Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Did Tea Party cost GOP 50-50 Senate?

For at least a year now, it's been an open question whether the Tea Party is a force for good or ill within the GOP. On the good side of the ledger, it's served as an energizing and rebranding force, and kept up pressure on GOP leaders to hold the line against Obama and Dems, which clearly served them well.

But the flip side is now coming into focus, and with the results just in from the Colorado Senate race, we can now declare that it may have cost the GOP its only shot at a 50-50 Senate. The picture is complicated, but in raw numbers this appears to be the case.

The math is pretty straightforward. Right now, after last night, the GOP has 46 seats, and is expected to add one more in Alaska, bringing the total to 47. Washington State is still outsanding, but many expect it to remain in Dem hands.

Meanwhile, Tea Party candidates cost the GOP three seats they otherwise would have won. News orgs in Colorado have now declared that Senator Michael Bennet has defeated Tea Party candidate Ken Buck. Christine O'Donnell cost the GOP the Delaware seat, which they would have won in a walk if she hadn't prevailed in a fluke primary victory. And Harry Reid was widely written off as a dead Senator walking -- until Sharron Angle's victory in her primary gave him his only opening to retain his seat.

Those three seats would have brought the GOP to 50.

Now, as Josh Marshall notes, the picture is a bit more complex than this. Beyond costing the GOP those three seats, Tea Party energy surely helped buoy other GOP Senate and other candidates to victory.

But in terms of raw numbers, the GOP's failure to gain a 50-50 Senate really does appear to vindicate the argument by the establishment GOP and the NRSC that these candidates couldn't win general elections -- an argument that earned that establishment a tremendous amount of abuse from the right.

That said, last night's results also clearly vindicate the Dem argument, too. The NRSC and establishment GOP proved unable to control the unpredictable, unpolished and extreme candidates the Tea Party foisted upon them -- which is exactly what Democrats predicted would happen.

By Greg Sargent  | November 3, 2010; 12:26 PM 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: When Us versus Them isn't enough: Race-baiting flops as campaign tactic
Next: Obama's pessimism, Obama's challenge

Comments

I wouldn't say the Tea Party "cost" the GOP a 50-50 Senate.

I'd say the Tea Party PREVENTED a 50-50 Senate that put RINOs like Delaware's Castle in control of the GOP agenda.

Posted by: pmendez | November 3, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

pmendez is right - the Tea Party prevented a RINO Senate

Instead we have Senate Republican Caucus which is heavily influenced by the Tea Party.


____________________________

If one takes out the gerrymandered black districts, how integrated is the democratic candidates????

How much diversity is coming out of the majority-white democratic districts???

Is there ONE majority white democratic district which has elected a black person???


ON this important measure, I have a sense that Republicans are far ahead of the democratics


In South Carolina and Florida, Republicans elected black Congressmen out of majority-white districts.

Rubio, Sandoval and a slew of other Republican hispanic candidates are all over the place - ALL who appeal accross ethnic lines.


That is the true measure of diversity - whether the candidates are truly post-racial and whether they have genuine appeal across ethnic lines.


.

Posted by: SunlightRays | November 3, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are better off for 2012 without the Senate, especially if its control hinged on the whims of moderates.

Posted by: johnyt1977 | November 3, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

If "establishment" candidates had won those Republican primaries, there's no guarantee of 51 seats. The House is definitely a different story. By the way, The Tea Party backed candidates won 87.5% of their races yesterday, according to NBC News.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 3, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

The TEA PARTY is in it's infancy. Just learning to walk the walk and talk the talk. For all that, the TEA PARTY made phenomenal strides. We may well have a prodigy.

Just think how potent the TEA PARTY may be when it grows up.

Give it a few years.

There is no doubt about it. The TEA PARTY has helped, mightily, in the reinvigoration and reformation of the Republican party. No serious person thinks otherwise.

Some do want it to be otherwise and they are now fantisizing about it. Fantasies are all they have left besides Obama and Harry Reid.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 3, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

GOP's current Lie and Party Mantra is "that we are listening to the people"! They maybe listening to the people (in one ear and out the other) -- but they sure are Working hard for Wall Street!

Soon to be Speaker Boehner ( who by the way, Proudly stood side by side with a Nazi sympathizer, someone who puts on the Nazi uniform, a symbolism for "white supremacy") stated that the GOP tidal wave is definitely not a time for celebration. He certainly got that right, because this is a time for Woe! And by the way the Tea-Partiers, will be their worse "nightmare".

But, it will be average Americans who will get hurt by this tidal wave of destruction, which will not bring in anything good for the people. It came to me watching this debacle, this "tidal wave of destruction", that it is the North vs. the South all over again, in another cleverly disguised form, and sometimes not so disguised. I mean when they say take their country back, take it back from whom?

And, it's amazing to me the "fickleness" of the American people to go back and elect GOP operatives that brought this country to the brink of ruin and catastrophe. Haven't they suffered enough? The GOP Party is obviously a group for big business and corporations and Not a group for the People! They are not even for small businesses, though they pretend to be. If they were for small business, than why are there so many large Wal-marts, Lowes, Home Depots, so that the small mom and pop operations are squeezed out of business. Democrats even have to fight the GOP to get them to extend UE benefits when needed, especially when GOP know that the jobs are just not here anymore due to their policies of outsourcing good jobs to China and India and on the otherhand saying No to any investment in America and her infrastructure which by the way, creates jobs, jobs, jobs! Does anyone in the GOP Party have a heart or compassion for anyone or anything other than big business?

I feel sorry for average Americans who continue to shoulder the tax burdens because the wealthy and big Corporations pay very little or no taxes at all due to tax loopholes, which is just another way of lying and cheating and getting over on the American people. If the American people want more money in their wallets, than they should go about getting the wealthy to pay their fair share once again.

