If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RealClearPolitics)   Their senate candidates are losing, a big chunk of their 2010 class of representatives are on track to be drummed from office and their presidential candidate has abandoned them in his etch-a-sketch to the center: the Tea Party is dead   (realclearpolitics.com) divider line 165
    More: Obvious, tea party movement, presidents, Barry Goldwater, Automotive industry in the United States  
•       •       •

3036 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Oct 2012 at 4:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



165 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-26 08:49:40 AM

MisterRonbo: jso2897: weltallica: Almost as dead as the Occupy movement.

There are no degrees of "dead". The Teaparty was an attempt to revive the corpse of late 50's, early sxties John Bircher right wing fanaticism.
It failed.
OWS was an attempt to revive the corpse of late-sixties leftist activism. It has also failed.
Time to move on from zombie politics.

Yeah, OWS is dead, 'cause you never hear anybody talk about the 99% or the top 2% any more. Oh, wait.

Look at the polling numbers for raising taxed on the rich. OWS didn't fail, it won, the idead are now a huge presence in political discourse.


Taxes. Ideas.

Phone keyboard sucKs
 
2012-10-26 08:53:55 AM

Rev. Skarekroe: jakomo002: Seriously, Americans need to really try hard to introduce MORE POLITICAL PARTIES.

We introduce political parties all the time. The trick is getting them on the ballot and making the press pay attention to them.


It would require instant-runoff voting, which the current two parties would never agree to.
 
2012-10-26 08:58:13 AM

MisterRonbo: Taxes. Ideas.


I thought you meant the iDead, in reference to braindead Apple fanboys... arguably they are a much bigger political presence than they were a few years ago.
 
2012-10-26 09:02:26 AM
No, the TeaBaggers aren't dead, especially down here in NC. The "YG Group" is funding several of them running against incumbents in the House, and several others (Renee Ellmers in particular) are running unopposed thanks to favorable redistricting by our Republican led legislature. They may be losing some seats but they'll still be a force for the next two years.
 
2012-10-26 09:03:25 AM
Regional party? I guess I'm stuck in one of those regions.
 
2012-10-26 09:03:46 AM
There will be a Tea Party as long as there are fundamentalist idiots who are willing to believe any bullshiat handed to them and who think election fraud, wars in the Middle East, and turning America into a feudal corporatocracy are God's Will. It may change its name, and it may change its disguise, but it will always be the John Birch Society the Moral Majorityneoconservatism The Tea Party.
 
2012-10-26 09:08:25 AM

indylaw: Zerochance: Muta: Zerochance: It's undeniable that Romney is making some inexplicable gains in the polls, particularly with women.

The Mourdock rape talk will stop that trend.

Doubt it. I think it may have a very slight effect, but is it going to seriously hurt Romney? No. I think a lot of Republican female voters can justify the weapons-grade douchiness of Mourdock's statements by making this entirely about abortion while ignoring the intrinsic misogyny of saying that God intends for women to get raped.

Republican women are a smaller voting bloc than women in the middle. That's what the Republican slobs have to be careful about. A Republican woman will hold her nose and vote for some vagina-controlling throwback, but a female voter who is on the fence could be swayed by this kind of stuff.


I hope so, but I feel women whose vote could be swayed entirely on reproductive health are quite possibly already voting for Obama. My wife actually could be described as this kind of female voter. She's not hugely politically active, but she's very much pro-choice, and is predominantly voting on the issue of reproductive health.

She is also a small business owner and has seen first-hand an economic rebound, so she's not voting on a single issue, but it is mostly reproductive health for sure.
 
2012-10-26 09:08:57 AM

Guntram Shatterhand: Considering the Republican Party is catering heavily to their dying, bigoted base, excuse my lack of belief that they can reach out to other voters without showing their classic contempt and bigotry. They've already alienated the young white base with their constant assholery, what makes you think these idiots can pander to anybody who isn't lily white and born into a rich family?

The Republicans wrote a check their ass can't cash, and now they think they can win back hearts. They can keep believing in that myth if it stops them from going even further into Al Qaeda-land.


