The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on August 05, 2014, 01:52:35 pm
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/214302-tea-partys-final-senate-hopes-fade (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/214302-tea-partys-final-senate-hopes-fade)
August 05, 2014, 06:00 am
Tea Party’s Senate hopes fade
By Alexandra Jaffe
A dismal primary cycle for Tea Party Republicans will likely get more disappointing this week with uphill races in Kansas and Tennessee.
On Tuesday, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) is the favorite to win reelection against radiologist Milton Wolf, though conservatives have certainly dinged the three-term incumbent. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) is a far more comfortable bet in his Tuesday contest.
Roberts was once seen as ripe for a primary challenge: He has a notably centrist voting record, having supported the bipartisan immigration reform proposal in the Senate and having voted to raise the debt limit before. And reports that he no longer lives in the home he owns in Kansas, but instead rents a room from donors when he visits, have dogged him throughout the race.
Similar residency issues have contributed to primary losses before. And Roberts did himself no favors by making repeated gaffes on the issue, most recently admitting he returns home “whenever I get an opponent.”
But the race followed a trajectory similar to other GOP contests that have opened to much fanfare but fizzled at the finish line: Tea Party enthusiasts backed a flawed candidate, were outspent on the airwaves and outgunned on the ground.
Even conservatives admit Wolf winning on Tuesday is a long-shot.
“It has been low key, Milton has not been destroyed, and he has been quietly surging. I think it's possible for him to win, [but] most likely will come up a little short ” said one Tea Party operative engaged in Senate races.
That sentiment is a 180 degree turn from the initial excitement over his challenge to Roberts.
Wolf — a second cousin to President Obama — was one of the first candidates endorsed by the Senate Conservatives Fund. An outspoken Tea Party activist, he’s no fan of his distant relative. Wolf received over half a million in financial support from SCF, bringing the total from outside groups helping him to around $650,000 on the race. Groups backing Roberts have kicked in around $400,000.
But local reports detailing posts Wolf made to Facebook of gruesome X-ray images, with off-color commentary, stalled his campaign earlier this year, and he hasn’t managed to recover.
Wolf wasn’t helped by news two weeks ago that he’s under investigation by a state ethics board for the images, a fact the Roberts campaign has used in attack ads over the past few weeks as evidence he’s “unfit for Kansas.”
That character indictment has been central to Roberts’s strategy in the race, and it’s one that’s worked for incumbents in previous primaries this cycle. In Kentucky, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) successfully portrayed his primary opponent as a serial liar; in Mississippi, Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) suggested his primary challenger associated with shady characters.
Like those contests, the Kansas incumbent has used a considerable cash advantage to raise questions of viability on the airwaves. Wolf had less than $95,000 cash on hand as of July 16, while Roberts had $1.45 million cash, after spending almost double what Wolf did during the first two weeks of July.
Part of the problem has been that the national conservative groups who would typically engage heavily in primaries are essentially all primaried out, having spent financial and staff resources beyond what they expected on the Mississippi Republican primary runoff, the battle over which is still raging.
“We spent a ton of financial and human resources in Mississippi, and so got to these races about three weeks later than we expected to and with diminished coffers,” Kevin Broughton, spokesman for the Tea Party Express, told The Hill previously.
That spells trouble for another Tea Party-backed candidate, the last contender with a shot at taking down an incumbent senator, if Wolf loses.
Tennessee state Rep. Joe Carr has nabbed the endorsements of a handful of national conservative groups and voices in his primary challenge to Alexander, but still far fewer than Wolf. The Senate Conservatives Fund is still sitting the Volunteer State race out, and Carr is seen as an even longer shot than even Wolf.
If Wolf loses, as expected, it may be doubly difficult for conservatives to build the momentum they’d need to push Carr over the finish line in an even tougher race, past an even stronger incumbent.
But conservatives won’t be bowed. On Monday, they were already spinning the potential Wolf loss into a win.
“[The establishment has] been forced to adopt our issues,” said the Tea Party operative. “It has always been difficult to gain enough name ID and raise money to defeat an incumbent who lacks any personal scandals. That will never change. But we are winning on the issues.”
-
I'm going to start a Tea Party spam list. Thar's gold in that thar Tea!
-
Incumbents. You gotta love 'em, dontcha?
They really have nothing to run on - they've sold Americans down the river, spent us into bankruptcy, made us a laughing stock on the world stage, armed and trained drug cartels and jihadists, "helplessly" watched as Obamacare was shoved down the American Taxpayer's throats, did everything they could to sneak amnesty in to buy votes, ......