We, who truly love humanity, justice and an equal playing field, can only pray that the people will eventually see through the GOP lies and deceptions and get off the "yellow brick road" to nowhere, before its too late and we really do become a third-world country under dictatorship once again!

Posted by: wdsoulplane | November 3, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

@battleground-

"Just give it a few fears".

There, fixed it for ya.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 3, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

I also agree that a 48 seat Republican Senate is better than a 51 RINO Senate.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 3, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

@wdssouldplane: "I mean when they say take their country back, take it back from whom?"

That's a good question.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/251979/paging-eugene-robinson-jonah-goldberg

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 3, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

"I feel sorry for average Americans who continue to shoulder the tax burdens because the wealthy and big Corporations pay very little or no taxes"

Oh quit it with this commie class warfare stuff, Americans know the richer the rich get, the more jobs they might "create" for Americans. Lloyd Blankfein sure told off those Democrat libs when he assured us he is doing God's work, get it? Only Gods can create.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 3, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

OT, then I think I'll take Liams advice and give it a rest, maybe.

I don't know if anyone's really interested in this or not but David Dayen has a run down of the State's Attorneys General races. These races are especially important this year because of the ongoing fraudulent paper work issues re foreclosures. Here in CA, our Dem is only slightly ahead so I have my fingers crossed she will win.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The state AGs take on unusual importance this year because they are running the foreclosure fraud investigation. All 50 current AGs are involved, but the emphasis could change based on the change in dynamic with more Republicans in the way. While a core of select AGs are running the investigation, and as such they’re the most important, at some point the AGs across the country will have an impact on the probe. So how did everyone do?"

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/11/03/looking-at-the-attorney-general-races/

Posted by: lmsinca | November 3, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

The Senate situation is really a best-case scenario for the Republicans

The dynamic now is not a Republican Congress v. Obama - it is a question of negotiations within the Congress


Republicans are going to have to insist that Obama be a part of any deals in Congress - so Obama loses and opportunity to blame Congress for everything.


The Responsibility to compromise falls DIRECTLY on Obama and the democrats in this situation.


The 2012 Elections are KEY - the Republicans have a long list of pick-up opportunities -

Florida

Michigan

Montana

Missouri

Nebraska

Minnesota

New Mexico

North Dakota

maybe New Jersey

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Virginia

West Virginia

Wisconsin


That is 14 legitimate pick-up opportunities for the Republicans in the Senate -

New Jersey, West Virginia, Michigan and Minnesota are probably the bluest of those States.


However, these numbers represent a potential 10 solid pick-ups - to bring the Republicans to 57 Senate seats - within reach of the 60 needed for closure.


On the democratic side, only Massachusetts Scott Brown and Nevada Ensign are really legitimate pick-up opportunities.


Posted by: SunlightRays | November 3, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

In a nutshell, the Dems should be thanking God for Tea Party Senate candidates?

Josh's point should be restated:

"You also have to take into account how Republicans won in Illinois and Pennsylvania and put up smashing wins in New Hampshire, Indiana and Ohio. Those wins were won on the basis of "Tea Party" intensity."

Posted by: sbj3 | November 3, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

"Did Tea Party cost GOP 50-50 Senate?"

Yes, and who cares? Picked up 6 seats and the Republicans were already dominating the senate, anyway.

The Tea Party also gave us Nikki Haley and started busting up the corrupt South Carolina GOP machine. Helped give us Marco Rubio and Ruth McClung, Sean Bielat, and a number of other good candidates that will come back to fight the good fight in the future. The worst tea party candidates were probably Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle. Unfortunate, maybe, but that's how democracy works.

The net effect of the Tea Party has been positive. Really, does anyone think it would have been better if we had done roughly as good, maybe a little better, but Karl Rove and the RNC had handpicked all the candidates?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 3, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

clawrence

NBC is reporting that 87.% number as the number of Tea Party races won.


That represents 113 House seats - a significant influence on the House agenda. In fact, one may argue that the Tea Party philosophy holds a majority within the Republican caucus.

Close enough to hold sway over discussions.

Therefore, the Tea Party really controls the House right now.


AMAZING. ASTONISHING. SHOCKING.


.

Posted by: SunlightRays | November 3, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

@wdssouldplane: "I mean when they say take their country back, take it back from whom?"

That's a good question.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/251979/paging-eugene-robinson-jonah-goldberg
--------------------------------------

Good work by National Review there, even if I'm not a big fan of them. That is why it's so dangerous to label things as "unprecedented" and while I want to question whether the notion of "taking back American" has ever been used so frequently, I'm guessing it probably has and I just don't remember it. In my defense, I'm relatively young.

As another example, when Obama recently asked ministers for help in getting people board with his policies, it was quickly labeled as unprecedented. But I was watching "Pawn Stars" the other day and a guy brought in a letter FDR had sent to his reverand father or grandfather basically asking him to convince his congregation of the wisdom of the Social Security Act. Here's a guess that FDR wasn't the only past president that did that.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 3, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

If it wasn't for the wave, Ill and PA wouldn't have gone and Scott would have lost in FL.

On a side note, Obama is about ready to extend his middle finger, I mean olive branch to the R's who are intent on doing absolutely nothing as far as ideas because they don't want to be blamed for not being able to influence an economy driven by a weak Chinese yen and strong pro-business groups like The Chamber who work with the Chinese to improve outsourcing to China.

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

TEA PARTY

This piece misses the point


The House is where the action is - not the Senate - the Senate has the filibuster and still has to compromise.

The Tea Party has 113 seats in the House- the rest of the Republicans are going to have little choice but to go along with the philosophy of the Tea Party.


The Tea Party now has effective control of the agenda in the House of Representatives - they hold a effective majority of the majority - there is going to be no substantial opposition to this in the House Republican caucus.


