Tea Party Predictions

[Sophus]

I also wonder, if they don't have much success will the party even survive until 2012? Probably so unless the economy really picks up. Otherwise they'll be far and few - the die hard angry racists!

[PoopShoot]

He will get the nomination.  Because the he's seen as the de facto party leader, refusing a sitting President the nomination is a tacit admission that one's policies are failure.  And no group of politicians has the corporate will to admit failure.

This is not necessarily true.  If said admission is likely to lead to continued or expanded political power, Obama will be thrown under the bus.

No that coloqlialism means to assmume an outcome before all data is recieved. That is what you've done. So it's apt.

Read the fable from which it comes.  The woman in the fable breaks her eggs because she's daydreaming about the money she will make from her chickens.  The reason for invoking the cliche is a warning not to fuck up the plan for focusing on the outcome.

No need I wasn't sure hence the qualifiers "I think". No need to get defensive.

I wasn't aware I had become defensive.  To the contrary, your question got me thinking, so I did a little checking and shared my findings with you.

[Sophus]

He will get the nomination.  Because the he's seen as the de facto party leader, refusing a sitting President the nomination is a tacit admission that one's policies are failure.  And no group of politicians has the corporate will to admit failure.

This is not necessarily true.  If said admission is likely to lead to continued or expanded political power, Obama will be thrown under the bus.

When was the last time something like that happened?

[Thumpalumpacus]

He will get the nomination.  Because the he's seen as the de facto party leader, refusing a sitting President the nomination is a tacit admission that one's policies are failure.  And no group of politicians has the corporate will to admit failure.

This is not necessarily true.  If said admission is likely to lead to continued or expanded political power, Obama will be thrown under the bus.

As Sophus points out, history doesn't support this view.  The last sitting President able to run for a second term who didn't do so was LBJ, who passed it up himself -- not put out by the party.  He might've lost it to Bobby Kennedy, it's true.  

The last sitting President who could run but was put out by his party nomination was Truman in '52.

While it does on occasion happen, the mood of the party does not augur such an action now.  Obama will not be thrown under the bus, because he's driving it.

[PoopShoot]

When was the last time something like that happened?

The last time a political party was embarrassed enough by their incumbent president to feel it necessary.

[jduster]

It depends how you define poorly and moderate success, but I would say somewhere between the two.

Some people, especially devout members of the Tea Party know this, but while the Tea Party has a lot of supporters, it is proportionally not popular by Americans.  While the Tea Party may seem popular because it has many participants, they are a vocal minority.  A majority of Americans don't support the Tea Party, but are a silent majority who does not feel like wasting their time protesting.

I can expect the Tea Party to win in some areas of the country, but even if they all get elected, the Republican Party will still be dominated by moderates, as it is now.

[Sophus]

It depends how you define poorly and moderate success, but I would say somewhere between the two.

Some people, especially devout members of the Tea Party know this, but while the Tea Party has a lot of supporters, it is proportionally not popular by Americans.  While the Tea Party may seem popular because it has many participants, they are a vocal minority.  A majority of Americans don't support the Tea Party, but are a silent majority who does not feel like wasting their time protesting.

I can expect the Tea Party to win in some areas of the country, but even if they all get elected, the Republican Party will still be dominated by moderates, as it is now.

True. However their vocalness means they are more likely to vote. There was also a recent poll which showed that half of the country has no opinion on the Tea Party yet. This is why Glenn Beck is asking them to not dress up like freak shows at future rallies. So people will see them as normal, sane human beings.

[jduster]

It depends how you define poorly and moderate success, but I would say somewhere between the two.

Some people, especially devout members of the Tea Party know this, but while the Tea Party has a lot of supporters, it is proportionally not popular by Americans.  While the Tea Party may seem popular because it has many participants, they are a vocal minority.  A majority of Americans don't support the Tea Party, but are a silent majority who does not feel like wasting their time protesting.

I can expect the Tea Party to win in some areas of the country, but even if they all get elected, the Republican Party will still be dominated by moderates, as it is now.

True. However their vocalness means they are more likely to vote. There was also a recent poll which showed that half of the country has no opinion on the Tea Party yet. This is why Glenn Beck is asking them to not dress up like freak shows at future rallies. So people will see them as normal, sane human beings.

Whether one spends 30 hours a week being politically involved or puts no thought into politics until election day, they get the same amount of votes: one.  There are a minority of loud ignorant people who vote, but theres a majority of silent ignorant people who vote as well.