You're underestimating the GOP's ability to re-brand itself. The Angertainment machine has been pretty successful at getting folks to vote against their own interests for some time now... I don't see that going away anytime soon. I fear a GOP loss this time around just ratchets up the hatred and vitriol to 11.

This business will get out of control...
 
2012-10-26 09:09:30 AM

MurphyMurphy: brianbankerus: dameron: It'll be very tempting for them to court the tea party as the demographics slide against them but that will only doom them, so I figure 2016 is a lost cause as they go bloody to the wall. Maybe they pick Rubio and it forestalls that a bit as they snipe a good percentage of the hispanic vote, but to be sure, the rich douchebag faction of the party is going to have to find more voters and soon.

Or maybe they steal this election. They're sure trying their assess off.

Many pundits are of the opinion that this will be the last presidential election the Republicans will have before they have to face abandoning or changing some long held core tenets

They lose this one and they lost their last chance to really solidify long-term footing on many parts of their agenda.
Just look at what they get if they win:
-good chance of house and senate (which they will capitalize on before they can type the headlines)
-good chance of at least one SC justice
-ride the wave of a (hopefully) inevitable economic recovery, convincing many that the supply side lie is the one and true way to go
-something something middle east

It could be real interesting what happens to the (R) if they lose this... or me and many are wrong and nothing much changes. If the moderates have had enough and take the helm the party has the possibility of becoming something useful and worth voting for (as hard as that might be to believe).

My guess is if they lose, the first thing you see a complete about face on will be immigration reform.
It has a real good chance of becoming 'see who can open the flood gates to new voters' reform. Especially with Texas already having popped the 'zero tolerance' cherry that Arizona and so many others are still clinging to.


I honestly think there's going to be an ideological split in the Republican party in the next few years, because a number of the younger, more reasonable Republican insiders have looked at the demographic trends and they know that the current model is unsustainable. But I seriously doubt that the hard-liners and the old guard are going to be willing enough to abandon conservative principles on several social issues and immigration. And remember, the Republican party has developed a history of putting their weight behind - and then nominating - the candidate who was a runner-up in the previous primary.

In 1976, Ford's runner up was Reagan, who was nominated in 1980,
over G.H.W. Bush, who became the vice-president and the presumptive nominee in 1988, although...
Bob Dole put up a challenge in 1988, but Bush ultimately won out.

Fast forward to 1996, and Dole wins ahead of Pat Buchanan. But everyone realized Buchanan was too extremist for a general election. So in 2000, it came down to W and McCain. Bush Jr. becomes president, leaving McCain to wait for 2008. And remember how dead in the water McCain was in 2007? It was supposed to be a four-way race with Romney, Huckabee, Guiliani, and Fred Thompson with McCain barely clinging to his campaign. But McCain had a very well-established name in New Hampshire and managed to beat the former Massachusetts governor in his backyard. So Romney ended up coming in second, and then in 2012 the big money lined up behind him early.

But this poses an interesting crossroads for the Republican party in 2016, as we've discussed. According to the formula, Santorum would be the presumptive front-runner, because he came in second and had the most success and experience of all the candidates.

But, will the party see Santorum as the second coming of Pat Buchanan and move away from his ideological stances?
 
2012-10-26 09:09:40 AM

retarded: Are there any Vegas books are betting sites where one could actually place a bet on who winds the election?


==========

Intrade

"Intrade is a prediction market which allow individuals to take positions (trade 'contracts') on whether future events will or will not occur. An example event is a political election, which is almost always settled in a well-defined and easily verifiable manner. The contract might be "Barack Obama to win 2012 U.S. presidential election." Other events include financial predictions, such as "NASDAQ Average to close higher today." Intrade facilitates trades between members, charging a monthly fee,[4] but does not participate in trading itself. ........................In the 2004 presidential election, the market favorite won the electoral vote in every state."

Since intrade requires people who are making predictions to put some skin in the game.....make money bets.....it's capitalism as pure as it gets. So what does the "invisible hand of the market" say about the 2012 prez contest? They are calling it for Obama.

Suck it, Randoids.
 