This is ASTONISHING The dynamic is incredible - and everything has to happen fast - the budget negotiations really has to get done over the next 10 months -

Posted by: SunlightRays | November 3, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Greg, I know you were too young at the time, but your column reminds me of those who used to say about Vietnam, "just declare victory and get the he*l out!".

Nice to know that from your perspective last night was actually a victory for the Democrats and a loss for the GOP.

Posted by: 54465446 | November 3, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

I believe that a big majority in the House is much better than a slim majority in the Senate.

Having both would have been nice. Maybe in 2012 it may happen.

The TEA PARTY did prevent even more RINOs from becoming senators. That's the silver lining in that matter.

RINOs must be purged out of the Republican party for the good of America. We need a stark and definate choice in our political parties, on election day, to keep it interesting.

Democrats already have a lock on the liberals, socialists, and all the assorted, aggrieved minorities. I say let 'em have 'em and with our compliments.

The Republican party should be the party of the vast, conservative majority in America. Not just white Americans but all citizens who believe in and have a stake in the American dream.

Then let majority rule. A real democracy.

If both parties are alike, election days would become pointless and boring. Participation would go down and tyranny may creep in.

We need real choice.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 3, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

BTW, I voted a straight Democrat ticket, but at least I KNOW that we lost, and why!

Posted by: 54465446 | November 3, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

shrink:

"Oh quit it with this commie class warfare stuff, Americans know the richer the rich get, the more jobs they might "create" for Americans. Lloyd Blankfein sure told off those Democrat libs when he assured us he is doing God's work, get it? Only Gods can create."

Now that's better. See, it's a lot easier to parody conservatives, since the exaggeration is obvious...no one actually thinks this way.

(FYI, Blankfein donates almost exclusively to Democrats. Shocker, eh? http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Lloyd_Blankfein.php)

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 3, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"The TEA PARTY has helped, mightily, in the reinvigoration and reformation of the Republican party."

Well, at least ya'll have stopped the ridiculous sham of insisting how bipartisan the tea baggers are.


A couple things righties should keep in mind before falling on their knees to worship the baggers:

According to a Bloomberg poll, 80% of voters want Dems and Repubs to work together - even if it means compromising some of their principles to get things done.

In addition, exit polling showed that 37% felt that the biggest priority should be deficit reduction - while 37% felt the biggest priority should be stimulus spending to create jobs.

Just curious how the baggers are going to square those circles.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | November 3, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

"I believe that a big majority in the House is much better than a slim majority in the Senate."

Does having a smaller majority than Dems held matter? Does it mean they hold less of a mandate?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 3, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

What cost those candidates were the GOP establishment turning on those primary winners and fighting them harder than any Democrat they'd ever encountered. Had the establishment united behind instead of seeking to thwart funding efforts and attack the primary winners publicly after the fact (and in some cases actively trying to subvert the process after the primary was decided in the case of Crist, Murky, and Castle), the ESTABLISHMENT wouldn't have handed the Dems control of the Senate.

Throw in Nevada to Colorado for races where unificaiton and petty quibbling from the non-Tea Party people made the difference. Look, from Maine to Rhode Island, the establishment had insisted that we all rally under one umbrella for the good of numbers in Congress. Well, why then did they throw such a hissy fit this time and actively try to take down legit primary winners if the mantra (which the Dems have down pat) is party unity after the primaries? The Tea Party played by the establishment's own rules, and that's what gave the Dems the Senate majority.

What's hilarious is those who prefer a left-leaning Senate are by far the most numerous trying to discredit the Tea Party, and that's not because they fear momentum being built by the Olympia Snowe/Trent Lott type GOP. Even the establishment is going to have to realize in future campaigns that sabotaging the primary winners rather than unifying like the Dems do isn't going to get them anywhere, which means they'll have to be the ones compromising and tossing money behind conservative canadidates next time around.

Posted by: one2 | November 3, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse


55477688


That quote is from Senator Aiken of Vermont

Great quote

I actually split my ticket last night. No one will believe that, I know.


.

Posted by: SunlightRays | November 3, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse


55477688


That quote is from Senator Aiken of Vermont

Great quote

I actually split my ticket last night. No one will believe that, I know.


.

Posted by: SunlightRays | November 3, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Nice to know that from your perspective last night was actually a victory for the Democrats and a loss for the GOP.

Posted by: 54465446
-----------------------------------------

It's nice to learn from the GOP commentators that they are relieved they didn't get control of the Senate. I'm pretty sure that's what they were saying before the election. Heck, maybe Angle and McDonnell were part of a secret plan to not get a majority.

This is what people do in politics, heck sports teams and businesses do it too, they spin things.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 3, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

SC3, I just keep dropping 'em in the punch bowl to see what floats.

That robber barons feel guilty, that is not news. And hold on just a cotton pickin' minute, what do you mean no one thinks like that.

If we don't have to have the super-rich around so they "create" jobs for Americans, then why do we have them around? Aren't they a necessary evil? Or, not good or evil, but necessary for something? Don't Republicans truly believe the decades of widening income disparity in America is a good thing, that some day that trend will pay off for the middle class? Because if that whole Laffer curve thing isn't real, then there is going to be a really real problem when Republican voters find out.


Posted by: shrink2 | November 3, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

The next Congress will be one of the biggest do nothing sessions we have seen in a long time. The GOP "grown ups", such as they are, are going to put the brakes on their more radical members. They won't be able to cut the deficit, because there is hardly anything of substance they can cut. Let's not talk about the Tea Party like it's some separate construct. They were purposefully created by the GOP the same way the GOP cynically used Evangelicals in 2000 and 2004. Rove and the Bush White House laughed at these people behind their back. Many of these whack jobs elected last night will be out in the next two election cycles.
The next big battle will be with re-apportionment from the 2010 census. Look for the GOP to pull more DeLay-like gerrymander tricks that will lead to more court cases.

