Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The reality is the Republican base didn't choose Mike Castle in Delaware it chose Christine O'Donnell. The Republican base didn't choose Sue Lowden in Nevada, it chose Sharron Angle. The Republican base didn't choose Lisa Murkowski it chose Joe Miller. These were all experienced Republican politicians that lost to Tea Party upstarts.
In primaries the partisan base has much more influence than the political establishment. Right now the Tea Party in this country is in control of the Republican Party base in many states of this country.
You have hit upon one of the main problems with BOTH parties in this country. The primaries or caucases involve only a small portion of either party, all too often the most extreme members. In many cases the far left base of the Dem party have nominated far-left members in the primaries, just as the R base often choose more extreme right-wing candidates, especially those with ties to the religious right. In both scenarios, the vast majortity of the moderate/independant voices in this country are ignored.
As to the Tea Party, thier message of limited government and fiscal responsibility (apparently) appeals to a large portion of the electorate, I hope both parties got that message. Unfortunately, IMO they are in many cases the candidates are "babes in the woods" in terms of political experience. The learning curve will be steep. IMO the reason several of the Tea Party candidates were defeated wasn't the message, it was because the individuals were poor candidates.
You have hit upon one of the main problems with BOTH parties in this country. The primaries or caucases involve only a small portion of either party, all too often the most extreme members. In many cases the far left base of the Dem party have nominated far-left members in the primaries, just as the R base often choose more extreme right-wing candidates, especially those with ties to the religious right. In both scenarios, the vast majortity of the moderate/independant voices in this country are ignored.
As to the Tea Party, thier message of limited government and fiscal responsibility (apparently) appeals to a large portion of the electorate, I hope both parties got that message. Unfortunately, IMO they are in many cases the candidates are "babes in the woods" in terms of political experience. The learning curve will be steep. IMO the reason several of the Tea Party candidates were defeated wasn't the message, it was because the individuals were poor candidates.
Good point, you can throw a lot of money at a lousy candidate and make them shiny, but they are still a lousy candidate.
Although I admit, I did chuckle that Alvin Green got like 30% of the vote.
No, you haven't thought things through far enough. Dig deeper.
Quote:
The reality is the Republican base didn't choose Mike Castle in Delaware it chose Christine O'Donnell. The Republican base didn't choose Sue Lowden in Nevada, it chose Sharron Angle. The Republican base didn't choose Lisa Murkowski it chose Joe Miller. These were all experienced Republican politicians that lost to Tea Party upstarts.
Think about why that is, and you'll begin to get it.
Quote:
In primaries the partisan base has much more influence than the political establishment. Right now the Tea Party in this country is in control of the Republican Party base in many states of this country.
Not in control... offering a more attractive alternative: individual liberty, smaller government, states' rights, and fiscal conservatism.
My personal opinion? I think there's going to be a steady push to move the tea party toward more social conservative issues--the libertarian faction is going to get left out in the cold, and the TP base can't do much damage to the R agenda that way.
I think you're mistaken. The fiscal conservatism is what is attracting most to the Tea Party. If that focus fades and moves more into social issues, more and more people will lose interest in the TP as it will no longer represent their interests.
...
Although I admit, I did chuckle that Alvin Green got like 30% of the vote.
I had forgotten about him, good point. IIRC there are some states where "none of the above" is actually on the ballet. It's telling when that option gets more votes than party candidates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
I think you're mistaken. The fiscal conservatism is what is attracting most to the Tea Party. If that focus fades and moves more into social issues, more and more people will lose interest in the TP as it will no longer represent their interests.
And we have a winner! The focus on social issues by both parties has been offensive and a distraction. And is one more case where moderate/independant voters are not represented.
I had forgotten about him, good point. IIRC there are some states where "none of the above" is actually on the ballet. It's telling when that option gets more votes than party candidates.
And this is exactly what our political body just doesn't seem to get.
And this is exactly what our political body just doesn't seem to get.
A portion of the problem involves the primary/caucase process where typically a very small portion of the party selects the 2 candidates the balance of us have as viable options to vote on in the general elections. My observation is that the most active/vocal/motivated members that are constantly involved in the parties between elections are typically the more "far" members of the party, left or right. They have tended to move the selection of candidates towards both ends of the spectrum.
The question is how to resolve that? If we can't break the 2 party system (another thread) we need more moderates involved in both parties. Initially the Tea Party movement seemed to represent that. I've only attended 2 "rallies". The first was very independant in focus, equally critical of R and D policies where they have led to fiscal disaster. And critical of aspects of the Patriot Act. I had some hope that they were a movement that might represent my interests. The second one...not so much. Lots of bible thumping and campaigning by the local Republicans.
I hope the tea party endorsed candidates stay focused on the fiscal/limited government issues they campaigned on, and swing the R party that way. Alternatively, I wouldn't have been heartbroken if they had sided with the Dems and supported moderate "blue dogs" and turned the party away from the Pelosi wing that ran it into the gutter.
My fear is that the TP candidates will go with the flow of the R party and any momentum towards a fiscally responsible, moderate policy will be lost.
It would be very plesant to vote for a candidate I actually felt good about supporting, rather than the "lesser of two evils".
A portion of the problem involves the primary/caucase process where typically a very small portion of the party selects the 2 candidates the balance of us have as viable options to vote on in the general elections. My observation is that the most active/vocal/motivated members that are constantly involved in the parties between elections are typically the more "far" members of the party, left or right. They have tended to move the selection of candidates towards both ends of the spectrum.
The question is how to resolve that? If we can't break the 2 party system (another thread) we need more moderates involved in both parties. Initially the Tea Party movement seemed to represent that. I've only attended 2 "rallies". The first was very independant in focus, equally critical of R and D policies where they have led to fiscal disaster. And critical of aspects of the Patriot Act. I had some hope that they were a movement that might represent my interests. The second one...not so much. Lots of bible thumping and campaigning by the local Republicans.
I hope the tea party endorsed candidates stay focused on the fiscal/limited government issues they campaigned on, and swing the R party that way. Alternatively, I wouldn't have been heartbroken if they had sided with the Dems and supported moderate "blue dogs" and turned the party away from the Pelosi wing that ran it into the gutter.
My fear is that the TP candidates will go with the flow of the R party and any momentum towards a fiscally responsible, moderate policy will be lost.
It would be very plesant to vote for a candidate I actually felt good about supporting, rather than the "lesser of two evils".
I would have probably enjoyed the first meeting you attended, but the TP groups in my area are all radical social conservatives--lots of "I hate Mexicans and Muslims" rants, anti-gay stuff...my DH went to one meeting to check it out, and it was awful. He's a very even keeled, practical person, and he just shook his head. If the movement was focused on rational, pragmatic ways to make government smaller and more efficient, I'd be at the front of the line carrying the flag. I hope for everyone's sake that that's the direction they head toward, but I just don't see it happening with the existing R leadership in charge, and the large number of social conservatives that make up the R base. It's a pity...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
