Tea Party Candidates Shown the Door

What were the Democrat percentages?
For a group of folks who weren't around 2 years ago, they just won a 1/3 of the positions up for election.

 

I would except nothing less from them.

 

Amazing, that a liberal Democrat, is gonna sit here the day after the worst beat down in decades, is saying the winning party's numbers suck....lol.

Just boggles the mind.

 

you forgot the bigot,racist, homophobe, nazi card.

 

lol one minute the teaparty and the gop are seperate...the next they are the same?

 

MSNBC agitprop. Diminish your most feared enemy. We know the drill.

Name 3 unaffiliated candidates the won. You might find them but what's that %? 0.2%? Less?

 

"And how does that compare to all the other unaffiliated candidates?"

"is saying the winning party's numbers suck."

are they repuiblicans or are they unaffiliated?

 

Be nice. He almost didn't show up at all.

Mourning in blue America.

 

Yes, Rubio is a standard-issue Republican who got some Tea Party help, like Scott Brown (R-MA), and who will probably -- like Brown -- now throw the Tea Party under the bus. He's already on record opposing the AZ immigration law, hardly a Tea Party stance.

The only reason Rand Paul is Senator-elect is because his father is Ron Paul. He could have been running under the CPUSA ticket and still won (well, almost ).
.

 

Still, name calling for any reason isn't getting us anywhere.
As for the candidates who won, it seems to be a cycle repeating itself, until perhaps we will finally see the emergence of a viable 3rd party to get some serious competition going.
I am not sure about Paul in KY. While I like the guy, I wonder if he could have won anywhere but KY...or another equally conservative state.
Thoughts?

 

Well, the Tea Party is supposed to drag the GOP to the right, but in the meantime if the RINO's win a few elections, well, it's all one big happy family, right?

Unless the RINO lost, in which case he was a smelly old RINO anyway and therefore doesn't count. It's all about principle, not who won or lost. Unless they won, that is....

Right wing logic

Bottom line, as the OP noted, the front line nationally-known pure Tea Party candidates were shown the door, the one exception being Rand Paul who won on his daddy's back -- pure and simple. As to 435 House races, well that's just rabble, or jr. high, and way too many to analyze here (or for me to analyze anywhere).

As to Tea Party governorships, my quick read is that Scott -- essentially a felon -- won in FL by buying the race. LePage -- who owes his position to bilingual education (more or less) -- won ME in a multi-candidate race with 38% of the vote, and will be a hypocrite if he supports Tea Party efforts to eliminate bilingual assistance. John Kasich in OH is not a Tea Partier, he's a Fox newser (a Foxer? Foxist? FoxHole? ) and a former mainstream Congressman.

MN has not been called, it seems. Haley in SC is not a Tea Partier IMHO. Of course Paladino in NY, probably the Tea Partiest of the lot, got rightfully crushed. Tea Partier Maes in CO got crushed even worse.

Bottom line, several mainstream Republicans with prior experience and Tea Party support won. But by and large, the unqualified nutcases that came out of the Tea Party woodwork went down in flames.

 

That's a reading comprehension issue on your end, Hat.

You quote a post of mine where I said *GOP* numbers were huge but *Tea Party* numbers sucked, and then claimed I said "the winning party's numbers sucked."

The "winning party" was the GOP. And they would have won even *bigger* if not for the Tea Party-backed candidates losing winnable races.

As I noted earlier, there's the general enthusiasm and turnout boost that the Tea Party helped fuel. That clearly helped Republicans overall.

But Tea Party *candidates* fared poorly.

Further, as most analysts have noted, the GOP is still highly unpopular. They won because the economy is weak (and incumbents get blamed for that), people are concerned about debt, and they're the only viable alternative to the current ruling party. And there was a certain "revert to the mean" from 2008 -- The Dems won a *lot* of marginal districts in 2008, and many of them were destined to be one-termers regardless of what happened.

So It was more of a "the economy sucks, anti-incumbency, stop the deficit" wave. There are plenty of lessons for Democrats in the loss. Clearly, people did not think they were getting the job done. But it's foolish to overstate the value of the Tea Party to the GOP (it's nearly as much a liability as a benefit) or understate the effect of things like the economy that have no partisan basis.

 

Keep playing your games and watch this go all red in 2012. I hear tell Democrats will have 22 Senate seats up for grabs compared to the Republicans 11.

 

well, one nice thing in this thread.

no one is trying to defend the tea party candidates that are named in the op. it seems we are all in agreement that these folks are very poor choices put forward directly by tea party support. they were mistakes, bad ones, and nobody seems to disagree.

celebrate unity.

 

The TEA Party did great... according to CBS News.

WTF are you talking about?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n7017707.shtml

Clearly CBS News disagrees with your assertion.

 

Meanwhile, roughly as many tea party candidates won as dems. 32% of tea party candidates won election. A two year old movement did in one night what left wing crank groups like the Green Party haven't done in over a decade. Using your logic I guess the dems will also be a footnote. After all, a footnote just helped take your party to the woodshed.

 

The TEA Party did pretty good for its first run. They still have some learning to do about organizing, but they are not going to rest here. The TEA Party is not going away. They won several seats, and while they would have liked to have won more seats, the TEA Party is huge in getting the conservative movement out to vote and influencing Independents to vote Republican. Regardless of whether a Republican was TEA Party backed or not, they had a major impact on this election.

 

Sharron Angle lost because Harry Reid started early with a very negative campaign which was funded by MGM Grand. The casinos backed Reid because he does them favors in Washington. Angle has always refused to play ball with the insiders, and that's what cost her.

 

And don't forget the SEIU was in charge of the voting machines, hmmmm. Nuff said. Not to mention gift cards and free food. Nothing like bribery and voter fraud!

 

Not true. At least a few of the Dems that got through voted with the Republicans at least some of the time. So, saying that this made the Dems that got through even more liberal isn't 100% true.

It depends. If everything the House passes gets squashed in the Senate, then why WOULDN'T that be a viable answer to their "lack of progress?"

 

You're not getting it. These folks won in primaries. THAT is the TP. THAT is their power. And now that those folks won, we'll be afforded conservative choices a bit more often, fewer entitled RINOs like Castle and Crist.

They didn't need to win to change the tide, send the message, and fire several shots into the aging elephant that was the Rove/McLame/Graham hegemony.

 

Why isn't this part of the MSNBC expose?

 

How amusing was it getting the ever living crap kicked out of you? Was that amusing too?

 

The Tea Party in less than two years, has thrown the Democrats out of a supermajority in the House.

The Tea Party almost kicked the Democrats out of control in the Senate too, and did infact remove their supermajority there.

And all in a mid-term election when voter turnout is typically the lowest, at that.

But no, no, no, the Tea Party must do that which the liberals tell them too.

If the Tea Party "wants to be taken seriously".

 

I remember two years ago.

The same liberals were in here saying how the GOP is dead. I think the TEA Party just revived it by ripping it towards fiscal responsibility. The sad thing for the Democrats. They were so myopic, they did not realize they too could have used the TEA Party and embraced fiscal responsibility. But, the Democrats were too hell bent on spending the tax payer's money and claiming authority.