Tea Party Backed Candidates Only Won 32% of Races

The media comes to its senses: MSNBC reports only 32% of tea party candidates won.

For all the talk of the Tea Party's strength - and there will certainly be a significant number of their candidates in Congress - just 32% of all Tea Party candidates who ran for Congress won and 61.4% lost this election. A few races remain too close to call.

It's also important to distinguish between a candidate who is a tea-partier and those merely endorsed by tea-partiers. The tea-party can be said to have played a role in the wins of the first, but not necessarily the second. [More...]

Toward the end of this cycle, however, seemingly every Republican was trying to associate themselves this way. One left off the list was Dino Rossi, despite Jim DeMint endorsing him, since Tea Party groups backed Clint Didier in the primary.

By that standard, Scott Tipton's win over John Salazar wasn't a a "tea party" win. Sarah Palin backed his challenger, the tea party preferred candidate in the primary, and only endorsed Tipton in late September. Karl Rove, on the other hand, raised money for Tipton.

So maybe Tipton should be a Republican win, not a tea party win. When Tipton won the primary, he acknowledged them, but didn't say he was one of them. As the National Journal wrote:

In the August primary, retired Army lawyer Bob McConnell was the preferred tea party candidate and Tipton’s main opponent. Some tea partiers viewed Tipton suspiciously as a member of the Republican establishment, but he refrained from criticizing McConnell.

< Ken Buck Concedes and Congratulates Bennet | Marijauna Reform Election Wrap-Up >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The mistake here is that (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:58:47 PM EST
    anyone thinks that there is a shred of difference between the Tea Party and the Republican Party.  They are one and the same.

    The Tea Party - originally Tea Baggers - are a creation of the Republican Machine designed to reengage the public who rejected Republican political ideology resoundingly in 2008.  They did a fantastic job of it, too.

    But talking about these factions as anything other than as factions is naive.  And it is dangerous in that the Tea Baggers who are going to take the mantle as we go forward are going to pull their Republican Party even farther to the right than most people could ever imagine.

    They're all Republicans.  

    Why, that's just what was said (none / 0) (#2)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 07:29:36 PM EST
    a century ago by the Stalwarts about the Progressives!

    Teach us more about this, (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Peter G on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:36:52 PM EST
    CC, if you don't mind.  I for one have never heard of the Stalwarts.

    Well, let's see (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 10:27:23 PM EST
    from memory and from a few books off the shelf full of books on "Fighting Bob" La Follette, and especially the fifth volume of the marvelous History of Wisconsin, the volume by one the best historians on the Progressives, John Buenker, here's something I've pulled together:

    In the mid-1890s, insurgents in the Republican Party began to challenge the traditional party leadership, the "Stalwarts."  The insurgents tried to take the party nomination in 1894, and failed, but then began to gain a greater following when former Dane County DA and Congressman "Fighting Bob" La Follette followed with bids for the party nomination in 1896 and 1898.  He took on the traditional target of rural farmers, the railroads, in the courts and in fiery speeches calling for a more direct democracy -  including direct election of nominees in party primaries - that drew ever-larger crowds.  Of course, so did his theatrical gesticulations, practiced for hours prior to his speeches/performances.  Finally, in 1900, La Follette formed a coalition within the party - as he would again and again outside of the party - that took away the Stalwarts' hold on the  nomination process, and he won the bid for the gubernatorial run.  And then he won the race, in no small part owing to his speechwriter and campaign manager for the rest of his career as well: the first woman to graduate from the UW Law School, although she never practiced law because she ran the rest of his life, their future magazine, and much more: Belle Case La Follette.  
    But the Stalwarts within the GOP continued to bedevil La Follette during his years as governor, 1900-1906 - or, as he termed those years in recognition of Belle, "when we were governor."  For example, he proposed a railroad commission and a tax on railroad companies as well as a direct primary system for the state, but the Stalwarts in the legislature - in his own party - repeatedly blocked his agenda.  So in his 1904 re-election race, when the Stalwarts organized to oppose La Follette's nomination and moved to block any reform legislation, "Fighting Bob" formed the first of his many successful coalitions outside the party, uniting with insurgent Democrats to win some revisions to the railroad tax structure and passage of the direct primary bill.  Soon, the Stalwarts were outflanked for the most part . . . and, of course, La Follette went on to form a series of coalitions of his insurgent Progressives and others for years, still leading the state party from afar when he went on to Washington.  

