Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Another big Tea Party defeat in Colorado?

Another potential big win for Dems as the Denver Post calls the Colorado Senate race for Michael Bennet:

Appointed U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet will be elected to the U.S. Senate after pulling ahead of challenger Ken Buck this morning.

Long after most Coloradans -- including the candidates and their supporters -- had gone to bed, returns from Denver and Boulder moved Bennet past Buck and into the lead, 47.5 percent to 47.1 percent.

A recount would be required if the difference between the two candidates' vote totals is less than one-half of 1 percent of the highest vote total, or about 3,900 votes based on current tallies.

Bennet leads by nearly 7,000 votes with an estimated 30,000 still to be counted in Boulder County.

The major news orgs haven't called this race yet, so proceed with caution.

Overall the Tea Party has probably been a force for good in the GOP, energizing the grassroots, helping rebrand the party and pressuring GOP leaders to hold the line against Obama. And it's true that Rand Paul, the first Tea Party candidate to ascend to major office, defeated Jack Conway by double digits.

But Dems were never going to win the Kentucky Senate race. And Tea Partyer Sharron Angle's loss yesterday to Harry Reid, who everyone had long written off as dead, cost the GOP a major prize. And now, if Ken Buck does lose to Bennet, the unavoidable conclusion will be that the ascension of eccentric and unpredictable Tea Partyers as general election Senate candidates did, in fact, cost the GOP on the Senate map in a big way, perhaps even depriving them of control of the Senate.


UPDATE, 10:38 a.m.: KDVR in Denver has also called it for Bennet.

UPDATE, 10:46 p.m.: And I forgot to mention Christine O'Donnell!

By Greg Sargent  | November 3, 2010; 10:27 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, Tea Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The smoke clears from the wreckage
Next: When Us versus Them isn't enough: Race-baiting flops as campaign tactic

Comments


The American People do not like one-party rule. They prefer the "checks and balances" of two-party rule.

Clearly, the liberal agenda is not wanted by the American People - it has now been rejected twice in "wave" elections.

The 2006 and 2008 elections did not indicate any level of support nationally for the domestic agenda of the democrats, that is clear, even through the smoke of the wreckage today.

There is smoke rising from the wreckage of the democratic party - however the fact that the American people will constantly reject the liberal agenda whenever they can is clear.


__________________________________


An important note: In the three largest democratic States - Illinois, New York and California there are major budget problems and the state governments have virtually passed into a status of disfuntionality.

The State budgets in those States are jammed with union contracts.


The "democratic political model" has become structurally unsound. By that the recent (a few decades) democratic party model in which the democratic party derives significant support and money from the unions - and when elected, the democratic elected officials negotiate contracts with the unions in talks which are not really arm-length.

This is important now, very important now.

In each of those three States, there is almost complete gridlock in the State legislatures and the union contracts have weighed down the State, County and Local areas. This can be directly traced to the union contracts - which are negotiated with lawyers - not really determined on the floors of the legislatures.


This process is not working anymore.

The whole model is structurally broken.

Posted by: SunlightRays | November 3, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Keeping Angle and O'Donnell away from the Senate was a big win for this country. Talk about tweedle dee and tweedle dumb.

I don't know about you guys but I'm still all teary eyed about Boehners speech. I mean, third in line for the Presidency, I bet his speech had all the world leaders in tears, Achmedinejad, Chavez, Kim Jon-il, Hu Jintao, etc.

They must all be mopping up the puddles of tears.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 3, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

No matter what one says about the Tea Party candidates and those wins/losses the bottom line is the Tea Party has effectively re-branded the Republican party.

And it is a re-branding which will stick - because it is rooted in what the Republicans are supposed to be doing anyway.

The Republican heirarchy has only one option and that is to co-opt the philosophy of the Tea Party - which is stuff that Dick Armey and the 1994 crowd has always been talking about anyway.


The "strayed" narrative works - because it makes conversion easy.


Right now, the Republicans have a viable Economic plan - to reign in spending and debt - and to Create a tax plan that focuses in on job creation.


In contrast, Obama is going to have a really difficult time moving to the center - it appears that Obama will have a good amount of personal resistance to that necessity.

Posted by: SunlightRays | November 3, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

The fact that there won't be anymore Plum Line stories about Angle is a good thing. It looks like Joe Miller has lost, another good thing. Now he can either let the beard grow or shave it. These two were jokes foisted on the public.

Posted by: filmnoia | November 3, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Will anyone in the "lamestream media" have to guts to say it?

Sarah Palin cost the GOP the senate.

Can't beat Harry Reid in this environment? Can't take West Virginia? Can't take Colorado? Teabaggers fail under the scrutiny of a statewide race.

