Skip to comments.Analysis of Establishment vs Tea Party Senate Candidates
Posted on 12/18/2013 11:32:30 AM PST by cotton1706
I've gotten a little tired of the constant talk about the Tea Party losing the senate for the republicans so I did the below analysis. It's not exact and every state had its own issues but according to this, the Tea Party has had six wins and six losses, while the establishment has had four wins and seven losses
Note: I left our Berg (ND) and Rehberg (MT) since there was no real defined Tea Party/Establishment fight, but if those are thrown into the Establishment column, that makes four wins and NINE losses for the Establishment.
Also, I've thrown in the Missouri race at the bottom to remind people that Akin was NOT the Tea Party preferred candidate but the democrat funded candidate used to throw the election (which worked!)
Left to right: Establishment Preferred, Tea Party Preferred, Eventual nominee, Win/Loss
2010 - NH - Kelly Ayotte - Ovid Lamontagne - Kelly Ayotte (nominee) - Win
2010 - IL - Mark Kirk - Patrick Hughes - Mark Kirk (nominee) - Win
2012 - UT - Orrin Hatch - Dan Liljenquist - Orrin Hatch (nominee) - Win
2010 - CA - Carly Fiorina - Chuck DeVore - Carly Fiorina (nominee) - Loss
2012 - NJ - Joseph Kyrillos - Leigh Ann Bellew - Joseph Kyrillos (nominee) - Loss
2012 - FL - Connie Mack - Mike McAlister - Connie Mack (nominee) - Loss
2012 - MI - Pete Hoekstra - Clark Durant - Pete Hoekstra (nominee) - Loss
2012 - NM - Heather Wilson - Greg Sowards - Heather Wilson (nominee) - Loss
2012 - VA - George Allen - Jamie Radke - George Allen (nominee) - Loss
2012 - WI - Tommy Thompson - Mark Neumann - Tommy Thompson (nominee) - Loss
2010 - KY - Trey Greyson - Rand Paul - Rand Paul (nominee) - Win
2010 - FL - Charlie Crist - Marco Rubio - Marco Rubio (nominee) - Win
2010 - PA - Arlen Specter - Pat Toomey - Pat Toomey (nominee) - Win
2010 - UT - Bob Bennett - Mike Lee - Mike Lee (nominee) - Win
2012 - TX - David Dewhurst - Ted Cruz - Ted Cruz (nominee) - Win
2012 - NE - Jon Bruning - Deb Fischer - Deb Fischer (nominee) - Win
2010 - AK - Lisa Murkowski - Joe Miller - Joe Miller (nominee) - Loss
2010 - CO - Jane Norton - Ken Buck - Ken Buck (nominee) - Loss
2010 - DE - Mike Castle - Christine O'Donnell - Christine O'Donnell (nominee) - Loss
2010 - NV - Sue Lowden - Sharon Angle - Sharon Angle (nominee) - Loss
2012 - IN - Richard Lugar - Richard Mourdock - Richard Mourdock (nominee) - Loss
2012 - CT - Chris Shays - Linda McMahon - Linda McMahon (nominee) - Loss
2012 - MO - John Brunner - Sarah Steelman - Todd Akin (nominee) - Loss
All I’ve said is that the Tea Party candidates have to go to some kind of boot camp to teach them how to handle the vicious attacks of the MSM.
Senate seats are a BIG deal (far more than House seats) and are going to draw the full onslaught of the MSM and Democrat operatives.
The best example is “war on women”.
Stephanopolus telegraphed it in the R debates in Jan 2012.
Limbaugh harped on it for weeks/months.
And somehow the message never got through.
Here in Indiana we’re stuck with Obama Joe until 2019.
And Romney won Indiana.
“All Ive said is that the Tea Party candidates have to go to some kind of boot camp to teach them how to handle the vicious attacks of the MSM.”
Yes, you’re right. But we’re learning. And being beginners, we STILL did better than the establishment candidates. And we have the Senate Conservatives Fund up and running, to vet and endorse candidates.
A very good point for people to keep in mind. The Tea Party also seems to be able to get results with far fewer dollars than the Establishment.
Kelly Ayotte had (note the past tense) the backing of the Tea Party
“Kelly Ayotte had (note the past tense) the backing of the Tea Party”
That was a tough one. Conservative groups were split between she and Lamontagne but in the article I read, it said she was the more moderate candidate so I put her in the Establishment column (and given her later actions, that’s probably correct).
Like I said, it’s not exact.
Considering the TP is new to Political chess, I’d say we did ok.
