Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 41
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    11,037
    vCash
    1500

    Is the Tea Party done?

    http://news.yahoo.com/tea-partys-nat...161050627.html

    It should be a warning sign when your case for why polls are underestimating your party's strength is that fewer people will actually vote than pollsters project. If your party's fate depends on fewer Americans participating in our democracy, perhaps you have a popularity problem.

    It's not just that Mitt Romney lost, as did several Republican Senate candidates who should have won easily. The election was a victory for all kinds of big city liberal values: Weed was legalized. So was gay marriage. The rape apologist candidates lost. The first openly gay woman was elected to the Senate. The first black president was reelected -- on a platform of Obamacare, immigration, and raising taxes.

    On the Republican side, the most energetic part of the party is also the most opposed to these ideals. While the Tea Party won Republicans a majority in the House in 2010, election night 2012 showed the party's message is toxic at the national and statewide levels. While house races are local in character, Senate and presidential races are held statewide. And that is where the Tea Party did worst last night. Tea Partier Richard Mourdock picked off moderate Republican Sen. Dick Lugar in the Indiana primary, and then lost the election. Todd Akin proved he really was too conservative for Missouri, as Sen. Claire McCaskill claimed in primary ads intended to trick Republican voters into picking him as her opponent. Three other Tea Partying Senate candidates met the same fate in 2010. But while Tea Party's passionate activist model works best locally, sometimes that even fails at the congressional level when the race gets lots of attention -- Tea Partier Allen West lost in Florida, and former presidential candidate Michele Bachmann held onto her seat by about 3,000 votes in Minnesota.

    Some Republicans want to blame Romney for being a bad candidate. "JUST A THOUGHT...Next time, GOP might want to think about nominating a conservative," radio host Laura Ingraham tweeted. A "GOP operative" told Politico's Jonathan Martin a few days ago, "A Romney loss would be solely based on class and personality: middle class, affable and emotional former governor would be up by 5." But Romney was the best candidate Republicans could have possibly had. The people Romney ran against -- Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain -- would have been destroyed in a national election. Many better potential candidates decided not to run, in part because they couldn't win the Republican primary. Tim Pawlenty wasn't willing to say what the Tea Party wanted, and he dropped out. Jon Huntsman wouldn't either, and he lost badly. Romney couldn't stop running in the Republican primary until the first presidential debate October 3. He was the only candidate with decent credentials who was willing to say all the things the Tea Party wanted to hear in order to be elected.

    That came back to bite him throughout the campaign. He got no bounce from the Republican National Convention, which was entirely built around what was essentially a Tea Party inside joke -- Obama's "you didn't build that" semi-gaffe. He defeated Rick Perry by adopting the language of the most extreme immigration opponents: "self-deportation." He was caught on tape riffing on a Tea Party meme about the 47 percent who don't pay income taxes. And, in the very last week of the campaign, he was haunted by his ridiculous Tea Party pander at a June 2011 debate, when he suggested FEMA should be dissolved, its powers returned to the states and the private sector.

    The demographics look bad for Republicans. Late-stage poll denialism argued that there's no way young people, Latinos, and black people would be a bigger portion of the electorate compared to 2008. Of blacks and Latinos, House Speaker John Boehner said in August, "These groups have been hit the hardest. They may not show up and vote for our candidate but I’d suggest to you they won’t show up and vote for the president either." (Boehner was half right.) At The Washington Examiner, Michael Barone predicted Romney would win Ohio because the Democratic electorate would be smaller and social conservatives showed more "intensity." (Obama won Ohio.) Battleground Watch blared the headline "The Folly of David Axelrod’s Turnout Model" on October 29, saying the idea whites would only be 72 percent of the electorate was nuts. (Whites were 72 percent of the electorate.)

    But the Tea Party isn't just scary to minorities, it's scary to enough white people for Obama to win. It's crazy to young people, who will slowly replace the more-Republican old people. Outside of the South, Democrats are quite competitive among whites. But if the polls can no longer be denied, there's denial about what the vote means. According to Politico's Mike Allen, an anonymous Republican Senate aide doesn't sound like he realizes he lost: "It's a status quo election. House reelected, Senate status quo, Obama re-elected = reset. We'll start 2011 over again and hope the President engages." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said something similar in a statement: "To the extent [Obama] wants to move to the political center, which is where the work gets done in a divided government, we’ll be there to meet him half way." One of the most glaring example came from Laura Ingraham, who tweeted, "'Tonight u voted for action, not politics as usual.' --Barack Obama. PULEEZE...amnesty, tax increases, climate change legislation." Yes! That, aside from climate change, was Obama's platform. And he won!
    Last edited by FOBolous; 11-07-2012 at 01:19 PM.


