[Once-Ler]

The strength of the Tea Party has always been questionable to me. The losses in NY-23, and Senate seats in CT, and NV show they can spoil some safe statewide and district GOP seats, but are often impotent when it comes to winning in general elections. The Tea Party showed its impotence early on by claiming credit for wins by moderates Scott Brown and Chris Cristie in 2007 and then acting surprised when they turned out to be moderates. Now the Tea Party can't pick a winner for Prez. Color me shocked.

[DesertRhino]

Most TEA elections have had the GOP actually working AGAINST TEA repubs. Murkowski, Crist, Angle, O’Donnell,, etc.
TEA would have been FAR more succeessful had the GOP worked as hard for their success as they did against them. Of course, that would require the GOP to believe in TEA goals.

[ilgipper]

It was only the biggest electoral swing in modern history. What a weak showing last year.

[JediJones]

Bottom line is Christie and Brown were better than the alternatives. The Tea Party shows wisdom by voting for the most conservative candidate who can win. The missteps were Christine O’Donnell and Sharon Angle (less so her conservatism then her lack of charisma). If there is one thing wrong with the Tea Party, it’s the lack of money/fundraising. If they had enough money on their side to fund Newt to be better competitive with Romney, Newt would win. What this election is proving is that ideology cannot trump money, unless perhaps the Tea Party had spent more time campaigning with boots on the ground in the last couple years to win moderates over to conservatism. Time is money, so the Tea Party can counter a lack of money with volunteering and time.