Posted by: filmnoia | November 3, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

I made this point earlier:

It is the direct fault of the Democrat party that the Republican party has grown into a national behemoth.

Sixty years ago, the Republican party was truly a regional, white men's club. It was called the me-too party and Democrats laughed.

But when American leftists took a stranglehold on the Democrat party, in the 1960s, the Democrat party began to shrink and the Republican party began to get BIG.

It's simple. Democrats do not cater to the vast, American majority anymore. Republicans are doing that.

My prediction:

The Democrat party will continue becoming the party of Marxism and aggrieved, cultural minorities. It is shedding white voters and upwardly mobile minority voters at an accelerating rate, even now.

The Republican party will become America's, permanent, majority party much like the Democrat party was after WWII.

But nothing is really permanent. The Democrats may get tired of losing, some day, and turn the tables, again.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 3, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

An important discussion is what happened WITHIN the Republican party last night.

There were a series of battles - but the result is clear: The Tea Party took effective control of the House caucus.


Four States can be brought up - in two Florida and Alaska, the Tea Party candidate who won the primary was challenged by a moderate Republican in the General. Rubio won, Joe Miller lost


It is fair to say that Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angle did not recieve the full support of Republican moderates.

However, it is UNFAIR to say that the moderate Republicans ALWAYS deserve the full support of the Conservatives, while the opposite moderate Republicans are not automatically supporting the Conservatives who win the primaries.


So that is overall a split decision. Rubio was elected.

Rubio is also the candiate from the largest State of the four - and it is fair to say that the smaller States have certain dynamics which do not apply to the larger states.


OVERALL, the Tea Party effectively took control of the House Republican caucus - which is a MAJOR WIN and a major change in the dynamic in Washington.


That is the MAJOR THING - and Murkowski, Reid and Coons really don't matter to that dynamic.

Posted by: SunlightRays | November 3, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

I'll pose this as a question since there are so many political experts on this board that you'll have a perspective.

What is the best model to predict the next 24 years? I suppose that is the 1994 GOP takeover. Then, we have to add the insurgency of the Tea Party which did not occur in '94. How did things play out in '94-'98?

I'm an investor, so I'm always interested in predicting the broad strokes over the next couple years.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

At the end of the day, it was not as bad as predicted for the democrats. Still, their course is clear…this is a call to action, financially, emotionally and in sweat equity. Let’s get started…. http://wp.me/pNmlT-wV

Posted by: dh1976 | November 3, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

At the end of the day, it was not as bad as predicted for the democrats. Still, their course is clear…this is a call to action, financially, emotionally and in sweat equity. Let’s get started…. http://wp.me/pNmlT-wV

Posted by: dh1976 | November 3, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

shrink:

"SC3, I just keep dropping 'em in the punch bowl to see what floats."

I'd suggest you skip the punch bowl and look for the bathroom next time.

"And hold on just a cotton pickin' minute, what do you mean no one thinks like that."

See, now this is what I warned you about. There are some liberals who would, in all seriousness, say such a thing, so you are in danger of being taken seriously. This is why people don't laugh at your jokes.

Just trying to help your comedy routine.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 3, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

At the end of the day, it was not as bad as predicted for the democrats. Still, their course is clear…this is a call to action, financially, emotionally and in sweat equity. Let’s get started…. http://wp.me/pNmlT-wV

Posted by: dh1976 | November 3, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

What is the best model to predict the next 24 years?
--------------------------
Woah...trainwreck.

What is the best model to predict the next 4 years?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Scott is the comedy police. So, shrink, just stop laughing and telling jokes. He means it (I think).

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

REPEEL OBAMACARE!!

Hah! It hasn't even been peeled yet. It's like trying to peel a giant onion, down to the core. Layer after layer after layer of bureaucratic BS that brings tears to the eyes.

It's going to take until 2012 for us to realize what Obama and the Pelosites have wrought upon us.

Maybe this federal fetus should be aborted, soon! Like before it grows into a monstrous obamanation.

Arrrrgh!

Posted by: battleground51 | November 3, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

@ashotinthedark: "I want to question whether the notion of "taking back American" has ever been used so frequently"

I don't know. I know Howard Dean really, really wanted to take the flag back from Rush Limbaugh, and said it constantly. ;)

But, the real question is, what does "take my country back" mean? It means: "our team wins". It's a metaphor for electoral, and hopefully ideological victory. When you or say, "We want to take our country back"--from whom do we want to take it back from? Well, who, in the political sense, has it? Liberals or Democrats, if they are in the power, or conservatives or Republicans, if not. That's who we want to "take our country back from".

There's also an implicit marginalization: we're really Americans, this is really our country, and you Republicrats are just squatters, so we need to take back our rightful property back from you.

"It's nice to learn from the GOP commentators that they are relieved they didn't get control of the Senate."

Doesn't bother me. Democrats haven't actually destroyed the country, and Republicans didn't really impress me last time they had the senate. What makes me happiest is new blood, and saying goodbye to some of our entitled lords and ladies who mostly worry about their own status, rather than governance. It was a nice change, and the electorate made pretty good decisions, I think, and I don't think they voted the way they did exclusively because they were white and uneducated.

The Democrats held on to most of their plum seats. Barney Frank is still there. Barbara Boxer is still there. Harry Reid is still there. It's fair to say, it could have been much worse for the Dems.

Keeping my fingers crossed for McClung.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 3, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

They say white blue collar voters surged for the GOP. Anyone have any idea what the GOP is going to do for the white blue collar voter?