    "Hard" Kobe getting shook by a role player

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    The Tea Party has a weird history.

    It started out as a fiscally conservative protest movement that focused on taxing and spending, but then all sorts of hardcore social conservatives branded themselves as Tea Partiers.

    So, I don't know. The basic ideas of fiscal conservatism are alive and well. Whatever the group of people supporting those ideas chooses to label themselves doesn't really matter.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,775
    vCash
    1500
    I had always assumed that the Tea Party was a one cycle group. They were going to be absorbed by the GOP and never heard from again. We won't have tea party candidates in 2014. Not because the tea party is bad or evil but because they are a threat to the power of the GOP establishment and they can't stand for that.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    7,760
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    The Tea Party has a weird history.

    It started out as a fiscally conservative protest movement that focused on taxing and spending, but then all sorts of hardcore social conservatives branded themselves as Tea Partiers.

    So, I don't know. The basic ideas of fiscal conservatism are alive and well. Whatever the group of people supporting those ideas chooses to label themselves doesn't really matter.
    This. If they had stuck to the original intent they would have been just fine. When they started to go bat **** crazy is when they lost any credibility that they had. I don't think the original intent of the Tea Party will ever go away but the specific movement probably will.
    French writer Alexis de Tocqueville warned about when visiting this fledgling democracy in the early 19th century – that this "American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    43,279
    vCash
    7100
    Fiscal conservatism will continue to grow in popularity (young, first time voters are actually trending in this direction), but the batshit crazy far-right social policy can't afford to remain in the GOP mainstream.

    On another note, the insanely liberal tone of this article is just annoying. Anyone who asserts something like this:
    it's crazy to young people, who will slowly replace the more-Republican old people.
    is just plain dumb. Like there has never been a young, liberal voting populace that has grown up and become more conservative?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    indianpolis - north side
    Posts
    9,486
    vCash
    1500
    i may be the contrarian here, but I think the Tea Party will be around for a while. They feel marginalized/mistreated by the GOP establishment. They have a very strong organization for the primaries. and they have a sense of mission, an almost religious zeal. All of these things make them dangerous to cross. They got Richard Lugar don't forget. Lugar should have been the Indiana senator for life, but he got taken out in the primary.

    Guys like Bohner, for example, are not vulnerable to defeat by the Democrats, but they can be beaten in the primary by a guy claiming they are not conservative enough. That will keep the guys in line that normally might want to cooperate with the democrats. The effectiveness of the New Tea Party movement is more than its numbers. It is multiplied by the GOP voters natural distrust of any Washington insider. Even if that insider is a Republican.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,222
    vCash
    1500
    Yeah. They're done.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    22,223
    vCash
    1500
    No one is voting for the extremist right wing sect of the Republican party.

    Unless you are in the boondox.
    Last edited by metswon69; 11-08-2012 at 12:55 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Omaha, NE
    Posts
    360
    vCash
    1500
    Their social rightist extremism has killed their chances in the senate and in the national race. There are three issues that kill republicans with three demographics nationally:
    1. Immigration reform- opposition to any legislation with a path to citizenship is brutal. Time to come to the table here on something comprehensive if they want to be competitive.
    2. Gay marriage- not only does their opposition turn away young voters, it energizes them for the opposition. Old people who hold this opposition are dying everyday, young voters who know an openly gay person are offended and energized for gay marriage.
    3. Women's issues- I don't think they have to be pro choice, but they need to back off the anti birth control, birth control choice, and birth control coverage ASAP. just like the dems left gun control behind, this social issue is a killer. Especially as women wait longer to get married in our society. Opposition to Lilly Ledbetter is also in this category.

    Those three issues sum up republican problems with the electorate. Not handouts, Medicare, social security, welfare, etc. those are the three keys to being competitive. Come around on all or be marginalized for the foreseeable future
    Last edited by Lancelot; 11-08-2012 at 01:59 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,301
    vCash
    1500
    Perfect post.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    7,735
    vCash
    1500
    For the sake of everyone living in America, I hope they're gone. For comedic value, I hope they stay.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    11,037
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Lancelot View Post
    Their social rightist extremism has killed their chances in the senate and in the national race. There are three issues that kill republicans with three demographics nationally:
    1. Immigration reform- opposition to any legislation with a path to citizenship is brutal. Time to come to the table here on something comprehensive if they want to be competitive.
    2. Gay marriage- not only does their opposition turn away young voters, it energizes them for the opposition. Old people who hold this opposition are dying everyday, young voters who know an openly gay person are offended and energized for gay marriage.
    3. Women's issues- I don't think they have to be pro choice, but they need to back off the anti birth control, birth control choice, and birth control coverage ASAP. just like the dems left gun control behind, this social issue is a killer. Especially as women wait longer to get married in our society. Opposition to Lilly Ledbetter is also in this category.