1) We now know that just because someone says “Tea Party”, it doesn’t mean they have a brain.
2) There are parts of the country where right now, a Conservative has NO chance. Face it, it is the truth.
3) There are Conservative States which have been infiltrated by lefty. These should be our primary objective.
“Yes, youre right. But were learning.”
We simply can’t wait for a good process for vetting candidates. As the previous poster points out, the Senate seats are much harder to win than the House. A guy like Akin or Mourdock can prevail in a House race because his constituents are most likely more homogeneous than the state as a whole. The problem now is compounded because not only do Tea Party candidates have to face the withering fire of the RATs but also the GOPe (who see this as a fight for the “heart” of “their” party). Of the two, the GOPe is far more formidable.
We need good candidates, but singling out just Tea Party candidates is only part of the story. We need good candidates who run good campaigns, period. We also need an NSCC who is effective at providing national resources. They have been terrible pretty much across the board the past two cycles.
When the base wins a primary, I agree, that candidate needs to be fully prepared for what’s coming. Maybe we do need a non party affiliated organization to help candidates prepare. The biggest problem I see among the handful of TP candidates who lost is a lack of campaign message discipline. It is crucial as a Republican because minor slips become major overnight. Watching solid candidates like Rubio and Cruz who both handled their campaigns with masterful message discipline should be the standard. As much as I hate it, Indiana’s Murdock was the best example of what not to do. That race was a shoe-in, and Akin should have been fare warning to prepare for the abortion questions. Terrible campaign execution.
I think it would also behoove the NRSC to stay out of primaries, and provide "rookies" who win them with not only the resources, but some training for them and their staff, especially on how to avoid the same "trap" questions that get used over and over again.
“I think it would also behoove the NRSC to stay out of primaries”
The NRSC exists, not to elect republicans to the senate, but to elect ‘certain’ republicans and then protect and keep them there. That’s why they supported such excrable men like Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee and Charlie Crist.
They’re like the aristocracies of old, who would appoint nominees for the people to choose from, so that the people would believe they had self-government, and in the mean time, the same old policies would go on.
Can we stop the Liberal Talking Points on Todd Akin?
Akin was a more solid conservative than many of the Tea Party candidates...his record shows it. Sarah Palin’s own candidate Sarah Steelman was a party insider who got all the GOPe endorsements
The hysterics over Akin’s comment (which he apologized for)need to stop. Akin would have won if he was not sandbagged by his own party. Sounds like many did not want a Real Conservative candidate
We will not elect conservatives if we continue to attack them
“Can we stop the Liberal Talking Points on Todd Akin?”
My point on Akin was that he was neither the Tea Party nor the Establishment candidate. He WAS funded by the democrats to fool people into voting for him. That doesn’t disparage his conservatism. His statement was impolitic to say the least.
I’ve just gotten tired of, whenever I post something on an upcoming election, hearing that we need to avoid another Todd Akin, and maybe an established winner would be better, which gets us nowhere!
Akin’s been associated with the Tea Party, which is false, since they were for Steelman, who came in third. I’m just tired of hearing about Akin. He brought himself down and then that led to Mourdock also losing. But every candidate running for the senate against an establishment candidate does not need to be compared to Akin. It just gets tiring.
The key is 2014 primaries and then the general. I believe the numbers are 19 Democrat
and 14 GOP incumbents on the line. The question becomes which of the races are
potential for a pick up or loss.
Correction to my numbers above. There are 33 seats up this time as two seats are
and two are up for special elections (both from class 3). So it is 21 Dems and 14 GOP.
Damn I give up......
35 total is the number.
There are eight democrat freshman, five retirements and two weak southerners.
I think we have to potential to pick up MT, SD, WV, CO, NH, LA, AR, NC, IA, AK and perhaps a few more.
The only weak republicans are in ME and KY. If Collins loses, there will be little difference since she’s a democrat. If McConnell’s the nominee, he’ll likely lose so we need to nominate Bevin so we keep that seat.
And we can replace Graham, Cochran, Cornyn, Alexander and Roberts too.
What will the national issues differences be?
Who Palin endorsed was a bigger factor. Booby Hatch was a goner till she save him. Same with McAmnesty.
Akins comment was totally dumb. Yes, women who are raped are less likely to become pregnant than women who are willing. But rape is by definition a violent act. No where in his original statement or in his apologies show an adequate appreciation of this fact. As to Rove et al, I do agree that they cut him no slack at all, because—truth be told—Rove and much of the Rublican-e is pro-choice.