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

"Soon to be Speaker Boehner ( who by the way, Proudly stood side by side with a Nazi sympathizer, someone who puts on the Nazi uniform, a symbolism for "white supremacy")"

Stopped reading this troll's nonsense right there.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 3, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

First it was Liam all (actually!) upset that people wouldn't stop arguing politics the day after an election and now I can't have any fun either?

Well there is this piece of work I've been putting off. I guess I'll do it and then get back on and see whether Oregon has a Governor.

Also, the more I think about the health care reform solution, the better it gets. We can not be talking about what would be the best thing, we have to talk about how to take this silo system and change it into something much better and dare I use the word, sustainable, unlike both what we have now and health industry stimulus act the Ds passed. I hope it is worth waiting for.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 3, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"Scott is the comedy police."

No. shrink specifically asked me the other day to let him know when his jokes weren't funny. So I am just helping him out.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 3, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: pragmaticstill

They say white blue collar voters surged for the GOP. Anyone have any idea what the GOP is going to do for the white blue collar voter?
-------

Just a guess, but I'd say they will stay the course and do nothing for this group.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 3, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Of course, the TP allowed the Republicans to dispense with centrists such as Crist and Specter, so you'd have to chalk that up as a plus for them, I guess.

And who knows if Lowden could have beat Reid. The factors that caused her primary demise could have come into play in the general.

O'Donnell almost certainly cost her party a seat and McMahon might have done so as well.

One interesting case is Kentucky. Paul eventually learned to say the right things, but in terms of the point of view of Republicans, Grayson might have been the better choice, especially if Paul's voting patterns start resembling that of his father's.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 3, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Hey, why no mention of the fact that B.H. Obama's old seat was taken by a Republican back in Obama's home state.

Bad omen for Obama, wouldn't you say?

Posted by: battleground51 | November 3, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

to take this silo system and change it into something much better and dare I use the word, sustainable, unlike both what we have now and health industry stimulus act the Ds passed.
----------------------------
Going backwards (repeal) won't change the silo system. Adding yet more silos won't change the problem. I don't see the Republicans stumbling onto the "reduce the silos" solution since it is anathema, both to the healthcare industry and to their own ideology.

So, we will have some version of bad. It will be a LONG time before the silos disappear. We're not even heading in the right general direction.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse


No, the Tea Party didn't cost the GOP a 50-50 Senate.

The GOP vilified Tea Party candidates opposing their annointed GOP candidates during the Primaries and then when those Tea Party candidates beat their GOP "annointed ones," the GOP then would not throw support towards those GOP nominees. The GOP "cut their nose to spite their face."

Also, by the liberal MSM trashing the Tea Party candidates, labeling them as extreme or ill-equipped, when with many of them that was not the case.

The liberal MSM were responsible for shielding the negative background, Chicago way of Obama in 2008 and in 2010 they vilified the GOP candidates but fortunately, for the most part, the outcome was different.

All I can say is that voters better do their own vetting of candidates in the next two years because the liberal MSM will only give you half the story and a distorted one at that.

Posted by: janet8 | November 3, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"while I want to question whether the notion of "taking back American" has ever been used so frequently, I'm guessing it probably has and I just don't remember it. In my defense, I'm relatively young."

You wouldn't have to remember back far. Dems held a Take Back America convention in DC annually in DC. They've tried hard to scrub the internet of the evidence in the past year, but it used to be that you could find Take Back America pages complete with Howard Dean's rambling condemnation of the GOP and vow to take back the country for the people who built it -- you know, unions, mainly.

But I'll give you credit for open mindedness on the question. I've had to prove it to many delusional libs here who will deny forever that Dems ever said an unkind or divisive word between 2000 and 2008.

As another example, when Obama recently asked ministers for help in getting people board with his policies, it was quickly labeled as unprecedented.

"As another example, when Obama recently asked ministers for help in getting people board with his policies, it was quickly labeled as unprecedented."

I don't know that I've ever heard anyone call it unprecedented. What I and others have called it as a great example of the hypocrisy of separationist liberals who see no problem with it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 3, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

"shrink specifically asked me the other day to let him know when his jokes weren't funny"

'strue it was like he was getting annoyed at what I was posting, perhaps not realizing I was trying to be funny (when I lurked The PL for awhile, I saw there are a lot of people here who take themselves waaay too seriously). So I said no need to point out all the different ways it wasn't true or off the mark, if it isn't funny just say so, that I'd be fine with that and I am.

After all, everyone needs an editor and no one is as funny as they wish they were. Also in comedy, sometimes the heckling can be funnier than the joke.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 3, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

They say white blue collar voters surged for the GOP. Anyone have any idea what the GOP is going to do for the white blue collar voter?

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

I'll take that one. Nothing. No, less than nothing. The GOP uses white blue collar workers as corporate cannon fodder. Destroy the unions so corporations can treat workers however they want. Outsource jobs to China and India so American workers can't work but corporations make bigger profits. Undermine government regulation because that protects the American worker. Shameless is the only word.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 3, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

battleground51, I think Ill had a lot to do Blago tbh.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 3, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

@Kevin-
" don't know. I know Howard Dean really, really wanted to take the flag back from Rush Limbaugh, and said it constantly. ;)"

I can't remember the name of the phenomenon, but this happens in sports all the time where fans thinks a player isn't clutch because the guy struck out last night with the bases loaded. In reality, the player is very clutch. We have bad memories and this is compounded by the varying levels of scrutiny and the access to different types of media that have developed over time.

"Doesn't bother me. Democrats haven't actually destroyed the country, and Republicans didn't really impress me last time they had the senate."

Well there is a difference between saying not having the majority doesn't bother you and claiming it's better to not have the majority which I think some people were spinning.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 3, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone care to predict what the GOP House will do first? Second?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

The Tea Party's success is measured in the number of wins in the House. The House of Representatives reflects the HEARTBEAT of the American people. The House controls the pursestrings of the nation, and our country will be better off with the new blood the Tea Party is sending there.

