing kook to win the Republican nomination simply isn’t borne out by reality.
I think the impression was created out of the 2006/10/12 cycles, out of the high media visibility of the TP itself and of the likes of Bachmann/Cruz types winning in the generals, and Angle/O’Donnell types upsetting establishment candidates in the primaries, and a lot of chatter rising about how everyone was too scared to get primaried on the right by the TP. In the end the serious people inside the GOP got together and said wait a minute, we’re supposed to run conservatives to win elections, not “likes” in social media. Cost them maybe four years’ worth of Senate majority to get that through to the larger market.
The Tea Party was very strong in 2010, less strong in 2012, and lost pretty badly to the mainstream party in 2014. Of course, the mainstream party was pulled to the right in the process, so it’s hard to call it much of a loss.
In politics, follow the money. The black hole of American politics is Wall Street and the huge corporate oligarchs (think "Time Warner/Walmart’). They keep sucking in huger and huger portions of America’s wealth. And wealth is power, especially now that money plays such a central role in politics. That’s why you are seeing factionalizing in both major parties along economic lines: the Tea Party which hates Wall Street vs. the mainline conservatives who love Wall Street, and the progressive Democrats who hate Wall Street and the “centrist” Democrats who love Wall Street. With the mainline conservative Republicans and centrist Democrats predictably winning all the early rounds.
The American people in poll after poll side with the Tea Parties and progressives on economic issues, but Washington turns a deaf ear to them, playing up social issues to keep their base distracted (i.e., gay marriage, marijuana legalization, Middle East wars, out of control militarized cops, whatever, so long as it doesn’t interfere with the Wall Street/corporate money machine).
The question is, can the big money politicos in both the Republican and Democratic parties keep the electorate dancing to their tune via social issues long enough to gain a hold on power so secure that the electoral process loses all meaning?
I rather suspect they will succeed.
So the answer to your question is: unlikely. A liberal or die movement within the Democratic Party would be seen as an impediment to Wall Street’s money machine. Can’t have that. Strings will be pulled.
You failed to mention Iowa where a Tea Party nut, Joni Ernst, beat several more moderate Republicans in the primary and then won the election decisively.
And course the defeat of Eric Cantor.
Looks like we’ve got some Democratic Tea Partyism going on right now in Congress, with the left ready to shut down the government:
“Jacksonian” foreign policy? 
What, do we enter wars, sign treaties to end them, and then fight extra battles afterward for the lulz?
As for environmentalism, sustainability has a real economic upside for most people. The downside of going heavily into renewables is for the bank account of Boone Pickens, not the masses.
I think it’s a big deal for a couple of rich Canucks (pro) and a lot of farmers in the Plains (con).
I don’t think it’s a big deal to the majority of the Americans on the coasts, no. They’re not going to be directly poisoned when it spills. (Not if. When.)
Renewables are expensive and there’s currently no known way to scale them up to provide the power we now use even if we were willing to pay. Economic justice means cheap energy for the masses. The wealthier, more socially conscious liberal set of course, is willing to shell out, although not willing to sacrifice. Using less is for the common folk.
Oh, good lord, that was twenty years ago. Technology has marched on.
Not to the extent that we can even come close to replacing fossil fuels.
“Or else” is pretty much the antithesis of the liberal mindset.