Posted by: horace1 | November 3, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Apart from a couple exceptions, right wing fringe tea party extremism was confined to Congressional districts as I think everyone expected.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 3, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Good morning all.

I wanted to pop in, just to offer congratulations to The Republicans for their considerable victory.

They gave us a severe beating. I will not engage in any more political dialog, for the next few days. We should all take a few days off from politics, and recharge the batteries.

We lost. The Republicans won, so once again, congratulations to them, and they are entitled to celebrate their victories. I already wrote most of my election postmortems, and what we Democrats must do next, during the course of the day yesterday; so those of you who could read between the lines; should have been able to tell that I already knew the size of the losses that were coming.
Therefore last night's results, did not come as much of a surprise to me.
Once again. Congratulations to the Republicans. Enjoy your celebrations.

Posted by: Liam-still | November 3, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

You musta beat me by a fraction of a second horace1. You get to © that political observation.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 3, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

horace and mike, stay tuned. I'm going to do something along those lines.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 3, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

I think the key to understanding last night was mentioned at FirstRead. Congressional districts in mostly white states which lag the national average in college degrees overwhelmingly handed seats to Republicans after giving the Dems all of 2 years (less, actually) to govern. The dumb white voters have spoken! And they want corporations in charge along with authoritarian neoconservative puppets doing their bidding in D.C.!

This leads me back to one of Obama's three pillars of his agenda:

Education, Education, Education.

Education times 1,000,000.

The more we educate Americans, the more they know, and the less likely they are to fall under the spell of the conservative corporate agenda.

Also, a positive side note, Pete DeFazio won in Oregon. He's the won who was facing a lunatic climate change denier funded by big energy and wealthy east coasters, one of them a hedge-fund manager. Cheers to DeFazio.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 3, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

ummm...is that a typo on this page...off to the left in the people in the news section.


Rand Paul (R)
White Kentucky Senate Nominee

LOL.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 3, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

"He's the won" grrrrr... "He's the one"

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 3, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

WOW - in case you were wondering why Biden went to VERMONT a few days ago.

The Governors' race there - apparently there is a law that if one candidate does not get 50% of the vote, it goes to the State legislature.

The democrat appears to be falling short on that and the Republican is within a few thousand votes.


____________________________________


Bennett pulled ahead in Colorado Senate

Pat Quinn looks like he is ahead, with the absentee ballots to be counted Thursday in the Illinois Governor race.


Washinton State is still to be counted all the ballots.

I guess it is a good idea to have the Congress take office in January - they have two months to count everything.

In many of these cases, it is not re-counts we are talking about, it is the FIRST counts.

Posted by: SunlightRays | November 3, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

horace and mike:

Last night was a extraordinary examply why all of the book-learning, IQ fetishists don't understand politics.

What did we hear last night? We are told that NOW when it doesn't matter AT ALL a deal is going to be made on extending the tax cuts. How stupid can any Dem leader be, regardless of degreed pedigree? If the Dems had gotten this deal done 6 months ago, it would have made at least some difference. Doing the deal now, not only means the Dems DON'T get any credit at all, BUT the Reps get credit for having some kind of mandate to do this!!!!!!

Let me know the next time Palin does something this ENORMOUSLY stupid.

But please by all means blame the voters for being too stupid to know what was good for them.

Posted by: 54465446 | November 3, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington, I saw that too. Shouldn't Boehner's say "Orange Ohio Republican Representative"?

Posted by: cao091402 | November 3, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

@54465446: The lefties on this site who think that calling white voters stupid is a winning formula for 2012 and beyond are... stupid.

Posted by: sbj3 | November 3, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Nate Silver on Rasmussen, must-read:

While waiting for the remaining results to trickle in from states like Colorado and Alaska, I did a quick check on the accuracy of polls from the firm Rasmussen Reports, which came under heavy criticism this year -- including from FiveThirtyEight -- because its polls showed a strong lean toward Republican candidates.

Indeed, Rasmussen polls quite consistently turned out to overstate the standing of Republicans tonight. Of the roughly 100 polls released by Rasmussen or its subsidiary Pulse Opinion Research in the final 21 days of the campaign, roughly 70 to 75 percent overestimated the performance of Republican candidates, and on average they were biased against Democrats by 3 to 4 points.

Every pollster is entitled to a bad cycle now and again -- and Rasmussen has had some good cycles in the past. But their polling took a major downturn this year.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/11/3/916518/-Election-Night-Thread-#31

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 3, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

The TALLY IS IN

The Tea Party won 113 House seats -

The Tea Party backed candidates won 87.5% of their races yesterday, according to NBC News.

Yes, those are NBC News numbers.

.

Posted by: SunlightRays | November 3, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Ethan, thanks for the Rasmussen info.

I'd like to see an overall assessment of what was good and what was way off in polling.

Greg?

