The Teapublican Moment

Why are we so shocked that a generic conservative third party called the "Tea Party" would come out ahead of the Republican Party in a poll?

The notion that there are lots of people on the right who consider themselves conservatives first and Republicans second is not new (though a national reporter once e-mailed me professing shock at hearing someone say this for the first time). What is different this time is that the tea parties lend some modicum of organization to the right's rabblerousing opposition, and the D.C. mandarins are busy trying to figure out if this power can be wielded electorally and whether that helps or hurts Republicans.

Rasmussen's question actually explains a lot. Like the fact that the national GOP is poised to pick up a bunch of seats while their numbers remain in the toilet.

Depending on the poll, approval of Congressional Republicans (and their leaders) is in the high teens or low twenties, close to the GOP number in today's survey. In the progressive blogosphere, this is the most common talking point against the notion that Republicans might win in 2010.

Though a curiosity, Congressional GOP approval is actually irrelevant to next year's election results. That's because a big chunk of the disapproval comes from the "Tea Party" that thinks the GOP is not doing enough fast enough. Combined, the Teapublicans get 41 percent of the vote to the Democrats' 36 percent. If I'm solely concerned with electoral strategy, I want people to be highly motivated to vote, because turnout is everything in a midterm. And the more Tea'd off these voters are, the better for Republicans. The good news for Democrats is that a mythical right-wing splinter party splits the base down the middle. The bad news is that they still vote Republican in a two-way, and the Tea Partiers are singlehandedly driving a massive enthusiasm gap over the left that renders a Republican victory even more likely. As we saw in 2006 and 2008, enthusiasm gaps matter.

The prevalence of the Tea Party movement does hold a cautionary note for the GOP -- if they win. The danger is that Republicans will interpret a victory as a sign that all is well in the party, and that they can go back to their old ways pre-2008. In other words, they'll confuse a Teapublican victory for an old-school Republican mandate.

However, the reason that Republicans are now at the mercy of the tea parties to drive their GOTV is because they drove spending through the roof (at least in pre-Obama terms) and agreed to the bailouts. The protests were as much a reaction to Republicans selling out as they were to the incipient Obama administration, though the passage of time has shifted the focus to the present Administration. The notion that the Tea Party  -- of all people -- will be unenthused about voting in November 2010 is wishful thinking, particularly when a clear opportunity exists to do damage to the left. The question is whether they'll abide the same Republican Party that set the bailouts in motion to begin with -- after the election.

Right now, the fact that the Tea Party is willing to hate on the GOP Congressional leadership but ultimately be their most enthusiastic foot soldiers is testament to the fact of the Republican Party's powerlessness on Capitol Hill. The party may suck, the reasoning goes, but that's irrelevant now because it can't actually shape policy. There is only one question in this election, and that is whether Congress can put the breaks on the left's unfettered rule. And if the GOP gets some measure of influence back, will it change?

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

Teapublicans

Great insight Patrick. I agree with all of it.

You may recall the NY20 race. I was so disappointed with the Tedisco campaign's refusal to come out strongly against the $787 billion Stimulus (or even softly). Instead they relied on the polling, that was literally 48-48, and tried to play it down the middle. There was no conservative principle driving the candidate. I liked Tedisco personally, but he really was stuck in the mentality of a lifetime politician from Albany.

The same was true of the defeated NY20 John Sweeney in 2006 by Kirsten Gillibrand. He typified the profligate spending that brought the Republicans down.

My hope is that a strong conservative leader, such as Tom Coburn, will be able to really turn the pre-2006 Republicans into Teapublicans.

Teaparty bad

It should bother you at least a little that the tea party movement is bad for the country.  Their agenda is a mix of anger and fantasy that Americans will not tolerate in something that is not a fringe movement.  Obama as Hitler or Aunt Jamima at a main stream Republican rally?  Income tax is illegal?  Keep the government out of Medicare? 

Decent Republicans will not vote for these nuts.  If you had any patriotism, you would not support them. 

"Right now, the fact that the

"Right now, the fact that the Tea Party is willing to hate on the GOP Congressional leadership but ultimately be their most enthusiastic foot soldiers is testament to the fact of the Republican Party's powerlessness on Capitol Hill."