As I was saying, they have nothing to run on except that they are incumbents! They have mastered the big thug machine to an art - although they reserve it's use only to uppity upstarts that DARE to run against them in primaries. :nometalk: No wonder the IRS has been allowed to bully and punish "upstarts" - it helps the GOPe too.
-
Incumbents. You gotta love 'em, dontcha?
They really have nothing to run on - they've sold Americans down the river, spent us into bankruptcy, made us a laughing stock on the world stage, armed and trained drug cartels and jihadists, "helplessly" watched as Obamacare was shoved down the American Taxpayer's throats, did everything they could to sneak amnesty in to buy votes, ......
As I was saying, they have nothing to run on except that they are incumbents! They have mastered the big thug machine to an art - although they reserve it's use only to uppity upstarts that DARE to run against them in primaries. :nometalk: No wonder the IRS has been allowed to bully and punish "upstarts" - it helps the GOPe too.
As currently constituted, the GOPe won't win in a dominating way. And they won't win the White House. Makes me think that is the plan.
-
:facepalm2:
-
Most of the Tea Party candidates have had serious flaws. Whoever selects these candidates is going to have to learn to use some kind of vetting process. At this point, there have been so many poor candidates touted by the Tea Party that even an excellent candidate would be tarnished by having that label attached to them.
-
Most of the Tea Party candidates have had serious flaws. Whoever selects these candidates is going to have to learn to use some kind of vetting process. At this point, there have been so many poor candidates touted by the Tea Party that even an excellent candidate would be tarnished by having that label attached to them.
Totally agree.
We are between a rock and a hard place. Because if you dismiss the Tea Party, you are left with a batch of spineless people with unclear goals as your opposition party.
-
As currently constituted, the GOPe won't win in a dominating way. And they won't win the White House. Makes me think that is the plan.
The GOPe will add 10-12 Senate seats in 2014 and we can't help but win the presidency in 2016...even if the primary voters pick the wackiest right fringer possible. What is so glorious about this whole situation is the tea party is working overtime to prove they not only had nothing to do with the success of the GOPe, they tried there damnest to tank the GOPe and failed miserably.
Keep on digging that hole "true conservatives," while I count me some chickens.
1 dozen
2 dozen
3 dozen...
-
Totally agree.
We are between a rock and a hard place. Because if you dismiss the Tea Party, you are left with a batch of spineless people with unclear goals as your opposition party.
I think it's a matter of priorities. IMO, first and foremost, we get the GOP in power. Then we tell them loud and clear what we want them to do. That sequence has a high chance of succeeding. Leaving the dims in power has zero chance of succeeding. And nominating unelectable Tea Party candidates *is* leaving the dims in control.
BTW, I agree with much of what the Tea Party wants to do. I was an enthusiastic supporter in the beginning. But then we started seeing their candidate list, and that's where I have major disagreements. (And disappointments)
-
Most of the Tea Party candidates have had serious flaws. Whoever selects these candidates is going to have to learn to use some kind of vetting process. At this point, there have been so many poor candidates touted by the Tea Party that even an excellent candidate would be tarnished by having that label attached to them.
Those supposed “serious flaws” were almost all inventions of the media. Lindsey Graham had several solid candidates with very few noticeable flaws and still beat all of them combined. Thad Cochran had his own issues doing “things with animals.” Mitch McConnell? Ha! He's one of Kentucky's most hated politicians, yet still doubled Matt Bevin's vote total.
It was these outsider political candidates' decision to run with the support of the Tea Party that caused these supposed flaws to appear, not the other way around. The fact is, decades of political insiderdom have allowed these corrupt career politicians the ability (and connections to campaign contributions) to hide their far more serious demons. The fact is, a man with the backing of the working class is never going to be able to compete with a man backed by the rich, as the rich can dupe the working class base with enough cash (see: Obama's re-election).
I used to bristle at the suggestion that both parties are the same, but these days I'm convinced that there is a lot more truth to that perspective. Our country is careening out of control and yet very few on either side of the political aisle are willing to take the necessary—and yes, drastic—steps to turn it around, nor are the unwashed, ignorant masses who vote for them.
In the end, America will get the country its citizens deserve.
-
Those supposed “serious flaws” were almost all inventions of the media. Lindsey Graham had several solid candidates with very few noticeable flaws and still beat all of them combined. Thad Cochran had his own issues doing “things with animals.” Mitch McConnell? Ha! He's one of Kentucky's most hated politicians, yet still doubled Matt Bevin's vote total.
All three of those politicians are a good argument for keeping the GOP incumbents. They are all popular in their states. Lindsey Graham looked vulnerable, but he spent a lot of time in his state talking to constituents and explaining what he was doing and why. That was in direct contrast to Eric Cantor, who was more popular with the national Tea Party, but didn't bother to spend much time with his constituents.