The very nature of the Senate makes it much slower to respond to the will of the people, so I am encouraged by the strong showing the Tea Party had in races even those they did not win.

I only hope the Republican Party and any conservative Democrats were listening last night. The American people are tired of the crazy spending.

Posted by: Mar51 | November 3, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

shrink:

"perhaps not realizing I was trying to be funny"

'strue. I still can't tell for sure, but now I just assume you are always trying.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 3, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

@pragmaticstill: "They say white blue collar voters surged for the GOP. Anyone have any idea what the GOP is going to do for the white blue collar voter?"

Practically? Probably not much. We'll see. Superficially? They might talk to them like they are real people and not look at them like they're actually something unpleasant and rural they just accidentally stepped in.

But not all of those folks like the idea of the government doing things for them, anyway. They want "the government" to take less of their hard-earned money and not get in their way. No doubt, they also want the economy to improve and, as long as it doesn't, lesser known incumbents will continue to be handed their walking papers in each election cycle.

But it's hard to say what Republicans are going to do, except not be Democrats. Which, in this election cycle, was apparently more than enough.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 3, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

The Senate doesnt matter, the House does - and this piece misses that the Tea Party influence is concentrated in the House.


The State legislatures are going to be a nightmare for the democrats.


The democrats lost 21,000 seats last night - if you add it all up

Posted by: SunlightRays | November 3, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"Does anyone care to predict what the GOP House will do first? Second?"

I'll take a whack at this.

They'll continue doing what they are doing now.

1) Speak in platitudes and continue to undermine this administration at every corner to try and make them look bad.

2) They'll continue to avoid getting pigeonholed into a corner at all costs by not taking on a true cost cutting agenda that would make this country fiscally sound.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 3, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

The Senate doesnt matter, the House does - and this piece misses that the Tea Party influence is concentrated in the House.


The State legislatures are going to be a nightmare for the democrats.


The democrats lost 21,000 seats last night - if you add it all up

Posted by: SunlightRays | November 3, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone care to predict what the GOP House will do first? Second?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

First, investigate Obama. Second, impeach Obama.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 3, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"I don't see the Republicans stumbling onto the "reduce the silos" solution since it is anathema, both to the healthcare industry and to their own ideology. So, we will have some version of bad. It will be a LONG time before the silos disappear. We're not even heading in the right general direction."

This is true. But this is also the reason the system will have to change. The cost of health care is going to rise even faster now (please, no one bother delivering the HHS/Sibelius talking points). Are we to become the first culture that is organized around creating and consuming health care? I think not!

Posted by: shrink2 | November 3, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

But it's hard to say what Republicans are going to do, except not be Democrats.
-------------------------------
It obviously is enough to get elected. But how long will that last?

Seems to me it's smart to think ahead. What will the House do now? Surely, they're not going to sit on their laurels and do nothing. As an investor, I like to go through the scenarios and see if I need to make some changes.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

12Bar,

A GOP House can't pass its legislative agenda, even assuming that John Boehner's governing philosophy is more sophisticated than "Hell No!"

So count on lots of hearings and investigations. If they can't get anything done, they will want to appear that they are as angry as the voters.

Also, look for the GOP House to rather quickly abandon the stance against earmarks. Why? Simple. If you are a Republican in the House, which would you rather do: give unrestricted budget dollars to federal agencies run by a Democratic Administration, or send those dollars to the agencies with strings (earmarks) attached, to ensure GOP districts get the benefits of those dollars?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 3, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama doesn't get it

Obama hasn't understood his job over the past two years - so how can one expect him to understand his job in a more difficult environment ?

Obama is completely lost - he has no idea what he is doing


Posted by: SunlightRays | November 3, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"Does anyone care to predict what the GOP House will do first? Second?"

Extend tax cuts
Start cutting some spending


Just the neutering of the Obamadems and the end of theie ability to aggressively shove their agenda down our throats is likely to have some thawing effect on the economy. Some of that might already have been factored in as large GOP victory became clear.

Obama isn't chastened at all, however, based on his press conf. Same old BO, same old agenda. Same old vague bs and aloof condescension. Same passive aggressive blaming of the public for not "seeing" the miracles he is working.

Nothing will change about him, as I predicted.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 3, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

"Does anyone care to predict what the GOP House will do first? Second?"

Extend the Bush tax cuts. Repeal HCR. After that . . . oppose Obama?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 3, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Hey, why no mention of the fact that B.H. Obama's old seat was taken by a Republican back in Obama's home state.

Bad omen for Obama, wouldn't you say?

"This election is not just going to set the stage for the next two years," Barack Obama said in Philadelphia over the weekend. "It's going to set the stage for the next 10, the next 20."

There it is. From the mouth of "THE ONE". We are going to have a Republican stage for 10 to 20 years.

Let the show begin!

Posted by: battleground51 | November 3, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

"They might talk to them like they are real people and not look at them like they're actually something unpleasant and rural they just accidentally stepped in."

Aw, ain't that cute? The Con Propagandists praising their victims for ... wait for it ... being victims. Cons intend to ensure that American workers get the screwing they deserve. No more. No less. Cut taxes on the corporations and the rich so a greater tax burden falls on the Middle Class. Attack government because it protects the American people against rapacious corporatists. De-regulate and reward companies for sending jobs to other countries. And then praise the Middle Class for being so docile and agreeable as they absorb their punishment. The Cons are scoundrels and in a more rambunctious country would be running for their lives, not sitting in luxury suites counting their money and laughing at the chumps.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 3, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

@bearclaw,

Without regard to their ability to pass their agenda, don't you think they will introduce legislation if nothing other than to control the discussion?

I see the subpoenas and investigations as filler activities, what you do when you're not that busy. I was in business and tend to see things through that lens. You can look forward and change things (legislation), or you can look backwards and punish people (hearings).