Well, no; it's testament to the fact that Tea Party anger is incoherent. Republicans have yet to put together a coherent agenda... and part of the problem is that the people Republicans will appeal to - the kind who find Tea Parties resonant - don't have a clear, identifiable set of concerns that can be dealt with in governmental policy.  Opposition to "liberal" policies - which is often not about actual proposals, but worst case scenarios and fears of government control unlikely to emerge - does not a policy make. You cannot just be defined by "we're not them." And indeed, one could, and probably should, admit that Tea Partiers vote Republican because they represent the most diehard of movement conservatives. If Republicans have to chase down these folks - who really have nowhere else to go to seriously elect viable alternatives - that says there's a really deep problem and disconnect between the party's hierarchy and its rank and file. All of which, really, has been apparent for about 5 years at least. Realizing that Tea Partiers will vote Republican no matter what is kind of a no brainer.  That's no map for getting out of the wilderness.

I beg to differ...

The Tea Partiers actually do have a single coherent message.  The media, including Fox, does a crappy job of giving that message a forum, but there is one underlying message:

"The federal government is doing things it was never meant to do."

Now, it's up to the GOP to find the four of five rallying points along these lines and create a truly conservative, limited-government platform on which they can run.

If they do that, 2010 will be a bloodbath for Democrats.

 

Oops

That should have been a reply to lgm's self-serving libtroll post.

They'ld be out in force on a Manhattan Declaration post.

quoting Manhattan Declairation

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

  1. the sanctity of human life

  2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife

  3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

...

It was an alliance between pro-life and teaparties that managed to press the democrats in the house to pass the Stupack amendment. Blue Dog Democrats likely do not need to be fearful of the Teaparty movement.  Arnold Schwarzenegger likely does ... I guess Tom Campbell  is being floated as a possible Govenor. Social and fiscal conservatism should overlap "Give to Cesar what is Cesar's," and give to the Church what is the Church's. It is not Church like to violate the concept of a cheerful giver, and use funds obtained by coercion for "social" programs - It is mocking the Church as impotent. I would like Tom to say the people of California have the right to not pay for abortions, vote to pass laws and define marriage.

 

doing things it was never meant to do

"The federal government is doing things it was never meant to do."

 

All due respect... that's not really an indication of doing something; it's a declarative sentence that is, at the very least, debatable and vague. Even if one wholeheartedly agreed - and I tend not to - I think such a statement offers essentially no option for what government could, or should, stop doing. Given that pretty much any federal program has a recipient or an audience or a population supporting it... one kind of has to get into specifics. And, I'd suggest, that when you get into specifics - when Republicans, for instance, even begin to venture proposals about actual policies and proposals for changing something - conservatives generally shoot it down. Or worse, Republicans choose popular programs unlikely to appeal to a popular call for opposition (or would you like to tilt at privatizing Social Security again?).

This, I think, is indeed indicative of what the conservative base has become - a small focused group with limited outside appeal whose antigovernment leanings have overwhelmed nearly any attempt to creatively change how government works or propose positive, alternative ideas for how to do things differently. Absent that, you get simple, anti-Democratic majority boilerplate about how pretty much any and every lefty proposal is socialism, a government takeover, and/or the worst thing to happen to the country this year, this century... or ever.  As I said, Tea Partiers - essentially the conservative base - will return to the GOP because there isn't really an alternative; but Republicans have a problem because that base will not respond positively to almost any message about successful governance (and no, New Jersey showed that you can beat an unpopular Governor with "I'm not him" and Virginia showed that when Northern Virginia's urbanites and southeast Virginia's black population can't get united behind a Democrat, they will lose... that's not a recipe for national success, either, long term). If there was an emphasis on successful governance over popular sentiments, we'd be looking at a much different dynamic between, say Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio... or Kay Hutchinson and Rick Perry.  I'm not surprised conservatives see Tea Parties and Tea Partiers as better than nothing, just now; but there isn't a "tea party message". There's just antigovernment rage. And that's not a political answer to the way forward.

BS.

... with all due respect.  BS.

Every single problem we're facing on a national level is due to the fact that for far too long we've just accepted that the federal government is allowed to do whatever the hell it wants.

When pollsters bother to ask, there is an overwhelming percentage of people who think the government is overstepping its bounds.  If that's not a basis for political victory, there is no such thing.

People are sick of Washington "solving" problems they started to begin with and consistently either make worse with a new "solution" or create other problems "solving".

Despite an economic downturn that the media and the left successfully pinned on the GOP (nevermind that a Dem Congress was setting budgets and spending for two years), John McCain only lost by a few million votes.  He ran on a platform of revamping the regulatory regime and reforming the way Washington does business.  If you create a more specific platform based around the principles of reigning in the Federal government's scope and reach, given the utter disaster the Dems have been since January, the GOP could flip the House AND Senate next year.