    Those three issues sum up republican problems with the electorate. Not handouts, Medicare, social security, welfare, etc. those are the three keys to being competitive. Come around on all or be marginalized for the foreseeable future
    the should really just drop the whole anti-abortion stance and move on. unless someone's part of the religious right, they're not going to think there's anything wrong with abortion. and the religious right is shrinking...that's the cold hard truth. they need to accept it and move on.


    "Hard" Kobe getting shook by a role player

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,591
    vCash
    1500
    Great article.I dont view it as anti R, it is an honest examination of the troubles the Tea Party faces.
    You can talk all that Psycho crap to a group of Homogenous voters in a tight knitt community in the midwest or deep south, but once you get on the National stage no one is going to listen to that stuff. Its a big Problem for them.

    Oh and the Tea Party was not a republican idea.

    It was infact a predecessor to the 99% movement.

    The movement began after the big bank bailout scam.It had nothing to do with Rs v Ls.
    People knew BOTH parties were in bed with the banks and attacked BOTH sides of the ailse.
    What the national "leaders" of the Tea paty did, was to enflame and manipulate that anger and use it to support a Fiscal and socially conservative ,narrow minded view of what was being said. the people who Vote "tea party" have little to do with the Tea Party(lol).

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,767
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    Great article.I dont view it as anti R, it is an honest examination of the troubles the Tea Party faces.
    You can talk all that Psycho crap to a group of Homogenous voters in a tight knitt community in the midwest or deep south, but once you get on the National stage no one is going to listen to that stuff. Its a big Problem for them.

    Oh and the Tea Party was not a republican idea.

    It was infact a predecessor to the 99% movement.

    The movement began after the big bank bailout scam.It had nothing to do with Rs v Ls.
    People knew BOTH parties were in bed with the banks and attacked BOTH sides of the ailse.
    What the national "leaders" of the Tea paty did, was to enflame and manipulate that anger and use it to support a Fiscal and socially conservative ,narrow minded view of what was being said. the people who Vote "tea party" have little to do with the Tea Party(lol).
    Dick Armey's group was a primary funder of the main Tea Party group. You remember him, right? It was in no way bipartisan, as every single candidate it fielded ran as a Republican.

    Let me add to those who are pushing for the Republican party to jettison its social issues voters. Good luck! Your party made a conscious choice to dance with the evangelical devil, and you're not getting out of it that easily. Go ahead and try running a pro-choice candidate in your primaries, or a pro-gay-marriage candidate, or a. . .. gasp. . . gay person*. You'll see exactly what I mean pretty darn fast.

    *By this I mean openly gay, not like Lindsay Graham, Mark Foley or Larry Craig.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    7,760
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Labgrownmangoat View Post
    Dick Armey's group was a primary funder of the main Tea Party group. You remember him, right? It was in no way bipartisan, as every single candidate it fielded ran as a Republican.

    Let me add to those who are pushing for the Republican party to jettison its social issues voters. Good luck! Your party made a conscious choice to dance with the evangelical devil, and you're not getting out of it that easily. Go ahead and try running a pro-choice candidate in your primaries, or a pro-gay-marriage candidate, or a. . .. gasp. . . gay person*. You'll see exactly what I mean pretty darn fast.

    *By this I mean openly gay, not like Lindsay Graham, Mark Foley or Larry Craig.
    I don't think you even have to run a pro choice candidate. There is a large grey area between pro choice and pro life. And I think that is where a majority of American's stand. Hopefully after these 4 years the gay marriage issue is put to bed finally with their rights being given to them. If they can move to a more realistic position on social issues it will easily replace the few evangelical's with a more broad based party. Fiscal conservatism is a winning issue in my opinion they are getting beat on the social issues if those are taken away you will see a resurgence very quickly. If not they will keep the house and a slight minority in the Senate.
    French writer Alexis de Tocqueville warned about when visiting this fledgling democracy in the early 19th century – that this "American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •