At Greg's place, I look at how Barack Obama's approval ratings continue to track George W. Bush's from 2004...but just a bit behind.
And at PP, I argue that Tea Party primary challenges from 2010 are costing the GOP in Senate races in 2012 -- and that they'll continue to do so down the road. I've run this point out before, but I continue to think it's potentially a very big deal indeed. As I say over there, I have no idea whether there's been any effect lower on the ballot; I'd be very interested if anyone has any data on GOP quality candidates (that is, previously elected to office) in this year's House races, or even any good anecdotal stuff about how recruiting went for them in this cycle. The other part of this is whether there were enough Tea Party upsets in primaries this year at the House level (or elsewhere) to scare off good GOP candidates next time around. Note that not every Tea Party win works that way, of course, since plenty of Tea Party backed candidates also have conventional credentials, or defeat weak primary opponents. But when a seemingly weak "outsider" defeats a heavily recruited mainstream conservative in a primary...that's where the effect should come from.
"...Tea Party primary challenges from 2010 are costing the GOP in Senate races in 2012 -- and that they'll continue to do so down the road."
ReplyDelete.
So, does that mean the shellackings will be of a smaller magnitude, or what? ;-)
Oh and yeah, that Gallup approval rating is the story re Obama. Look close and you'll see it comes from a historical uptick from his own political party, but Independents are at issue for him. That's problematic, especially if he falls back a bit.
DeleteOnce Obama abolishes religion and gets Shiara law instated the GOP will never win another election!!!!! Also death panels.
DeleteThere's also the question of how much the Tea Party contributed to Olympia Snowe's retirement and Angus King's decision on who to caucus with when he gets elected.
ReplyDeleteAll told, including Nevada, Delaware, and Colorado from last cycle, the Tea Party might end up costing the Republicans as many as six seats in the 113th Congress.
On Sen. Snowe's retirement, I don't think it was the Tea Party outright, so much as the straw the broke the camel's back.
DeleteHere's her retirement editorial in the WaPo, where she mentions failed attempts at a balanced-budget amendment and the requirement for a super majority to accomplish anything -- the filibuster.
Folks her believe she was just sick and tired of the hyper-partisan nature of the senate, and there's some feeling that she was not treated kindly after she and Collins voted to move ACA forward.
In some circumstances, it could be worth it to sacrifice a couple of seats to enforce party loyalty. Even a month or so ago, GOP control of the White House and both houses of Congress had a good shot of happening (maybe it still could?). The Tea Party, able to make very credible threats, would get a great deal of what their agenda in such a situation.
ReplyDeleteSo now it turned out that things didn't go that way. But I think they easily could have--they made a high stakes bet and they (probably) lost, but they weren't crazy to think they could have won.
Jonathan, I've changed my mind. If you're still collecting votes, mine is feel free to troll zap for all our benefits.
ReplyDelete+1
DeleteYeah, it's moving in that direction.
Delete