    And when the coalition brought together his Progressives centered in the state capital with upstate Populists and Milwaukee Socialists, history would be made in Wisconsin, which would set a reform agenda realized nationwide decades later by a fighting Democrat.  See: the New Deal. So when you see FDR accused of being a Socialist, there is some logic to it!  He picked up some reforms pushed by Socialists and then picked up by the Progressives -- and more reforms tried in those desperate times by another governor of Wisconsin, his son Phil, and the Progressive Party.  See: the CCC (although Phil failed in his attempt to get FDR to not give in to the opposition, within his own party, to racial segregation in the federal CCC, sadly).

    But I have strayed far from the story of the Stalwarts in the early days of the Progressives; sorry. . .  Anyway, what I find fascinating is how effective can be those pols who know when to hold 'em, to hold fast against fools within the party as well as without, and who know when to fold 'em and form effective coalitions.  Most effective, it seems, are those pols who put priority on the "effective" part, on real power, even if they never become President . . . as "Fighting Bob" failed to do in the 1920s, when he died soon afterward.  But his legacy lived on, because he put "effective" before ego, as well.

    Not that the Stalwarts did not come back under different names, as "internecine" might as well be the middle name of any party -- all parties being coalitions, and often uncomfortable ones, of course.  The pseudo-Stalwarts continued to bedevil his sons, the governor and the Senator, for decades as well.  Btw, Phil is lesser-known as he stayed in the state, but his governorship in the Depression is well worth studying as well.  His brother "Young Bob" became better known as a Senator, taking his father's seat in 1925, and one who would cross the aisle as well -- but his career was ended decades later by none other than Joe McCarthy (whose attack style seen later by the nation started in Wisconsin, attacks that were said to have led to "Young Bob's" later suicide, although he also was subject to chronic depression, as had been his father; for this, the book Belle is best and, if flawed, quite revealing for many reasons, as it was written recently by none other than yet another La Follette. . . .

    And as for the legacy living on, only one state-level Democrat incumbent survived the GOP sweep yesterday in Wisconsin:  A La Follette, a very very distant cousin but one who has benefitted from the surname by serving as state Secretary of State for decades now . . . and, no doubt, for decades to come.  The legacy is more stalwart than any of those in the opposition!

    Thanks for the break, Peter.  But back to grading, I must go. . . .


    Colorful names of the times (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 10:05:16 PM EST
    Stalwarts vs the Half-breeds.

    I would feel better about this (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:32:12 PM EST
    except that taking a third of offices sought, for a movement only months old, is something not seen for a long time.

    I am reminded of a pol, an ardent abolitionist, who was reluctant to switch from the Whigs until years after a movement became a political party, starting in a small town in the Midwest -- even though that ardent abolitionist applauded all of the party's aims.  But a lot of cautious Whigs and pols and others thought that the idea of a new party succeeding at that chaotic time in our history was just, well, crazy and nothing for which to risk one's career with a switch.

    That party started in 1854.  It took the majority in the House of Representatives two years later.  And that pol who finally switched to the new party won the presidency for that party in 1860.

    You know what? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:06:13 PM EST
    It reminds me of the anti-war movement in the 70's. They tend to fizzle out after a while for one reason or another. And what are they going to do if Romney is the nominee? The GOP elite already know that a tea party candidate can't win nationwide hence the get rid of Palin movement that's afoot.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 07:41:36 AM EST
    Considering this "party" didn't exist when Obama took office, winning 32% of the races seems like a pretty good night.

    But then, I'm just a conservative shill (at least according to some).


    This is ridiculously vacuous without context (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by abdiel on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:26:14 PM EST
    What % of races would have constituted a "strong" showing? What % of races did the GOP/Dems/progressives/Blue Dogs win?