2012-10-26 09:11:13 AM
The DE TP "candidate" who beat Christine "I am not a witch" O'Donnell in the primaries was just drummed out of the race because he's a child molester. So there's that.

A Sussex County grand jury issued an indictment for Eric Bodenweiser on 39 counts of first degree unlawful sexual intercourse and 74 counts of second-degree unlawful sexual contact.

One Hundred Thirteen Counts. Ah. Ah. Ah.
 
2012-10-26 09:11:40 AM

DjangoStonereaver: Happy Hours: Nope - Rubio is not a natural born citizen according to Tea Partiers. Yes, he was born in Miami but his parents weren't citizens at the time of his birth. In Tea Party land, this means he's not a natural born citizen.

10 years ago a lot of those same people would have supported a Constitutional Amendment to allow
Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for President.


Well, duh. He has the right coloring and wallet content. The Amendment would read, and I quote: "That a person of sufficiently limited amount of melanin shall be allowed to run for President of the United States, if they had been born in a Nation other than the United States of America, and have lived in this Nation for more than twenty years, and made a lot of money, as the wealthy are obviously our betters."
 
2012-10-26 09:12:04 AM
Whoops. Nix that. He's actually affilliated with O'Donnell. He defeated the incumbent in the primary (which is farking weird, right?)
 
2012-10-26 09:13:07 AM

Zerochance: I hope so, but I feel women whose vote could be swayed entirely on reproductive health are quite possibly already voting for Obama. My wife actually could be described as this kind of female voter.


I think there are a lot of women who like the pro-business, small-tax policies of the Republicans, and they essentially hedge their bets that talk about abortions and contraception is just empty talk to win the social conservatives over. If they get the sense that a Republican candidate is not a fanatic, they'll vote for him. If they get the sense that he's actually going to push the social conservative agenda, they get uncomfortable and consider the alternative.
 
2012-10-26 09:28:08 AM

randomjsa: And in 2009 liberals here and elsewhere swore up one side and down the other that the Republican party was a thing of the past.

They've been trying to explain away 2010 ever since


2010 is easy to explain. Most voters stayed home and a radical, energized minority took over because the sane people had better things to do, apparently, than prevent the Tea Party takeover. Granted, part of this was the Democrats refusal to fight the Tea Party, much like Obama didn't fight during the first debate. They saw the Tea Party insanity and thought that they could win people over by having calm, rational discussions. They lost the messaging war and the base got dispirited.

But really, it was the idiots who didn't vote that did it. I blame them, it was their fault. They saw what the Tea Party was up to and thought that it wasn't important to keep those lunatics out of office. That's why I'm hoping the idiot nonvoters of 2010 realize the depth of their stupid mistake and actually get out and vote. If you don't like the Tea Party but stay home, you're an idiot. You will be the reason they stay in power. It will be your fault, I'll blame you. Thankfully, it looks like people are learning from their boneheaded mistake in 2010 and actually voting.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to be at the voting booth in 26 minutes

/voting early today
//you should too
 
2012-10-26 09:29:37 AM

indylaw: I think there are a lot of women who like the pro-business, small-tax policies of the Republicans, and they essentially hedge their bets that talk about abortions and contraception is just empty talk to win the social conservatives over. If they get the sense that a Republican candidate is not a fanatic, they'll vote for him. If they get the sense that he's actually going to push the social conservative agenda, they get uncomfortable and consider the alternative.


Maybe up north, but down here south of the Manson-Nixon line, not so much. Just as old men are fine with sending young men off to war. old women decied they don't have a problem regulating those with working ovaries.

In general, few have any problem with restricting someone else's rights. Defend traditional marriage by restricting the rights of gays? Booyah! Defend traditional marriage by eliminating divorce, or limiting people to one marriage and after that they only get civil unions? Crickets.
 
2012-10-26 09:33:38 AM

Guntram Shatterhand: Considering the Republican Party is catering heavily to their dying, bigoted base, excuse my lack of belief that they can reach out to other voters without showing their classic contempt and bigotry. They've already alienated the young white base with their constant assholery, what makes you think these idiots can pander to anybody who isn't lily white and born into a rich family?