Perhaps I'm wrong?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Mike

Again you have little idea what you are talking about

the tax cuts are first on the agenda - and unemployment extensions


next is the budget


------------------------


Obama doesn't get his position. He can't get anything done

And oooooooObama doesnt understand there is a short timetable because of the primaries.


GGeesshhhh we are going to see Obama continue to make mistake after mistake

Posted by: SunlightRays | November 3, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Saying that Tea Party candidates "cost" the GOP the Senate is like saying that tax cuts "cost" the government money. The Senate doesn't belong to the GOP, just like a worker's wages don't belong to the government. Each citizen has the right to make a bid for public office, regardless of party affiliation.

Posted by: JLoganJ | November 3, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone care to predict what the GOP House will do first? Second?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

__________________________________________

I think they will cut a deal with Obama to temporarily allow all the tax cuts to remain in place.

Who knows what Obama will want in return? Jobs Program? Infrastructure investments? Probably something along those lines.

Posted by: sold2u | November 3, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Are we to become the first culture that is organized around creating and consuming health care?
----------------------------------
We need to resume our dead thread conversation.

It seems to me this is like a baseball game where we need to get to third base, but everyone is looking backwards. We're not even looking in the right direction, much less making progress. Every idea that is proposed is more silos, isn't it?

As an investor, I can make money off silos, even if I hate it as a human being.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

"First, investigate Obama. Second, impeach Obama."

Biden is pretty good insurance against that. Obama did plan well in that one instance.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 3, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

"Same old vague bs and aloof condescension. Same passive aggressive blaming of the public for not "seeing" the miracles he is working."

This must be a Chamber of Con Artist talking point of the week. Democrats are condescending because they want to help the Middle Class. Republicans are Great American Patriots because they want to screw the Middle Class. You really need some serious agitprop to pull that off.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 3, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

"First, investigate Obama. Second, impeach Obama."

Third, increase defense spending

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 3, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Extend the Bush tax cuts. Repeal HCR.
------------------------
@Kevin,

That sounds about right to me. First they will want to extend the tax cuts. Probably will be successful?

Repeal HCR. How will they do it? Just roll the whole bill back to the prior condition?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

"First, investigate Obama. Second, impeach Obama."

Biden is pretty good insurance against that. Obama did plan well in that one instance.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 3, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore didn't stop you.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 3, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

our dead thread, oops, I thought I bookmarked it, did you?

Posted by: shrink2 | November 3, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

All, my take on the Obama presser that ended just now:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 3, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

@bearclaw1: "So count on lots of hearings and investigations."

You think so? I'm dubious. I hope not, anyway. I thought that was a huge waste of time and money during the Clinton admin, and 1998 midterms indicated most voters thought the same thing. Subpoenas and impeachment is no way to run the government, or win in the arena of ideas. I know there are some Republicans that are excited about the idea of prosecuting Democrats, but I'm hoping they take another approach.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 3, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

"Subpoenas and impeachment is no way to run the government, or win in the arena of ideas."

Good point except for 2 things. First, Republicans aren't interested in governing; they undermine government because it stands in the way of total corporate control of the nation. Second, the only "idea" the GOP Cons have is to sell themselves to the highest bidder. Other than that, Kevin, spot on.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 3, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

@shrink,

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/sharron_angle_ill_answer_those.html

Have to go out for a while, but I'll check in. I'm getting more and more intrigued.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "Aw, ain't that cute? The Con Propagandists praising their victims for ... wait for it ... being victims."

I'm assuming you're saying that I'm a Con Propagandist. Which would kind of support my idea that "propaganda" is essentially trying to express an opposing viewpoint. ;)

"Cons intend to ensure that American workers get the screwing they deserve. No more. No less."

And what's in it for them, exactly?

"Cut taxes on the corporations"

Which are made up of people and most of which are small and owned by people who aren't precisely robber barons. What would be wrong with cutting taxes on a corporation that makes under a million or under five million gross receipts in a year?

"so a greater tax burden falls on the Middle Class."

In what sense? I favor significant reductions in middle class taxes, but "the rich" pay way more in real dollars (per person and in toto) than the middle class, and they also pay higher marginal tax rates. A greater burden falls on the Middle Class than perhaps has to fall on them. I'll accept that.

"Attack government because it protects the American people against rapacious corporatists."

Except when it's colluding with them. Or is run by them. Or you're dealing with the IRS. Or Fish and Wildlife. Or any government bureaucracy that wants to take your money or can tell you what you can and cannot do on your property. Or if it wants your property. Etc.

Then who protects us from a rapacious government?

"De-regulate and reward companies for sending jobs to other countries."

And the Democrats and the liberals were preventing this . . . how?

"And then praise the Middle Class for being so docile and agreeable as they absorb their punishment."

There. That's the condescension I was talking about!

"The Cons are scoundrels and in a more rambunctious country would be running for their lives"

Are you threatening violence? You aren't suggesting . . . 2nd amendment solutions, are you?

"not sitting in luxury suites counting their money and laughing at the chumps."

Well, I dunno. That sounds like a pretty sweet gig, if you can get it.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 3, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Micheal Steele wants to find consensus where possible but: "This is not a compromise moment if you're asking us to compromise to create more debt, asking us to compromise to do more spending, asking us to compromise to expand the role and the depth of government in the lives of our businesses . . . Compromise in order to do further harm is not in the offering."

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 3, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"This must be a Chamber of Con Artist talking point of the week. Democrats are condescending because they want to help the Middle Class. Republicans are Great American Patriots because they want to screw the Middle Class. You really need some serious agitprop to pull that off."