    That is a Lot of Influence (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 09:27:16 AM EST
    Considering self identified Tea Partiers are around 6%, that's huge.

    If true blue liberal like myself could get those kind of numbers I would be ecstatic today even after losing the House.  They got their own out to vote which is more than I can say for my party.

    I don't have the numbers so this is a guess, but as a percentage, I think the minuscule Tea Party came damn close to the same percentages of wins in the House.

    The good news, is without the Tea Party, the Senate would probably be in R's hands or at the very least a 50/50 split.

    Shhh! You're destroying the narrative! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 09:53:19 AM EST
    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#3)
    by TomStewart on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:17:15 PM EST
    That's not the correct media meme. The tea party is victorious and now the new sheriff in town. It hold sway over America, the tea party IS America.


    32% (none / 0) (#11)
    by star on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 08:43:27 AM EST
    Is 32% too many. For an entity that came about about in under 2 yrs.

    We can move the goal posts (none / 0) (#14)
    by Slado on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 09:58:16 AM EST
    or we can sit back and acknowledge whether we like it or not that after 2008 a movement sprung up organically and completely changed the debate in Washington.

    The next two years will be spend arguing about taxes and debt.  

    Who will win?  Who knows.  But the debate is will be a direct result of the tea party movement.

    One can turn their nose up and set all sorts of unrealistic expectations to make one deny the obvious and one can also not acknowledge that some of these people are crazy.

    But sometimes a little crazy is good.  Cindy Sheehan was crazy but wasn't she right in a weird way?   Isn't Code Pink a little crazy?

    You get the point.

    The tea party was a movement that expressed the real concerns of debt and taxes.

    Agree or disagree but these basic premises are not crazy.

    How to get there is what matters.

    Whatever (none / 0) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 01:25:46 PM EST
    The tea party was a movement that expressed the real concerns of debt and taxes.

    Concerns, pleaze.  If they were actually concerned, they might actually take economics seriously, but they don't.

    They believe that lowering taxes decrease the deficit, that is crazy X 10.

    They believe Obama has increase their taxes which is even crazier because each and everyone of them could easily exam their own tax returns.

    It's crazy that the debt GWB racked up, 8 trillion dollars didn't bother a fricken soon-to-be teabagger.  It took a black liberal president to wake these clown up, why do you suppose that is ?  Easy, because they are crazy.  

    It's crazy to believe Obama had anything to do with bailing out the banks, that legislation was passed on Bush's watch, yet there isn't a teabagger alive who seems to understand Google, the truth, or even reality, which is again, crazy.

    It is absolutely crazy to use the terms socialist, communist, and nazi interchangeably.  They are completely different and conflicting ideologies.  

    It is crazy to claim the Constitution is infallible, then in the same breathe declare at least 5 amendments need repealing.

    Of course, if they aren't crazy as you suggest, it means they are so utterly stoooopid, that they appear crazy.


    Bush is gone (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 07:20:35 PM EST
    The debt has gone up under the Democratic controlled Congress about $5 trillion. Obama has been responsible for most of the $5 trillion.

    Sorry, that canine doesn't seek prey (none / 0) (#22)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:11:26 PM EST
    From www.cato-at-liberty(dot)org:

    But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009  fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House So is we update the chart to show the Bush fiscal years in green, we can see that Obama is partly right in claiming that he inherited a mess (though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bush's last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an "omnibus" spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending).

    Click Me

    You kid your friends if you want (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 09:55:47 PM EST
    But the Democrats took control 2/2007.

    You can run but you can't hide.


    Don't be moving the goal posts (none / 0) (#26)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 07:02:53 AM EST
    now you want to absolve GWB of any responsibility for any budget passed after 2006 when I've shown that Obama can't be heldresponsible (except as one of 100 Senators) for the 2009 budget, which was signed into law by GWB in 2008.

    Thanks for the laughs again, as well as displaying why cliches are to be avoided at all cost.


    Are you saying the Democrats (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 09:52:26 AM EST
    were in charge in 2007???