And both Cochran and McConnell are fairly popular with both dims and GOPers in their states. Bevin had problems with honesty - esp. about the cockfighting issue. That's not the way to win votes.
It was these outsider political candidates' decision to run with the support of the Tea Party that caused these supposed flaws to appear, not the other way around. The fact is, decades of political insiderdom have allowed these corrupt career politicians the ability (and connections to campaign contributions) to hide their far more serious demons. The fact is, a man with the backing of the working class is never going to be able to compete with a man backed by the rich, as the rich can dupe the working class base with enough cash (see: Obama's re-election).
Those flaws were there. They weren't invented. You can call all incumbents "corrupt", but you have to prove it if you want their constituents to stop voting for them. If there are problems with the opponent that are worse than the ones you can prove about the incumbent, then clearly the incumbent has the edge (and should).
And while money counts, a good expose is worth more than money can buy, esp. if the culprit is GOP. The media will be very happy to run with any story that is negative for a GOP candidate.
I used to bristle at the suggestion that both parties are the same, but these days I'm convinced that there is a lot more truth to that perspective. Our country is careening out of control and yet very few on either side of the political aisle are willing to take the necessary—and yes, drastic—steps to turn it around, nor are the unwashed, ignorant masses who vote for them.
In the end, America will get the country its citizens deserve.
There are always big differences between parties. Today's dims are very close to socialists; the GOP is not. The dims have power; the GOP does not. There aren't any other differences that matter much right now.
-
The GOPe will add 10-12 Senate seats in 2014 and we can't help but win the presidency in 2016...even if the primary voters pick the wackiest right fringer possible. What is so glorious about this whole situation is the tea party is working overtime to prove they not only had nothing to do with the success of the GOPe, they tried there damnest to tank the GOPe and failed miserably.
Keep on digging that hole "true conservatives," while I count me some chickens.
1 dozen
2 dozen
3 dozen...
It's entertaining how you cast anyone who doesn't agree with you as a "true conservative". That is exactly how liberals cast anyone on the right as being knuckle dragging Fox News faithful.
No way the GOP adds 12 seats, and how you can say the GOP will win the White House without even knowing the candidates indicates that you aren't really a deep thinker.
-
P. Roberts (i)52.5% 395
M. Wolf 39.6% 298
D. Smith 4.7% 35
A. Zahnter 3.2%
-
P. Roberts (i) 53.1% 5,683
M. Wolf 36.9% 3,951
D. Smith 5.4% 577
A. Zahnter 4.6% 495
Precincts Reporting: 0.5%
Updated: 8:39 PM ET
Source: Associated Press
-
P. Roberts (i) 51.8% 13,404
M. Wolf 37.7% 9,750
D. Smith 6.1% 1,570
A. Zahnter 4.4% 1,142
Precincts Reporting: 0.7%
Updated: 8:52 PM ET
-
P. Roberts (i) 51.6% 15,878
M. Wolf 37.4% 11,500
D. Smith 6.5% 1,989
A. Zahnter 4.5% 1,384
Precincts Reporting: 2.6%
Updated: 9:09 PM ET
-
It's entertaining how you cast anyone who doesn't agree with you as a "true conservative". That is exactly how liberals cast anyone on the right as being knuckle dragging Fox News faithful.
I am so happy you are entertained.
When you throw a stick at a pack of dogs, the one who yelps is the one you hit. Reread my post. I have cast nobody as a "true conservative." You outed yourself.
As far as the 12 senate seats I was wrong. We will win 13 according to the chairman of the NRSC.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/03/21/lucky-13-in-2014-republican-campaign-chair-floats-historic-senate-gains
But what would he know compared to a "real conservative?"
-
I am so happy you are entertained.
When you throw a stick at a pack of dogs, the one who yelps is the one you hit. Reread my post. I have cast nobody as a "true conservative." You outed yourself.
As far as the 12 senate seats I was wrong. We will win 13 according to the chairman of the NRSC.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/03/21/lucky-13-in-2014-republican-campaign-chair-floats-historic-senate-gains
But what would he know compared to a "real conservative?"
Your entertainment value diminishes as you reveal your level of insight.
But, stay in your GOPe happy place. Maybe President Romney will call you?
-
P. Roberts (i) 49.6% 36,329
M. Wolf 38.8% 28,409
D. Smith 6.4% 4,681
A. Zahnter 5.3% 3,869
Precincts Reporting: 19.8%
Updated: 9:53 PM ET
Source: Associated Press
-
jmyrlefuller wrote above:
[[ Mitch McConnell? Ha! He's one of Kentucky's most hated politicians, yet still doubled Matt Bevin's vote total. ]]
McConnell is in serious trouble in Kentucky and may become the one loss the party endures this November.