I work with a good deal of young white people who hold the same beliefs as their derpy-ass parents. Granted, I am in a red state, but I believe the classic contempt and bigotry of the Republican base as we know it currently (because there will always be assholes and bigotry will never truly die off) is at least one more generation away from subsiding.

Granted, these younger people have somewhat more of a predisposition to break the cycle, but believe me, it's being passed on
 
2012-10-26 09:36:17 AM

indylaw: I don't think you understand. There's no shortage of political parties in the United States, but the system of voting is designed so that only two parties are relevant. There are changes to the electoral and political system that could be made to make 3rd parties viable, but the people in power from the two major parties have no interest in making those changes.


Yeah, that's what I meant, sorry. VIABLE 3rd parties.

I read somewhere that the Commission that determines which candidates get to show up for the Presidential debates is basically a private enterprise, and they almost always ignore other candidates unless they poll at least 15% in the polls, which is ridiculous.

Far as I know, they even ARRESTED the Green party candidate after she tried to get on the campus grounds for one of the debates. I suppose the only way to enact any kind of change would involve breaking the Democrats and Republicans hold on these things, but they sure as shiat ain't gonna go for a 3rd or 4th party when they've got a veritable monopoly.

But there's gotta be a way.
 
2012-10-26 09:36:30 AM
The dumbest political movement in history.
 
2012-10-26 09:39:41 AM
Wishful thinking, libtards! You think Paul Ryan doesn't have the balls to teabag all of y'all? November's gonna leave a nasty taste in your mouth!


Hey, I resemble that remark. I'm a card carrying libtard and I aint the one out there slurping fat honkie redneck craker ass in all them battlefield states. It's rmoney-ryanus that will have a real bad taste in their mouths on November 7, boy!
 
2012-10-26 09:47:32 AM
I farking hope so......
 
2012-10-26 09:49:50 AM

jakomo002:

I read somewhere that the Commission that determines which candidates get to show up for the Presidential debates is basically a private enterprise, and they almost always ignore other candidates unless they poll at least 15% in the polls, which is ridiculous.



Why is that ridiculous? If you can't poll even 15%, you don't have a remote chance of winning. You're not going to win a single electoral college vote.

What is ridiculous is the belief by many supporters of fringe candidates (I'm looking at the Paulestinians here) is that their candidate's message is so compelling, the only reason he or she isn't a huge national force is because people haven't heard the message. If only they heard it, they'd see the light.

Guess what - you can think you've heard the divine truth, be certain of it, and everyone else thinks your candidate/party/religion/self-help philosophy/preferred lager is shiat.

Here's what the Presidential debates don't need: Even less time hearing from the two people who are viable candidates, and a whole lot of attention whoring by people who would will never hit even double digits.
 
2012-10-26 09:55:19 AM
The Bagger movement always had one foot in the grave. BTW where is it buried? My bladder is full, and I'd like to pay my respects...
 
2012-10-26 09:58:16 AM

dameron: Happy Hours: Nope - Rubio is not a natural born citizen according to Tea Partiers. Yes, he was born in Miami but his parents weren't citizens at the time of his birth. In Tea Party land, this means he's not a natural born citizen.

I mean the mainstream Republicans are going to have to nominate Rubio or someone to attract a broader base. I think they're really farked going forward nationally.


They should adopt the liberal policy of simply bribing people for votes.
 
2012-10-26 10:01:38 AM
Romney was hard right during the campaign for the endorsement, then ran to the middle to campaign for the election.

You mean like every other candidate ever?
 
2012-10-26 10:12:33 AM
Here's hoping Michael Bloomberg runs in 2016 as an independent.

/it's not out of the question- he almost ran in 2008.
 
2012-10-26 10:12:41 AM

jso2897: geek_mars: jso2897: weltallica: Almost as dead as the Occupy movement.

There are no degrees of "dead". The Teaparty was an attempt to revive the corpse of late 50's, early sxties John Bircher right wing fanaticism.
It failed.
OWS was an attempt to revive the corpse of late-sixties leftist activism. It has also failed.
Time to move on from zombie politics.