Your comments smack of the very same elitist BS that the MAJORITY of the country is sick of.

The flip side of less government economics is more private ...

business growth, More jobs and more freedom. Poverty can not be solved by Government handouts but it can by jobs and increasing wealth to citizens, making it easier for people to open a business ...

I am not in disagreement about the problem, I just don't know how to point at the problem and be persuasive.

 Really naive. Poverty cannot

 Really naive. Poverty cannot be solved by some trickle down theory as it does not touch the bottom 20% to 30% of the population. And that is the area that has to be worked on as cities and states struggle with closed factories and less revenue and higher unemployment. States are resorting to casinos and extension of unemployment benefits. We saw 8 years of tax cuts and we still lost jobs. 

You cannot create jobs in my town if the factories close. My town lost 2000 jobs, and no small business will hire 2000 people. And they can't open a business here with high unemployment and no growth. And just one question. What widgets can we make in this country that can't be made in some other country under cheap labor? Until we address some hard issues and get away from stupid ideology, this country will continue to deteriorate. Wall street will go on but main street and the unemployment problem will be a continual problem. 

Your very inaction increases government handouts. While less government is encouraging, it does not solve other issues like globalization that eats away the very jobs we create. 

Your strawman

Poverty cannot be solved by some trickle down theory

In between said, "My town lost 2000 jobs" and did that make poverty go up or down? It would be naive to say it went down. Unless you have an agenda that personally benefits you then it is a no brainier you want more people to have jobs.

You asked the question "What widgets can we make in this country that can't be made in some other country under cheap labor?"  But did not answer how to remove this difference in labor costs. I would suggest allowing people to keep more of their money to not increase poverty while addressing the problem of high labor costs in the US - although direct payments to workers is only a portion labor costs. I would assume those who ran the factories that closed in your town would of been able to stay open if labor costs were addressed.

"Your very inaction increases government," rebukes In between. The government will only do what the democrat controlled house and senate are willing to do. http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm... I am not part of the party in power.

Why do you support and defend policies which are putting your neighbors out of work and increasing proverty? Do they know your positions?

 

 Obviously, your answer to

 Obviously, your answer to wages for the middle class is to get paid a dollar an hour, as this would be comparable to China and other countries.

It is obvious that republicans have no idea what is going on in their own country. We see these cycles, and every time the republican party lets down the middle class and poor. While there is individual responsibility,  you cannot pull the rug from underneath the people. And this is happening all of America and especially in the Midwest. We have major problems and the republican party only relies on failed ideology. So we now know, after 8 years of tax cuts and failed ideology and non governance, where the republicans stand. We have seen it all and they will always let the people down. It is inherit to the republican party to do nothing. 

Your only answer as well as the rest of the republicans and economists, is that people should lose their standard of living. And I thought republicans were smart people. Your very inaction is causing more poor and more bigger government in this country.

I suspect you will respond to this. You are in a different world and have no idea what I am talking about. We saw this mess for 8 years. Obama does not even come into the equation. If the republicans don't know what is going on, then of course you give rise to the democrats. LOL.

Another Strawman.

What is the deal with these beliefs you are creating.

Obviously, your answer to wages for the middle class is to get paid a dollar an hour, as this would be comparable to China and other countries.

Yes that would be comparable but that would not address poverty now would it? You are the one who believes Americans are not worth more than $1.00 and hour. You are the one who came up with that number. You are wrong and I will explain why, you do not get quality of work from people if you are only willing to pay $1.00 an hour. Yes Americans on average make around $25.00 an hour ($1,000 a week $52,000 a year) over the last 8 years. Why people are willing to work harder if they get paid a fair salary and tools that use energy allow people to be more productive. Give the man in china who is using a manual drill an electric drill and he can (because of his use of energy) drill 100 times as many holes.

Yes Cap and Trade will increase poverty.

Your only answer as well as the rest of the republicans and economists, is that people should lose their standard of living.

Another statement of "in between" - who are you tring to fool. I am saying proverty can only be reduced by people getting jobs - you are an obstructionist to that. I am saying let people keep more of their money - you are saying give them less money. I am saying give poor people jobs so they can have a higher standard of living - You are saying that is stupid.

Does somebody you know actually say things like that. If it is than he sounds like he has an evil heart. Are these strawmen from the echo chambers on Moveon.org?

