Author
|
Topic: Tea Party costs GOP the Senate (Read 1455 times) |
|
MoEnzyme
Anarch
Gender: 
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.92
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
 
|
 |
Tea Party costs GOP the Senate
« on: 2010-11-03 15:18:01 » |
 |
[Mo] The Tea Party cost the GOP the Senate: An article in slate already casts some criticism on this interpretation, http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2010/11/03/bennet-wins-murkowski-leads-and-the-flaw-of-the-tea-party-cost-gop-the-senate-meme.aspx
however the mathematics and analysis are sound. No matter how you spin it and any way you slice it, without the Tea Party upsets in the GOP primaries Harry Reid would no longer be a senator and the GOP would control the gavel in the Senate.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2010/Senate/Maps/Nov03-s.html#5
[Votemaster]8:33 EDT Tea Party Costs Republicans Control of the Senate
The Colorado, Alaska, and Washington Senate race results aren't final yet, but if Ken Buck wins in Colorado, Patty Murray wins in Washington, and Lisa Murkowski or Joe Miller wins in Alaska, the Democrats will end up with 51 seats in the Senate. Of these, six are tea party candidates: Ken Buck (R-CO), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rand Paul (R-KY), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Jim DeMint (R-SC), and Mike Lee (R-UT). So the tea party had a good night? In a way. DeMint is a popular incumbent and the guy running against him was a joke (possibly placed on the ballot by a dirty trick). Lee was an insurgent, but any Republican, including the incumbent Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) could have won in Utah. Buck and Paul both won tough primaries and fought their way to victory. Toomey didn't have a primary but he did have a strong opponent in the general election. Rubio scared off Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL) and ran an excellent campaign. So it looks like the tea party did well.
Not so fast. It's like the Sherlock Holmes case of the dog that did not bark. Suppose there had been no tea party movement at all. What would have happened? Almost assuredly Trey Grayson (R), Mitch McConnell's personal pick, would have won in Kentucky, Jane Norton would have won in Colorado against weak appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Charlie Crist would have won in Florida as a Republican. Toomey has been running for the senate for years and probably would have won anyway, with or without the tea party. In Alaska, Lisa Murkowski would have easily been elected and without the need for posters showing MUR + picture of cow + picture of ski to teach people her name. So in these races, what the tea party did was replace one Republican by another one. The tea party effect on the partisan composition of the Senate was nil here.
But what about Nevada and Delaware, where tea party candidates also won upsets in primaries? In Nevada, Harry Reid is exceedingly unpopular and weak. If the establishment Republican candidate, Sue Lowden, the former chair of the state party (and a former beauty queen to boot), had won, there is every reason to believe she would have beaten Reid. Reid's strategy against his actual opponent, Sharron Angle, was to paint her as a lunatic way outside the mainstream. That wouldn't have worked against Lowden. Conclusion: the tea party cost the Republicans Nevada.
Next is Delaware. If the enormously popular Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) had won his primary, he would have been the overwhelming favorite to win the Senate seat. In fact, the assumption that he would be the GOP nominee scared off all the state's top Democrats, including Attorney General Beau Biden, son of the Vice President. Conclusion: in the absence of Christine O'Donnell's tea-party powered win, the Republicans would have won this seat easily.
Adding them up we get 1 + 1 = 2. With conventional candidates, the Republicans would have won Nevada and Delaware, along with Kentucky, Colorado, Florida, Alaska, and Utah, albeit with different people (in Alaska, maybe the same person, but that is not clear yet). The only possible conclusion is that the tea party cost the Republicans control of the Senate. So now they are behind 49 to 51 instead of being ahead 51 to 49. Watch NRSC chairman grit his teeth while praising his winners today. He knows the score full well. Of course, he also knows the Democrats have 23 Senate seats on the line in 2012 vs. the Republicans 10.
Campaigning is one thing, governing is another. It is a given that no major legislation will pass the 112th Congress. Anything the tea party people dream up in the House will die in the Senate, often without even coming up for a vote. But there are couple bills that must pass. One coming up fairly soon is a bill to increase the limit on the federal debt. If the tea party winners really dig in their heels and refuse to approve a higher limit, it could lead to a government shutdown. Failure to pass a budget could also lead to one. Some people would be in favor of that--until they realize some of the consequences, which could include not sending out social security checks, grounding all commercial air traffic (which requires government TSA screeners at airports and government air traffic controllers), among other things.
by Votemaster, November 3rd, 2010
[Mo] Since this Article was written, the Denver Post has called the Colorado senate race for Michael Bennet. That doesn't change the analysis at all since his opponent was a weak Tea Partier, Ken Buck who won the GOP primary against the more credible established GOP candidate. So it only means that the Tea Party lost the senate 52-48 instead of 51-49.
The tea-party has already started their GOP primary hit-list for 2012. Sen. Orinn Hatch (R-UT), Bob Corker (TN), Richard Lugar (IN), Olympia Snowe (ME), and Scott Brown (Mass) are among their targets considered too bi-partisan to be Republicans. I would be watching for Scott Brown and/or Olympia Snowe to become independents if not switch caucuses.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/scott-brown-finds-himself_n_778269.html
At the very least, I think the billionaire Tea Party patrons may begin to see how politically conterproductive this experiment is and pull the astroturf out from under the feet of their "grassroots" stooges. The whole point for the investors is to INCREASE their influence, not to give angry white people a free political playground.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.66
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Tea Party costs GOP the Senate
« Reply #1 on: 2010-11-04 07:15:59 » |
|
[Blunderov] I've been reading that what happened was that the Blue Dogs (conservative democrats) were the ones who were really pwned. The GoP enablers in other words. So, the reasoning goes, this will lead to a more leftward Democratic caucus and more polarity in Congress not less. This might then lead to a sort of hung parliament in which not a lot gets done. It seems possible therefore that no new wars will be declared in the near future. This would be good thing for niggers everywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.92
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Tea Party costs GOP the Senate
« Reply #2 on: 2010-11-04 11:02:45 » |
|
Quote from: Blunderov on 2010-11-04 07:15:59
[Blunderov] I've been reading that what happened was that the Blue Dogs (conservative democrats) were the ones who were really pwned. The GoP enablers in other words. So, the reasoning goes, this will lead to a more leftward Democratic caucus and more polarity in Congress not less. This might then lead to a sort of hung parliament in which not a lot gets done. It seems possible therefore that no new wars will be declared in the near future. This would be good thing for niggers everywhere.
|
Generally yes, more polarity. Certainly when it comes to domestic issues it means gridlock. If you think we are on the wrong track, it means by default more wrong track. I'm not so sure about wars, however. While a few on the far left tend to be more pacifistic and a few principled libertarians oppose maintaining an empire abroad, I think most of the political class no matter which party can be easily lead into stupid foreign wars. All it takes is a little sounding of the fear alarms and a little banging on the patriotism drums and everyone will line up for the next war no matter how wrongheaded and destructive to our own well-being and economy. While we have some capacity to regret them, we still have little ability to resist them. We remain more or less at the mercy of our commander-in-chief on that whole war issue.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
|
Logged