I couldn't disagree more. I think zombie politics are exactly what we need. Just imagine if every voter out there was in search of BRAAAAIIIIIIIIINNS. We might elect some worthwhile representatives.

So, you're saying it's time for us to crack open each others skulls, and feast on the goo within?


I was thinking of the politicians. It's not like they're using their brains anyway. At least then they'd be giving something back to the ones who elected them.

/wouldn't mind having first crack
 
2012-10-26 10:14:23 AM
I said it so many times in 2010 that it became tiresome, and I was asked to stop. I'll reprise it here, for old time's sake...

"A year and a half from now, not one person in 20 will ever admit to having once been in the so-called Tea Party."

Some of you really should start taking notes.
 
2012-10-26 10:17:11 AM
And nothing of value was lost.
 
2012-10-26 10:19:25 AM

Kangaroo_Ralph: Romney was hard right during the campaign for the endorsement, then ran to the middle to campaign for the election.

You mean like every other candidate ever?


True that this is standard but what has changed is the split in the GOP. Romney's charge to the middle will cost him votes on the right or more accurately, will dampen the Right's get out the vote effort. Plus he loses some credibility amongst many voter of all political backgrounds.

Romney had a big shift in his favour after the first debate. Obama's poor performance was not really the main issue. It was that people wanted a plausible Presidential alternative and Romney suddenly became plausible.

If he could have become plausible and retained his credibility, he most certainly would have one. As it stands, he will lose IMHO.

/keep in mind we are dealing with undecided / low information voters here so the assumption that everyone should have already known Romney was always a joke do not apply. They literally watched the first debate and said "You see Helen, this man wants to improve the economy and he is a successful business man so he would know how to do that. He's not talking about tax cuts for the rich at all. It's revenue neutral whatever that means"
 
2012-10-26 10:22:43 AM

Kangaroo_Ralph: Romney was hard right during the campaign for the endorsement, then ran to the middle to campaign for the election.

You mean like every other candidate ever?


Romney will do or say anything to become President. He's worse, far worse, than your "normal" politician. He's a slimy used car salesman who was born with a silver spoon. He is the personification of the boss from Office Space and Dilbert. He's the guy who made it management but knows nothing. He's the clueless boob that you work for and hate.

Romney is "that guy". Ryan is a Randriod College Student who never was exposed to the real world and thus never deprived of his beliefs.
 
2012-10-26 10:24:46 AM
I think the media tried too hard to make them into a huge political movement. Midterms usually go against the sitting President's party, and economic downturns make the backlash even bigger. With the scale of the economic collapse we had, the Republicans were guaranteed to make big gains, and they wasted the opportunity by electing candidates that are so extremist that they will not last unless they move to the middle.
 
2012-10-26 10:27:07 AM

Overfiend: Don't count your chickens before they hatch subby...

Republicans will do very well this election. Romney is going to win.

Fark Moderates will be a group of very sad and/or angry individuals.


Keep farking those chickens
 
2012-10-26 10:31:19 AM
I think for the first Presidential debate, it should be any candidate who is on enough ballots to theoretically win the EC, or maybe put in a 1-2% threshold.

For the second debate, make it 5% or so. Then by the third, make it 15%.
 
2012-10-26 10:32:18 AM

mrshowrules: The dumbest political movement in history.


There are contenders:
Know Nothings
 
2012-10-26 10:33:14 AM

keiverarrow: There was never a Tea party, obvious republican rebranding is obvious. The didn't even form a new party


done in one yet 132 comments say otherwise...
 
2012-10-26 10:34:40 AM
Bold Prediction:

Obama wins: suddenly it's all about the Tea Party again
Obama loses: No Tea Party here, check back in 4 years...

/I know, political mastermind I am...
 
2012-10-26 10:39:36 AM

UNC_Samurai: But, will the party see Santorum as the second coming of Pat Buchanan and move away from his ideological stances?


I think they will move away from Santorum mostly because there will be much stronger candidates in 2016.
 
2012-10-26 10:41:36 AM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: mrshowrules: The dumbest political movement in history.