 Again, you have no idea what

 Again, you have no idea what I am talking about. It was you that suggested that our wages have to be lowered. And I suggested 1 dollar an hour since that is what it has to be to compete with third world countries. There is no fair salary when you have globalization.

You cannot have jobs if globalization is taking the jobs away. 

You can talk of cap and trade, but we lost over a million middle class jobs under Bush. It is globalization that is lowering our standard of living, closing the factories, and making cities and states go broke. I am just telling you what has been happening for several years and no one is addressing the problems. And I would think if the republicans (the party that knows economics) would understand that. Evidently, the republicans do not understand economics. What they rely on is ideology. 

And again, I will ask "What widgets can be made here and not in some other country? 

Can you provide a quotation.

I said, "You asked the question, 'What widgets can we make in this country that can't be made in some other country under cheap labor?'  But did not answer how to remove this difference in labor costs. I would suggest allowing people to keep more of their money' ... IE tax cuts. and pointed out ... "direct payments to workers is only a portion labor costs. I would assume those who ran the factories that closed in your town would of been able to stay open if labor costs were addressed." ... IE costs imposed on them by the government.

The demographics of this site are mostly graduates. http://www.quantcast.com/thenextright.com I don't think you are fooling them by claiming I said something I did not.

 

 I would suggest allowing

 I would suggest allowing people to keep more of their money' 

 

This does not come close to competing with third world countries that pay a dollar an hour and no benefits. Again, this has been happening for years. Just when are we going to deal with this?

And the factories closing? Do you want to count them?

Ohio and rest of U.S. not creating jobs in economic sectors with import competition - Reader comments at The New York Sun

http://www.toledoblade.com/assets/pdf/TO51488727.PDF

Globalization brings a world of hurt to one corner of North Carolina - washingtonpost.com

"Globalization"

There is no fair salary when you have globalization.

You cannot have jobs if globalization is taking the jobs away.

"Globalization" is a bugbear, a dodge, a way of making it seem as though what has been happening is a natural process. That is NOT the case. Deindustrialization doesn't happen like a hurricane or a tornado happens--it is the result of conscious policy decisions intentionally inflicted upon us by the same moneyed interests our conservative elite slavishly serves (the same elite that created the "globalization" fiction in the first place as a cover for what I've just described).

You are the one who believes

You are the one who believes Americans are not worth more than $1.00 and hour. You are the one who came up with that number. You are wrong and I will explain why, you do not get quality of work from people if you are only willing to pay $1.00 an hour. Yes Americans on average make around $25.00 an hour ($1,000 a week $52,000 a year) over the last 8 years. Why people are willing to work harder if they get paid a fair salary

The hole in your remarks, here (or, to put it more precisely, your efforts at backtracking away from your former remarks) is that $1/hour is a decent wage in many of these countries--it's often even a great wage. U.S. labor--or labor in any advanced industrialized country--can't compete with that.

Another statement of "in between" - who are you tring to fool. I am saying proverty can only be reduced by people getting jobs - you are an obstructionist to that. I am saying let people keep more of their money - you are saying give them less money.

No, that's what you said. In Between can speak for himself, but his characterization of this is entirely accurate.

I would suggest allowing people to keep more of their money to not increase poverty while addressing the problem of high labor costs in the US...  I would assume those who ran the factories that closed in your town would of been able to stay open if labor costs were addressed.

"Addressing the problem of high labor costs" means cutting wages. The basic fallacy in this  "reasoning" is that labor costs in an advanced industrialized nation like the U.S. can't be chopped down enough to make them look favorable in comparison to the Third World (or even remotely comparable), unless the U.S. itself becomes a Third World country (something decades of conservative rule has already put in motion).

Advanced industrialized countries always have ...

$1.00 an hour is not a decent wage. It is enough for food to survive till another day, it is nearly the same as enslavement. Industirial revolution has increased production of stuff.  Hence it takes an hour for a non industialized person to produce a widget in an hour while a person in a industrialized nation can produce 25 widgets in that same hour (thanks to electricity)

"Addressing the problem of high labor costs" means cutting wages.

Really, labor costs is an account category that includes all costs that increase when one adds a new employee. Such things like a computer, a phone, a desk, power tools, electricity or gas, lunch room supplies and services, coffee. Google even has a gym for their workers. No list would be complete if one did not add 8% Social Security, workers comp, and unemployment insurance. Maybe not so noticed is the capital gains tax that was paid for the company to purchase assets used by employees.

But I guess if we are talking about $1.00 jobs to pull weeds there are no additional costs.