Plus, polls have consequences. They can lead voters to stay home and they can bring them out. We need to educate people about how to read polls and how to think critically about them.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 3, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, I read that earlier Ethan.

It's good to see the results proved what everyone thought, Rasmussen along with Pulse, Rasmussen's subsidiary who pulls for Fox, have an agenda.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 3, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

@54465446 ... I guess you can include me in the stupid category because I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

Your last line, "But please by all means blame the voters for being too stupid to know what was good for them" seems to suggest that I was blaming voters for being stupid. In fact, I was pointing out that the voters, once they got the chance to get to know the Palin candidates, saw through the rhetoric and decided the tea baggers were not who they wanted representing them in congress. From my perspective that is quite the opposite from stupid.

Posted by: horace1 | November 3, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

horace, I think him and sbj were talking about ethan.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 3, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

horace and Mike are right on. When the race was one that led to more candidate scrutiny, candidates with less to offer (and whackier ideas) tended to lose. Thus in races with a more diverse electorate, this meant that tea party candidates couldn't survive the scrutiny and questioning, and debates, though they tried hard to run away (literally) from the media.

There are a few exceptions, but in very red states.

In a few other cases, such as here in IL, the state Dem party VERY badly managed the election (poor candidates and other things).

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 3, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

GOP gains the House. More gridlock. Nothing is going to get done. The Republicans will not pass anything of any use. The Electorate I am sorry to say will be looking in the mirror again and will be saying I have nobody else to blame but me......

Posted by: johnnyk1 | November 3, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Good new post from Adam Serwer on how the race-baiters lost yesterday:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/draft.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 3, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

All the Republicans who think they voted for jobs, jobs, jobs...no, you didn't. You voted for business as usual and how has that worked for America lately? I'll bet the Chinese are thrilled with last night's victories for the corporate flaks. Now the rich will get richer, as Lloyd Blankfein calls it, "doing God's work." And you think they might "create" some jobs for AMericans with all that money. Am I right?

"Multinational corporations, such as International Business Machines Corp., Merck and Company Inc. and Caterpillar Inc., that get a big part of profits from overseas will also breathe easier. Under Democratic control of Congress, these companies faced the prospect of higher taxes on overseas profits and potential penalties levied against them for moving jobs to other countries."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704462704575591171988213264.html?wpisrc=nl_wonk

No. America's industries learned a long time ago the "Free" Trade and a healthy American middle class were mutually exclusive. The rich don't need low unemployment to get richer, don't you understand that?

Posted by: shrink2 | November 3, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

If the Tea Party was a drag on the GOP - as many here seem to be suggesting - what does it mean, then, that the GOP, despite the drag of the Tea Party, achieved such historic success last night?

Posted by: sbj3 | November 3, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

horace wrote:

"Your last line, "But please by all means blame the voters for being too stupid to know what was good for them" seems to suggest that I was blaming voters for being stupid. In fact, I was pointing out that the voters, once they got the chance to get to know the Palin candidates, saw through the rhetoric and decided the tea baggers were not who they wanted representing them in congress. From my perspective that is quite the opposite from stupid."

Mea culpa for the poorly constructed post. I discerned, tell me if I'm wrong, that you believe Palin is stupid. My post was aimed at people , you perhaps, who believe that Dems are smart and Reps are stupid.

I believe on the other hand that Dems in this election have followed an incredibly stupid strategy which caused them to lose a ton of seats uneccessarily.

I am not a Palin supporter, however I admire her political craftiness. She supported people who had no shot to win whatsoever and kept her name in the news for 9 months when she had no roll to play. While her candidates did not win the general election they killed within the party itself. Because you are only looking at the general election, you can't see how big a force she made of herself within her party.

In my opinion, she has no intention of running in 2012, BUT she wants to keep her name in the news and flirt with it so she has power within her party.

Hopefully, that is a fuller and better explanation, forgive the shorthand I'm on a lot of different threads this morning, as are so many others.

Posted by: 54465446 | November 3, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

The TP is the GOP base. They just rebranded themselves for a time.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 3, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of TP undercutting the GOP.
Obviously many House TP candidates won, but yet another example is NY-23 (again).

Bill Owens again won because of Doug Hoffman. Owens beat the GOP candidate by just shy of 4,000 votes. Hoffman, in the Conservative party, got over 9,000 votes and he wasn't even in the race. Thanks Doug!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 3, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

@54465446

FWIW, I don't think any party has a monopoly on 'teh stoopid'.

Strands of stupid permeate all through our culture (political and otherwise).

As for Palin...personally I don't think she is all that bright if for no other reason than the fact she does not seem to be a one who thinks very deeply about the long term.

Crafty is an excellent adjective for her. She is quite successful in what she does - namely promote herself and use that 'star power' to (in some degree) prop up others.