    I never knew that.


    were not in charge (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 09:55:00 AM EST
    lets see.. (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 10:28:50 AM EST
    the shrub and his minions are now and forever completely exonerated from any charges of mismanagement, but, for hither-to-unexplained reasons, sometime in 08, tens-of-thousands of people suddenly became deathly afraid of publicly identifying themselves with the republican party..

    it was a completely new movement, composed of disgruntled citizens from every quarter -- that still, when pressed, sees all the evil in the country stemming from the actions of liberal-marxist-socialist-fascist democrats..lol


    Don't be bringing up the reality of (none / 0) (#31)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 01:12:41 PM EST
    6 years of Republican misrule, from 2001 to the end of 2006.

    It's those evillll Democrats who started driving the country down beginning in Feb 2007, until the voters came to their senses this week, don't cha know?


    Nope (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 02:43:02 PM EST
    I didn't say that.

    I just noted that bad ($8 trillion) went to gosh awful ($13.5 trillion) between 2/2007 and now.

    And yes, Obama was elected amid high hopes.

    That has not held up as last Tuesday showed.


    See my comment to Jondee (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 02:46:42 PM EST
    The Tea Party is not about Repub or Demo despite the efforts of the Repubs to claim them and the Demos to marginalize them.

    Yes (none / 0) (#37)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 03:04:59 PM EST
    I didn't say that.

    I just noted that bad ($8 trillion) went to gosh awful ($13.5 trillion) between 2/2007 and now.

    And it's all the fault of the Evil Democrats in Congress, you still don't like to discuss who was in the Oval Office between Feb of 2007 and Jan of 2009, a wise move on your part.

    And yes, Obama was elected amid high hopes.

    That has not held up as last Tuesday showed.

    Oh, I hope that the failure of Republican policies in the coming two years aren't augmented by Obamas' tendency to want to compromise with them, but then I'm an optimistic type.


    the real concern of debt and taxes (none / 0) (#18)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 03:03:12 AM EST
    on the part of those who don't want to be perceived (hence the "Tea Party" name change) as being responsible for giving us a President who left office with a 30% approval rating -- even though they in large part were.

    As if the debate about debt and taxes wouldn't have occurred any way, regardless of whether the people-too-embarrassed-to-admit-they-voted-for-Bush existed or not.



    MSNBC's list is wrong (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 08:21:46 PM EST
    in at least two places.

    Blackburn (TN 7th) and Fincher (TN 8th) should be shown.

    Could it be that MSNBC is trying to marginalize the Tea Party?

    Why yes. Yes it could.

    Or it could be that (none / 0) (#17)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 02:32:59 AM EST
    the races were so close that they couldn't make the list when it was drawn up the day after the election.

    Yep those two races, when added in, would make it a whopping 33%.

    Thanks for demonstrating what the paranoid style in American politics looks like.  :-D


    No both won by huge margins (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 07:18:15 PM EST
    and the races were called around 8PM...

    Thanks for demonstrating the "let me find an excuse" style in American politics.


    Then the right thing to do is to (none / 0) (#21)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:04:49 PM EST
    bring it to the attention of the folks who wrote the article, instead of getting all paranoid because a mistake has been apparently made that affects the headline, by what, 2%?

    Also, who is and isn't a Tea Partier isn't set in stone:

    Identifying Tea Party candidates is undoubtedly inexact. Our criteria, generally, was to include anyone who has either been backed by a Tea Party group or has identified themselves as a member of the Tea Party movement. Toward the end of this cycle, however, seemingly every Republican was trying to associate themselves this way. One left off the list was Dino Rossi, despite Jim DeMint endorsing him, since Tea Party groups backed Clint Didier in the primary.

    So please, peddle your paranoia papers somewhere else.


    I will write what I want (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 09:57:27 PM EST
    And pointing out that MSNBC would cook the books is merely stating facts.

    We both know that so please quit posturing.