There are contenders:
Know Nothings


Interesting reading. Thanks for this. Certainly more bigoted. Dumber though? I don't think so. We live in an information age. Being an ignorant group in the 1800's was easy. The tea partiers had to work for it. Work hard at being that ignorant.

Funny stuff though. The "know nothings" term was from the secrecy of their early meetings. The fact that this term could blow-up in their face apparently escaped them. Now the "tea baggers" could have at least looked up "tea bagging" on the Internet and got a clue.

My big take-away from this, is that we should never have let them off the hook by no longer calling them "tea baggers".
 
2012-10-26 10:45:16 AM

cretinbob: Overfiend: Don't count your chickens before they hatch subby...

Republicans will do very well this election. Romney is going to win.

Fark Moderates will be a group of very sad and/or angry individuals.

Keep farking those chickens


Mmm...chicken...
 
2012-10-26 10:51:32 AM
Not to worry here folks, I'm sure the top Republican strategists will come up with another concept that appeals to the idiots out there and convinces them to vote against their own best interests.
 
2012-10-26 10:53:03 AM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Here's hoping Michael Bloomberg runs in 2016 as an independent.
/it's not out of the question- he almost ran in 2008.


He won't get a single Republican vote since he's pro-gay. He won't get a single "Tea" vote since he's anti-gun. He won't get a single Libertarian vote because he's anti-large-drink. But he would pull a huge number of reasonable moderates. In other words, he'd hand the presidency to the Republican candidate, who could very well be Jeb Bush or Santorum. So I'm not too excited about this. His only real hope would be to run as a Democrat.

Yes, I'm sick of the two-party duopoly, but as long as the electoral college is in place, I can't go third-party on President. I mean, *I* can, because I'm not in a swing state and my vote doesn't matter. But anyone that I actually want to win, I encourage to somehow trick the Democratic party into nominating them.
 
2012-10-26 11:09:05 AM
Justification from one very simpleminded and angry little teabagger:

" I reversed course and did in fact pull the trigger for Romney. But only as a stop gap to get Obama out. Having voted for him, I now own part of him, should he win. And I'm going to be a very very very strict owner."

That's right, baggie. You own that shiat.
 
2012-10-26 11:14:18 AM

Overfiend: Mmm...chicken...


4.bp.blogspot.com

That you, Gonzo?
 
2012-10-26 11:27:20 AM

Deucednuisance: Overfiend: Mmm...chicken...

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 405x305]

That you, Gonzo?


great reference!!
 
2012-10-26 11:44:56 AM
It really doesn't matter now if the TeaTards disappear or if they lose seats/the presidency. The Republican party got what they really wanted from the ones installed in 2010. They got the votes and the SC to confirm the one item they wanted the most. The passage of Citizens United. Now they have who they want controlling future elections, corporations, not the people of the country.
 
2012-10-26 11:45:19 AM
28%ers will always be 28%ers. You can call a lump of shiat a rose, but the smell will never change.
 
2012-10-26 12:42:29 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: mrshowrules: The dumbest political movement in history.

There are contenders:
Know Nothings


Substitute "Muslim" for "Catholic" in that entry and VOILA, the Tea Party.
 
2012-10-26 12:48:52 PM

dameron: brianbankerus: Or maybe they steal this election. They're sure trying their assess off.

538's nowcast is at almost 76% and there's no scheduled events on the calendar like debates, conventions etc. that might change things up. So barring some unforeseen event Obama looks good for reelection. I think the Republicans have to nominate Rubio in 2016 but they'll be going against Clinton and I expect her to be nigh unstoppable as this is close to her last change.

It's funny, the idea that the Republican Party is becoming a regional party was established in 2006 and 2008 but then 2010 happened so some might see that as a Republican resurgence but to me this election only reinforces that sentiment.

Obama Romney Margin (Gallup)

East 52 48 O+4

Midwest 52 48 O+4

South 39 61 R+22

West 53 47 O+6

That's the makings of a regional party. The Republicans need something to appeal to urban dwellers and they don't have it yet.


Well now that's the thing about election theft: it's difficult to quantify using real numbers.
 
2012-10-26 12:49:38 PM
 
Displayed 50 of 165 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report