I said same condescending BO. He is condescending because he is condescending. Because when he speaks publicly he speaks condescendingly. He also insults and mocks us. Those are observations about how this great orator orates. I said them long before anyone was panty-twisted about the CoC. I don't follow the Coc at all. Sorry.

But don't let that disturb your dogmatic assumptions or circular patterns of thought.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 3, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

You labor under the misimpression that adopting St. Ronnie's Aw Shucks demeanor absolves you of the consequences of the things you advocate. It doesn't.

As for business and government, clearly both are necessary. We live in a capitalist world and business makes the economy run. Democrats agree with Republicans on that because it is a simple truth. But government is necessary to control business or else corporations, which are hardwired for maximum profits, will do anything possible to maximize those profits, at the expense of the country and at the expense of the American people.

BTW: That's quite a little charade equating Mom & Pop businesses with the multinational corporations that run the country and the world.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 3, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Have a nice day, all. Over & out.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 3, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Kevin,

Rep. Issa has said that impeachment is off the table. But count on investigations of ACORN (even though it is bankrupt), the New Black Panthers (both of them, but especially the guy on the left in the photo), and lots of other "red meat" topics for Beckian Base.

They will probably take a shot at repeal of HCR, but that isn't going anywhere. Even if the Senate were open to some changes, I don't think compromise is possible given that Boehner has committed the GOP House to "repeal uber alles" (well, not quite those words, but he did call it HCR a "monstrosity").

But all appropriations have to start in the House, so it will be interesting to see whether they can pass a budget, and if so, whether Obama will sign it. The GOP can try to steer policy through the budget. A replay of the Gingrich/Clinton battle over government shutdown isn't out of the question, given the personalities and the fact that the politics of the House are probably as polarized as they have ever been (a disproportionate number of the House Democrats who lost were in the Blue Dog caucus, meaning the House GOP will be on average more conservative than before, and the House Dems more liberal than before).

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 3, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, JLoganJ.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 3, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse


"[Obama] also insults and mocks us"

And by "us" you mean the Plutocrats, I assume. Wrap yourself in greed to salve your hurt feelings.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 3, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Jane Hamsher on MSNBC right now.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 3, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

"He is condescending because he is condescending. Because when he speaks publicly he speaks condescendingly."

Posted by: quarterback1
+++++++++++++

Your tautological snake is swiftly swallowing its own tail.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 3, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

What happened to "Over & out"?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 3, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

"Your tautological snake is swiftly swallowing its own tail."

It's not a tautology. It's rhetorical device used ironically to point out that a reason for a statement was falsely attributed where none was needed. There's probably a name for it, but I don't know what it is.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 3, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne:

Trying to talk to you, at least today, is like trying to talk to STRF. Apparently we're not communicating with each other, so I think I'll just call it a day on that effort. Better luck (to both of us) next time!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 3, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne:

Trying to talk to you, at least today, is like trying to talk to STRF. Apparently we're not communicating with each other, so I think I'll just call it a day on that effort. Better luck (to both of us) next time!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 3, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

No problem, Bro. Please feel free to ignore me. Perhaps I'll do the same for you.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 3, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

This must be a Chamber of Con Artist talking point of the week. Democrats are condescending because they want to help the Middle Class. Republicans are Great American Patriots because they want to screw the Middle Class. You really need some serious agitprop to pull that off.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 3, 2010 2:19 PM
---------------------------------------------

Well said. But yes, they are in fact quite serious about their agitprop and our side needs to get better at it. Mind you, spending more time trying to change actual voters minds about stuff will likely mean there's less time for calling Democrats nasty names. But it's potentially much more productive in the long run.

Posted by: CalD | November 3, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

boys, what are you smoking? nbc estimates that the tea party only won 37% of the races it was involved in.

gads, are we in for another two years of the repubbbs making up their own facts???

Posted by: skippybkroo | November 3, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Right...65 in the House, 7 in the senate (including kennedy's), and 30 governorships is what I heard every Democrat predicting.

Ken Buck was a great candidate but in the end he was the victim of democrat-media complex smear campaign that he was "soft" on rape and he could have done a better job executing the evasions of your typical career politician. I think he should run again.

Posted by: dummypants | November 3, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse


Would anybody have believed you if 15 months ago someone told you the headline after the 2010 election would be "did the tea party limit the GOP to taking over only one house"?

Posted by: dummypants | November 3, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Yes, the Tea Party cost the Republicans the Senate.

And with that twisted liberal wacko logic (TLWL) let's clarify some other things:

1. The Nazis defeated the allied forces in World War II.
2. Sonny Liston defeated Muhammed Ali as he lay there out cold.
3. Sunlight causes darkness.

I know in the case of Smelly Harry Reid, the reason he won is because he had his Mormon troopers vote for Sharon Angle in the primaries.

I was curious about how the leftist media would spin their horrific defeat in these midterm elections. Blaming the Tea Party for the Republicans not overtaking the Senate is "out there" to say the least.

YOU LOST. The sooner you accept it, the better off you'll be.

Posted by: markw707 | November 4, 2010 5:25 AM | Report abuse

Reporters should not be allowed to attempt math unsupervised.

The Tea Party, if current numbers hold, had four wins and four losses or, put another way, the same win percentage record as the GOP.

What Sargent fails to note is their massive pickups in local legislatures meaning we will likley see experienced Tea Party candidates on the national stage in 2012 and 2014.

Tea Party members are more correctly described as constitutional conservatives. They want a smaller, less intrusive, constitutionally legal federal government.

This contrasts mightily with Progressives. Progressives have singly and systematically destroyed their own cities and states and need a large federal government that can pick pockets nationwide to bail their homelands out of their failed policies and ideology.

Of course, Progressvism at the federal level eventually destroys that institution as well as one can easily divine after three years of cascading deficts under Pelosi and Reid.

Posted by: pub123 | November 4, 2010 1:28 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