 Wayne, you have no idea what

 Wayne, you have no idea what you are talking about. They showed one factory in China of 17,000 people. They can change the lines from toasters to irons. Their manufacturing output is as much as ours. The only difference is that they get 1 dollar an hour and our wages have to come down. That is not hard to understand. They do have electricity in China by the way. China is an industrialized nation.

 

 

Parts of China

Are industialized. Parts of China people drive cars. Parts of China people move rocks by hand. Parts of China people work for $1.00 an hour.

The part were people move rocks by hand, is not industialized and does not have cars.

The part that is industrialized will within the next ten years out produce the US.

Bush did not start and Obama will not stop the industrialization of China. They are facing the same problem as us in defining liberty. There is no liberty without economic freedom.

If they go Freemarket and we go Nationalized market we will lose.

We have been losing all this

We have been losing all this time. We have been losing for some 30 years. Japan took most of our steel, our electronics, and our cars. China took our textiles and they and India and other countries will take the rest as we sit with deficits and debt, slow growth, ignorance, arrogance, and wars. This has nothing to do with liberty. This has to do with globalization. China for being a communist government is walking all over us. And you, the republicans have not addressed globalization and the lowering of our standard of living. All you talk about is ideology. Now, can we address our problems?

Their manufacturing output is

Their manufacturing output is as much as ours. The only difference is that they get 1 dollar an hour

Productivity growth in China, overall, is well below the U.S., but it has exploded in recent decades, and grows at 4-5 times the U.S. rate every year (depending on how it's measured). That isn't really any sort of comparison, though, because the productivity of unskilled labor--which is what we're talking about here--would be the same or even better in China, and if you're paying someone $1/hour with no benefits, compared to a decent wage in the U.S., you can afford to hire dozens of people to do what had been the work of one U.S. employee, if it comes to that.

The industrial base the U.S. has been exporting in recent decades was built--as is the case in every advanced industrial nation--behind high walls of protectionism. The equation that created them and made them thriving industrial economies has now been reversed; it's now policy to not only roll back the government intervention that allowed for that previous prosperity but to also export that industrial base in service of the bottom line (which is, of course, what's been happening).

 I do believe there is a

 I do believe there is a concerted effort by those on Wall Street, by those in Washington, and by those right wing economists and think tanks, that want to lower the standard of living of middle class. I don't know what the benefit is except to help business to make more money. Of course a lot of business can be farmed out. But it does no good to our country and its citizens. It saddens me that the republican party is a part of this conspiracy. It really is amazing, when you have dignified people and right wing think tanks that come on C-span and brush off our problems and globalization. If someone calls in and comes close to addressing these problems, they just brush it off. 

So it tells me, that the republicans just want power for whatever reason and don't care about this country. It tells me, that they live and die with failed ideology. It also tells me, with each cycle, and this last 8 year cycle, just how much they neglect the bottom 20% to 30% of the people. And by doing this, they leave a void and let big government in and the democrats. It is their loss. We saw the truth for 8 years. Bush brought out the extreme, and I will be forever grateful for that. 

Conspiracy!

(1) As happens about 9,944 times in every 10,000, expressions like "conspiracy" and "concerted effort" are trotted out to describe folks who , with the worst will in the world, are simply not up to that sort of thing mentally.  "The devil is an ass," usually, and only very rarely a Mephisto.

 

(2)  Mr. Poster (and pretty well everybody else) might make more progress in Pol. Sci. if he resolved never, ever to use the words "middle class" again, but always spelled out roughly who he is talking about by appealing to some factor other than mediocrity.

 

Healthy days!

 

 

 

 

A quotation for you

“Unemployment is already at 10 percent, and millions of Americans have already lost their employer-provided health insurance,‚ Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., said. “We can’t afford to let the Reid bill make matters worse.”

In agreement about "sound byte" messages.

I like how Wesley put it ...

In the struggle for the abolition of slavery, some opponents of slavery tried to show the South that slavery was detrimental to their economic system in the long term. That argument may have persuaded a few slave-holders to liberate their slaves. But William Lloyd Garrison and other abolitionists had to convince the public of the evil of slavery before the tide would turn against slavery. Ultimately slavery was wrong because of how it harmed the slaves and because God declared man-stealing to be wrong, not because of the economic impact.

 Likewise the informal message "The federal government is doing things it was never meant to do," Does not persuade. It does not address why or what is wrong with the government doing things it was never meant to do. Namely the Government was created to allow freedom, not to remove them. However, this is a issue by issue argument and not one that can be made into a sound byte.