Posted by: horace1 | November 3, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

"what does it mean, then, that the GOP, despite the drag of the Tea Party, achieved such historic success last night?"

The GOP would have won the House anyway and would have also won the Senate were it not for the TP.

Given several factors -- midterms under a Dem POTUS, people's desire for splitting control of the government, dozens of Dems in McCain 2008 seats, poor economy, etc etc etc -- we knew going in that this was going to be the case.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 3, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

@54465446: "But please by all means blame the voters for being too stupid to know what was good for them."

Indeed. But, hey, they won in 2006 and 2008, when in 2000, 2002, and 2004 there seemed to be a vast preponderance of lamentation regarding stupid Americans who didn't understand that Democrats were good and Republicans were bad.

If having an argument that often boils down to, "God, you're an idiot. Vote for me!" was really political suicide, the Democrats and the left would be down for the count, and would have been well before this election.

That being said, props to your giving some credence to the idea that we can disagree with folks without them having to be stupid or evil, and approaching them as if they (and the folks they support or admire) are objectively stupid and/or evil is not the best way to win elections.

An example is this post (I did it, as part of a quasi-persona blog, long story) , talking about John Stewart telling Sarah Palin f*** you, and about some of the "post election" maps produced by liberals after the 2002 and 2004 elections.

http://memetrics.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/john-stewart-to-sarah-palin-fudge-you/

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 3, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"Given several factors -- midterms under a Dem POTUS, people's desire for splitting control of the government, dozens of Dems in McCain 2008 seats, poor economy, etc etc etc -- we knew going in that this was going to be the case."

Back in 2008 immediately after the Dem victories you didn't have a freakin' clue that the GOP would be making such historic gains!

This is an historic landslide, ethan - not business as usual.

Posted by: sbj3 | November 3, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: "we knew going in that this was going to be the case."

Flashback from:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/the_charlie_crist_crunch.html

I wrote: "Of course, but the momentum is with Rubio and given the state, he's probably going to win. Unless Meeks or Crist drop out, then it may be a toss up."

To which Ethan2010 replied:

"Um, no. Dems have a clear registration advantage and plenty of support amongst many different demographics. Plus you have the Republican Party of Florida which is rife with scandal and corruption"

"And you also have corporate Medicare fraud-artist Rick Scott on the Republican Gov ticket. That is sure to depress at least some GOP voter enthusiasm in the state and increase Dem enthusiasm"

"This is not your typical southern Red state, Kevin. It is a purple swing state to begin with. Add the above conditions and you now know why Dems have a good shot."

Apparently, I wasn't delusional about Marco Rubio taking it. Huh.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 3, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

@sbj3: "Back in 2008 immediately after the Dem victories you didn't have a freakin' clue that the GOP would be making such historic gains!"

As I recall, we Republicans were done for, and could expect to spend 40 years in the wilderness, and only after that might we be permitted to admit that the Democrats were right about everything, and, if we agreed to only support the liberal agenda, then might we be allowed to participate in the electoral process.

Didn't turn out like that. Huh.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 3, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

@kevin: I'm not even a fan of the GOP, and I'm a bit upset that the Tea Party probably messed up what could have been a good year for the Libertarian Party.

But the rewriting of history going on amongst some of the delusional here is astounding.

Before the advent of the populist Tea Party movement, the GOP was not assumed to stand a snowball's chance in heck of regaining the House. Now they have done so with a huge margin and liberals want to pretend that it was all a foregone conclusion two years ago and not such a big deal.

As they say, "Wow. Just wow."

Posted by: sbj3 | November 3, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

sbj: and the punching bag known as Speaker Boner almost guarantees Obama's reelection in 2012.

You say potato....

Posted by: Observer691 | November 3, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

@observer: I'd say that Obama's reelection has been a foregone conclusion since November 2008.

BTW, who says po-TAH-to? Anyone? Ever?

Posted by: sbj3 | November 3, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"The more we educate Americans, the more they know, and the less likely they are to fall under the spell of the conservative corporate agenda."

Which is precisely why the GOP hates teachers and higher learning.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 3, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"ndeed. But, hey, they won in 2006 and 2008, when in 2000, 2002, and 2004 there seemed to be a vast preponderance of lamentation regarding stupid Americans who didn't understand that Democrats were good and Republicans were bad. If having an argument that often boils down to, "God, you're an idiot. Vote for me!" was really political suicide, the Democrats and the left would be down for the count, and would have been well before this election."

Aww, ain't that cute? The propagandists praising their victims for being victims. Modern Conservatism is a disease, not a philosophy of governance.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 3, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

sbj: I had an aunt, now deceased, who said po-TAH-to. She was a Bostonian.

But we do have some people who say "potatoe." 8>D

Posted by: Observer691 | November 3, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company