I do not think the tea party should be seen a collective group, but rather as diverse individuals who share a few things in common.  The tea party has people who are smart, dumb, wealthy, not financially well, racist, color-blind, religious, non-religious, prejudiced, and fair.  Unfortunately it is victim to many stereotypes.  It may be too late for people to see them as sane, but Glenn Beck having nothing to do with them at all can only help them recover from their freak show image.

I, by the way, do not affiliate myself with the Tea Party, even though I am a conservative Republican.  I am not entirely against them though.  I do enjoy Obama receiving fierce opposition though.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend I guess.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I like that more Americans are involved in the political process, even though I disagree with some of their planks.  

I do agree with their concern over the federal debt, which is going to eat us alive if something isn't done.  I disagree that the answer is cutting taxes and services.  Stronger Federal oversight might've prevented the '08 financial meltdown.   Oversight has a place, whether it is in food safety, air travel, or corporate equal-employment policies, and those services require money.

It never ceases to amaze me how many libertarians and fellow-travelers drive on public roads as they complain about the governments which built them.

[Sophus]

It depends how you define poorly and moderate success, but I would say somewhere between the two.

Some people, especially devout members of the Tea Party know this, but while the Tea Party has a lot of supporters, it is proportionally not popular by Americans.  While the Tea Party may seem popular because it has many participants, they are a vocal minority.  A majority of Americans don't support the Tea Party, but are a silent majority who does not feel like wasting their time protesting.

I can expect the Tea Party to win in some areas of the country, but even if they all get elected, the Republican Party will still be dominated by moderates, as it is now.

True. However their vocalness means they are more likely to vote. There was also a recent poll which showed that half of the country has no opinion on the Tea Party yet. This is why Glenn Beck is asking them to not dress up like freak shows at future rallies. So people will see them as normal, sane human beings.

Whether one spends 30 hours a week being politically involved or puts no thought into politics until election day, they get the same amount of votes: one.  There are a minority of loud ignorant people who vote, but theres a majority of silent ignorant people who vote as well.

Of course. However, most Tea Part supporters are very enthusiastic, whereas a lot of Democratic ones are unimpressed with the government. The more excited you are the more likely you are to actually go through the trouble of voting. Pollers take this into consideration.

[Sophus]

Sarah Palin thinks the Left has a Tea Party:

With all the talk from the Left re: who funds Tea Party Americans, one might point out the Left's "tea party" is Acorn, funded by Fed Govt

Does this mean she's trying to make others look as crazy as she is? Do Tea Partists know they have an awful image and that's why they're trying to compare their opponents to themselves!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sarah Palin thinks the Left has a Tea Party:

With all the talk from the Left re: who funds Tea Party Americans, one might point out the Left's "tea party" is Acorn, funded by Fed Govt

Does this mean she's trying to make others look as crazy as she is? Do Tea Partists know they have an awful image and that's why they're trying to compare their opponents to themselves!

Indeed, this is akin to the fundamentalist criticizing atheism because "it's a religion". It shows a startling lack of self-awareness.

Also, she seems unaware that not only has ACORN changed its name, it is in the process of disintegrating as local chapters attempt to distance themselves from the national taint of their scandal.

[Sophus]

Sarah Palin thinks the Left has a Tea Party:

With all the talk from the Left re: who funds Tea Party Americans, one might point out the Left's "tea party" is Acorn, funded by Fed Govt

Does this mean she's trying to make others look as crazy as she is? Do Tea Partists know they have an awful image and that's why they're trying to compare their opponents to themselves!

Indeed, this is akin to the fundamentalist criticizing atheism because "it's a religion". It shows a startling lack of self-awareness.

As far as name calling goes, I have a new political hero.

[Thumpalumpacus]

As far as name calling goes, I have a new political hero.

Good shit there.  Need moar folk like that!

[Sophus]

I'm still playing Mr. Pessimist but here's a view from someone a little more optimissitc:

url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/the-optimistic-scenario-f_b_739775.html]Robert Kuttner[/url]"]Tired of bleak political news? Here is an optimistic scenario of what just might happen on November 2: some Republican gains, but both houses of Congress remain Democratic.

It may well be that the anticipated Republican takeover of Congress peaked a little too soon and that the Tea Parties were too successful for their own good. As Democrats get more strategic about smoking out the core differences between the two parties, disaffected voters will think twice about electing lunatic fringe candidates.

Karl Rove, nobody's idea of a liberal, is in the doghouse with Sean Hannity and the Tea Party crowd because Rove has publicly said that some of the candidates who won Republican nominations are too far-right to get elected. If Karl Rove is worried about this risk to his grand designs, it may even be true.

One can hope. Surely there will be some Republican voters who won't be able to summon the enthusiasm to vote for the nutters. Problem is nutty is the new mainstream.