I know this.

That's why I said, in my original comment, that the GOP needs to take that underlying message and come up with four or five points to use as a platform.

Things like HCR: The Federal Government's role is to regulate, not manage HC. It is not supposed to run an insurance company that competes with private insurance companies which the government also regulates. It's the very same kind of market manipulation and distortion that caused the economic collapse.

I don't have the link handy but Romney had a great piece in the USA Today where he outlined a 10 point plan which takes the very same premise and applies it to how to fix the economy... by getting the Government out of the way of the private sector.

My point is that there IS a common denominator and there IS a way to build a pretty massive consensus around true conservative principles in this country.  It just requires a little fine tuning.  But to simply accept that the only way to win anymore is to just come up with an alternative way to do things the public DOES NOT want the government doing to begin with?  I don't think that's a winner.  In fact, I think that's why we lost because the previous administration was doing a ton of stuff people did not want the government doing.

And deregulate overregulation

Health care cost is a problem; Trial lawyers and insurance are adding to it. The "cost" problem is not made better by Reid-Care it is made worse.  In all honesty I do not trust those in power today to fix the problem, there are only a few in government I would trust to create a plan to end the current insurance practice of being limited to within the state. Or how to handle the redistribution of risk away from primary care providers. Requiring open access to costs of health care prior to services is also a must.

 

Absent that, you get simple,

Absent that, you get simple, anti-Democratic majority boilerplate about how pretty much any and every lefty proposal is socialism, a government takeover, and/or the worst thing to happen to the country this year, this century... or ever.

...and that's the only organizational principle behind the manufactured teabagger "movement." I've been writing about its complete lack of a program since the corporate-backed astroturfers invented it. What I wrote in September is just as true now:

This illusion of a movement lacks anything that would remotely resemble a program, above and beyond "WE HATE BARACK OBAMA!", screamed to the heavens with equal measures of vigor and froth. The tea-baggers, the townhall disrupters, the capitol marchers--what exactly is their program? That they're furious about "death panels" and illegal alien coverage in the health care bill? That they're furious a man who isn't a U.S. citizen, and probably even a Muslim, is being allowed to be President? That the administration is trying to implement socialism or fascism or some other black -ism? It's all just nonsense, a tapestry of falsehood spun for the purposes of organizing those who have been conditioned in such a way as to remove their capacity for critical thought, when it comes to the voices inside their closed bubble. This illusion of a movement has no goals, it has no program, it doesn't even have a central organizing principle other than irrational Obama hatred.

Keeping the "movement" together has required a constant influx of that kind of nonsense, and the teabagger's astroturfing masters have continued to belch it--Obama's speech to students as indoctrination, abortion funding in the health-care reform bill, etc. At times, it's something new every few days. You can't build a sustainable movement on lies, hatred, and shared illusions, though.

I Must Agree

With the 2009 election in Virginia going so overwhelmingly Republican, the Teapartiers didn't hurt the Republican Party one bit. What the Teapartiers did do was energise an electorate to get out and vote, and that vote went overwhelmingly against the Democrats.

I can't speak for NJ but in that overwhelmingly Democratic state the Republican won.

These elections prove the same reason the Teaparties were formed doesn't stop there, but is throughout the electorate, unless you hapen to be one of the brainwashed left's lambs.

I apologize for overwhelmingly using the word overwhelmingly.

 

 

On Elections

The last 5 out of 5 special elections to national office have gone to the Democratic Party, including the CA-10, the NY-20, and the NY-23.

I understand the Next Right's excitement in winning statewide races in VA and NJ, but nevertheless the TeaPublican movement has yet to show significant electoral strength.  Those Governor's races were more about lackluster Dem turnout for bad candidates running away from Democratic issues and moderate Conservative candidates running away from base Conservative issues.  McDonnell and Christie may be TeaBaggers at heart, but they ran away from the extremist TeaParty stances, Ruffini, and you know it.  You TOLD them to.

In NY-23, the Teapublicans undermined the RNC's effort and cost an enormous amount of money, by some estimates over a million dollars pumped in, and an enormous effort by every organ on the Right only to lose the district.  Net loss.

Excellent Post Patrick

Spot on. As we saw in NY-23, Republicans are going to have to be inoculated against center-right challenges by running candidates who are center-right themselves, & hold to center-right conservative Republican principles & values. It's certainly no guarantee at all that TEA party folks will just vote Republican because there's nowhere else to go - they will make their own way if the Republican establishment drops the ball.