The Tea Party made lots of noise and woke the neighbors, but precious few in-roads into the political system. True, Marc Rubio and Rand Paul were big winners but each benefited from some peculiar circumstances. Rubio won in a three way race punctuated by former spurned Repub Governor Crist’s independent bid along with a Democratic challenger who won just enough to split the vote of the rational and give Rubio the nod. Rand benefited from the strong conservative sentiment in Kentucky and what Mark Twain best described this way: “When the end of the world comes, I want to be in Kentucky because it’s always twenty years behind the times.”
Other Party guests did not fair so well — even in a time of popular disenchantment with government and a bad economy. Unpopular Senator Harry Reid survived a bid from Sharon Angle of “there is no separation of church and state” fame. First Amendment scholar, former Wiccan, and Angle devotee, Christine O’Donnell, sank against Chris Coons by 18 points. Even in far off Alaska, Palin-approved candidate Joe Miller looks to be a loser in a three way race to a write-in candidate and incumbent, Lisa Murkowski.
How did that poster child for The Movement and likely 2012 Presidential candidate, Sarah Plain, do with her endorsements? Well, that sprinkling of Alaskan tea resulted in 33 loses and 27 wins. Not exactly the “Golden Touch.” All in all, the Tea Party can claim some measure of victory, but the win is less than satisfying. After the Party’s hangover, the realization will set in that “winning” requires “fixing” else-wise the fickle electorate will turn you out like yesterday’s newspaper. And that, my revolutionary friends, is the hardest tea to swallow of all.
–Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
“Obama’s meekness” (Mike S)
=======================================================
That’s it! That’s the word I’ve been hunting for … meekness
(Welcome back! I took your prediction to mean the crazies (teabaggers) wouldn’t win, not that the Republicans wouldn’t take control … I misread your prediction)
Mike S.,
Welcome back! It’s good to see your face here at the Turley blog again. I hope you’re feeling well.
Mike S Glad to see you.
“Elaine M. 1, November 3, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Byron,
It will be interesting to see if there’s a huge blow-out of Rebublicans/Tea Partiers in 2012. I’m not so sure Americans will be all that happy with some of the people they voted into office this year.”
Its definentely going to be “wheres the beef”
Mike S:
Good to see you up and around.
Elaine:
you are probably right. this was a repudiation of Obama’s policies. He went too far too fast. If he had stuck to Saul Alinskis Rules for Radicals (a very interesting book, by the way. He was a very smart man although I disagree with his politics) he probably could have pulled it off before the public woke up.
If the republicans don’t deliver on less government and lower taxes, they will be gone in 2012. Obama may be able to be re-elected in 2012 but he is going to have pressure from Clinton and other “moderate” dems. This was a huge loss and Obama is the reason. It wasn’t only republicans who voted for republicans.
It would be interesting to see the demographics of this election to see if this can be sustained for the next 20 years.
I am enjoying a good victory cigar and savoring the moment. All things human are temporary and transitory. Even the pyramids will turn to dust with time.
Some weeks prior to this election I predicted the Dems would win the house. I was wrong and admitting it now. There are a lot more uninformed people in the US than I believed. Also Obama’s meekness has played a storng role in this defeat.
Buddha – Applies to O’Donnell too, but did you mean to Angle?
Swarthmore mom wrote:
“The real winner was Karl Rove.”
And refering to Angle:
“I don’t think Reid had to cheat. She did herself in.”
Right on the mark.
I’m with Smom on O’Donnell’s failure. It’s a self-inflicted wound. The woman should never have run for office in the first place.
It’s been cyclical for decades now … anyone who thinks they’ve got it made today won’t be feeling that way two years from today, just like anyone who thought they had it made two years ago today, feel differently now. John Boehner isn’t cheering today … he knows how iffy it all is … and he knows the orange jokes are coming …
Byron When I heard the casino owners expressing their fears about Angle on CNBC, I knew Reid was going to win. She was too dumb and too racist to win in a republican year. Her pastor also insulted the state’s mormons. I don’t think Reid had to cheat. She did herself in.
Byron,
It will be interesting to see if there’s a huge blow-out of Rebublicans/Tea Partiers in 2012. I’m not so sure Americans will be all that happy with some of the people they voted into office this year.
Byron Do you think the country made a turn to the right after Obama was elected?
65 seats in the house, wasnt this the largest change ever?
6 seats in the senate.
“Outside of Washington the Republicans ushered in big changes at the state level, picking up at least 10 Governorships across the U.S. The GOP won in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Tennessee, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Iowa, New Mexico, and Wisconsin. The Republicans now have at least 30 governorships.”
19 State legislators have switched from democratic to republican control, don’t they set districts?
The blue is on the coasts, the majority of the interior is red.
Harry Reid probably didn’t win honestly. Chuck Schummer thought he was going to be the next senate majority leader.