    Funny, you didn't (none / 0) (#25)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 06:56:47 AM EST
    get all het up when Fox News 'cooked the books' with their 'terrorist fist jab' remark by E. D. Hill:

    From mediamatters(dot)org:

    Teasing a segment on the "gesture everyone seems to interpret differently," Fox News' E.D. Hill said: "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? ... We'll show you some interesting body communication and find out what it really says." In the ensuing discussion with a "body language expert," Hill referred to the "Michelle and Barack Obama fist bump or fist pound," but at no point did she explain her earlier reference to "a terrorist fist jab."

    Click Me

    Keep it up with your conspiracy theories, maybe you'll replace Jesse Ventura on TruTV next year...............


    Oh please (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 09:49:52 AM EST
    If you want to complain about FNC be my guest, but your comparison is not even close. The Demos lost 1 in 4 of their Reps. MSNBC was clearly trying to make things look better.

    I cited the Fox News 'terrorist fist-bump' (none / 0) (#32)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 01:35:03 PM EST
    as an example of what obvious "bias" looks like, and you counter that I obviously want to complain about FNC.

    but your comparison is not even close.

    Well, no, they just made something up, while you're alleging that that evil corporate Socialist MSNBC omitted the names of 2 Tea Party winners because they want to bias their story against them.

    the Demos lost 1 in 4 of their Reps

    And most of them were Blue Dogs, not many of them were Progressives, and the SCLM doesn't mention that because of their fear of the Far Left, no doubt.

    Facts be facts, as much as you may dislike them.

    MSNBC was clearly trying to make things look better.

    And from which website did you receive this revelation, or did you come up with it on your own?

    The Paranoid Style in American Politics, from www.columbia(dot)edu:

    But there is a vital difference between the paranoid spokesman in politics and the clinical paranoiac: although they both tend to be overheated, oversuspicious, overaggressive, grandiose, and apocalyptic in expression, the clinical paranoid sees the hostile and conspiratorial world in which he feels himself to be living as directed specifically against him him; whereas the spokesman of the paranoid style finds it directed against a nation, a culture, a way of life whose fate affects not himself alone: but millions of others. Insofar as he does not usually see himself singled out as the individual victim of a personal conspiracy,' he is somewhat more rational and much more disinterested. His seuse that his political passions are unselfish and patriotic, in fact, goes far to intensify his feeling of righteousness and his moral indignation.

    Click Me


    The facts that MSNBC (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 02:50:53 PM EST
    was trying to make things look better came to me via reading what they did and using knowledge of the results and common sense.

    Now, go ahead and complain about Fox.

    Two wrongs do not make a right.


    Then you have 10 for originality (none / 0) (#36)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 02:57:33 PM EST
    Zero for any evidence of your idea being true.

    Now, go ahead and complain about Fox.

    Two wrongs do not make a right.

    Yes, they omitted two Tea Partiers because that would've brought the statistic in question into the mid instead of low 30s.

    Now, go ahead and demonstrate the logic behind your reasoning, if you can.


    My proof was in my first comment (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 07:08:34 PM EST
    Memory is the first thing that goes on old age.


    And they missed a bunch of others.

    We all know that, so why the discussion?


    "Vague/no link" red flag (none / 0) (#39)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 07:36:21 PM EST
    What "bunch of others" did they miss?

    PPj specializes in hand-waving (none / 0) (#40)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Nov 08, 2010 at 05:00:00 AM EST
    when someone asks for specific details, so don't expect any facts and reasoning to support what he writes here.

    I've seen it many times (none / 0) (#41)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 08, 2010 at 11:11:59 AM EST
    Just makes it up as he goes along, then provides no evidence when called on it.

    You'd think at some point the embarrassment would be enough to put a stop to just making completely specious claims.


    Not to mention that what he describes (none / 0) (#43)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Nov 08, 2010 at 04:30:37 PM EST
    is indistinguishable from paranoid ideation, from www.about(dot)com:

    Definition: Having beliefs that you are being harassed or persecuted, or beliefs involving general suspiciousness about others' motives or intent.

    Click Me


    "It came to me.. (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 08, 2010 at 11:38:17 AM EST
    during the physical act of love, Mandrake"