Joe Manchin ran as a Reagan Republican.
This was a huge blow-out and an out right repudiation of Obama’s policies. But spin it however you want if it will allow you to sleep at night.
Swarthmore mom
1, November 3, 2010 at 12:14 pm
The real winner was Karl Rove.
=========================================================
In that he did not support all the crazies … you’re right
The real winner was Karl Rove.
I agree with mespo’s analysis and might add that the corporate interests that backed a lot of the crazies wasted a great deal of money.
As to enibob’s post … I don’t agree with the analysis offered by Farmer. Technology has entered the political ring in major ways. The internet has exposed much of the smoke-filled back rooms and hinted at further expositions. We are in a shakedown period and no one knows who is in charge of anything because no one really is.
Humans don’t like the unknowable and have always responded with knowables to counter their lack of knowledge. Humans worshiped the sun-god until the workings of the sun became knowable … same with the fire-god, rain-god, etc.
Political parties used to provide answers and were able to convince others that their party knew what to do. That is no longer the case … nobody really believes any party knows what is best so people are either looking backwards to the “good ol’ days” or falling for cheap charismatics like Obama … trying desperately to know the unknowable that is our present state.
Fortunately, the tea party Republican/birther/racist/nut job candidate for Congress from my district lost by a wide margin.
Here’s something Matt taibbi wrote on his blog at Rolling Stone yesterday:
“The Wisconsin situation with Russ Feingold is very depressing, but of course, depressing and stupid seems to be the theme for this election season generally.”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/229894/83512
Pledge of allegiance to part no more
Published: Wednesday, November 03, 2010, 6:20 AM/The Star-Ledger
By John Farmer
With yesterday’s Republican surge, American politics appears to have entered the era of seesaw national elections, with voter preferences swinging wildly between the parties from election to election.
It wasn’t always that way. Indeed, for most of the country’s history, at least from the mid-1900s on, one-party domination of the national government was the rule. From 1860 to 1932, a 72-year period, Democrats won the presidency only three times and were only marginally more successful in congressional elections. The GOP enjoyed a solid post-Civil War national consensus.
Beginning in 1933, Democrats held the presidency for 20 consecutive years and dominated congressional elections. Until the Gingrich revolution in 1994, Democrats enjoyed an unbroken 40-year run of House control. Democrats, in their turn, enjoyed a post-Great Depression national consensus.
But the era of one-party has come to a close, recent evidence suggests.
The two parties have swapped the presidency four times in the last 30 years, a sharp departure from the historical past. Three of the six presidents before Barack Obama — Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush — were ousted from office by dissatisfied voters.
And the last three elections — 2006, 2008 and this year — have seen seismic shifts in the loyalties of the American electorate.
What’s behind it? The most obvious reason seems the deterioration of party allegiance. Until relatively recently, a majority of voters identified with either the Republican or Democratic parties. But no longer. Those who profess no allegiance to either party — independents — are now the largest segment of the electorate, pollsters tell us.
The base that leaders of both parties talk so much about is a shrinking reality these days.
And what of independents? With no pre-election commitment to party or personalities or even ideology, these free spirits are up for grabs each election, susceptible to swings in the national mood or the appeal of charismatic political candidates as never before.
It’s what underlays much of Obama’s stunning, come-from-nowhere appeal two years ago, and what this year made him and his Democratic Party so vulnerable to the spike in joblessness and the general economic decline.
But that alone doesn’t explain the sudden fickleness of the American voter. Television and the mountains of money that now help drive electoral decisions are also factors.
Not too long ago, the Democratic and Republican Party establishments controlled both the message and the money that moved elections and, in particular, allowed party leaders to control nominations for high office. But that’s over. Television has allowed insurgent candidates to appeal over the heads of party leaders — witness the tea party dominance of some GOP primaries — and the seemingly unlimited amounts of personal and special interest money sloshing through campaigns coffers has permitted them, not party leaders, to shape the message voters hear.
Too often that message, crafted by Washington’s legion of hit-and-run campaign consultants, is a blistering attack ad, often full of falsehoods. These ads, while undoubtedly energizing partisans in the two parties, may serve only to swell the ranks of independents repelled by this daily dose of TV venom.
Is this a peculiarly American phenomenon? Not really, according to Britain’s authoritative weekly magazine. “The Economist.”
“In America, Europe and elsewhere,” the magazine noted, “the era of tight affiliation to political parties is over. Successful politicians surmount party allegiances rather than entrench them. Voters increasingly pick policies, rather than signing up to comprehensive world views.”
A good thing, right? Maybe not, the magazine found. Instead it cited a study of politics in 38 countries by a pair of British political scientists, which, it said, “shows a strong correlation between political partisanship and good public administration.”
Who’d have guessed it? We were better off governmentally with the bosses.
John Farmer is a Star-Ledger columnist.