Would be quite interesting to see the Republicans retake the Senate, but lose their majority leader to a democrat in the process.
Actually, this might end up being a GOOD thing....
-
Would be quite interesting to see the Republicans retake the Senate, but lose their majority leader to a democrat in the process.
I wouldn't mind that at all!
-
P. Roberts (i) 49.6% 50,812
M. Wolf 38.6% 39,548
D. Smith 6.3% 6,403
A. Zahnter 5.5% 5,587
Precincts Reporting: 28.5%
Updated: 10:14 PM ET
Source: Associated Press
looks like Roberts will win this...guess 47 years in the Senate doesn't bother voters..... :shrug:
-
jmyrlefuller wrote above:
[[ Mitch McConnell? Ha! He's one of Kentucky's most hated politicians, yet still doubled Matt Bevin's vote total. ]]
McConnell is in serious trouble in Kentucky and may become the one loss the party endures this November.
Would be quite interesting to see the Republicans retake the Senate, but lose their majority leader to a democrat in the process.
Actually, this might end up being a GOOD thing....
McConnell is not in trouble. In every poll taken since May, he has gained on Grimes, and he's now ahead. Grimes has lost ground in every single poll in the last three months.
McConnell will win handily. Grimes is a pretty face with an empty head.
-
P. Roberts (i) 49.1% 60,404
M. Wolf 39.2% 48,256
D. Smith 6.3% 7,708
A. Zahnter 5.4% 6,582
Precincts Reporting: 33.7%
Updated: 10:26 PM ET
Source: Associated Press
-
P. Roberts (i) 47.8% 76,736
M. Wolf 41.4% 66,395
D. Smith 6.0% 9,623
A. Zahnter 4.8% 7,777
Precincts Reporting: 49.7%
Updated: 10:27 PM ET
Source: Associated Press
-
P. Roberts (i) 47.8% 78,016
M. Wolf 41.4% 67,548
D. Smith 6.0% 9,789
A. Zahnter 4.8% 7,917
Precincts Reporting: 51.4%
Updated: 10:27 PM ET
Source: Associated Press
-
P. Roberts (i) 47.9% 80,670
M. Wolf 41.2% 69,403
D. Smith 5.9% 10,013
A. Zahnter 5.0% 8,423
Precincts Reporting: 56.3%
Updated: 10:33 PM ET
Source: Associated Press
-
I'm calling this race for Roberts...lol
-
P. Roberts (i) 48.1% 84,098
M. Wolf 40.9% 71,485
D. Smith 5.9% 10,319
A. Zahnter 5.0% 8,804
Precincts Reporting: 60.1%
Updated: 10:39 PM ET
Source: Associated Press
-
Kansas does not do runoffs, so Roberts only needs to get the most votes tonight even if its under 50%
-
P. Roberts (i) 48.1% 87,588
M. Wolf 41.0% 74,723
D. Smith 5.9% 10,697
A. Zahnter 5.0% 9,197
Precincts Reporting: 62.4%
Updated: 10:45 PM ET
Source: Associated Press
-
Thanks for posting the numbers Mystery.
-
OK, Dr. Wolf lost.
But it also looks like he gave Mr. Roberts a run for the money !
-
But, stay in your GOPe happy place.
Ain't nobody leaving the GOPe
http://www.gallup.com/poll/168917/four-years-gop-support-tea-party-down.aspx
-
Ain't nobody leaving the GOPe
http://www.gallup.com/poll/168917/four-years-gop-support-tea-party-down.aspx
The popular position for online forums of conservatives is knee-jerk support of the TP. The fact that voters overall have backed away from knee-jerk support doesn't phase them.
Roberts had the 8th most conservative voting record, yet he becomes merely another target for their venom.
A lot of voters share their positions, but are weary of their procession of lousy candidates.
-
The popular position for online forums of conservatives is knee-jerk support of the TP. The fact that voters overall have backed away from knee-jerk support doesn't phase them.
Roberts had the 8th most conservative voting record, yet he becomes merely another target for their venom.
A lot of voters share their positions, but are weary of their procession of lousy candidates.
So far the Tea Party has gotten very little bang for their buck. 0 incumbents in the Senate. In the 3 incumbant House losses they went after Ralph Hall http://ralphhall.house.gov/press-releases/rep-hall-named-top-conservative-by-american-conservative-union/
WASHINGTON, DC . . .Today, the American Conservative Union (ACU) honored Congressman Ralph Hall (TX-04) as an “ACU Conservative” for his achievements in the 2013 ACU Ratings of Congress. This is the 33rd time Rep. Hall received the award for consistently supporting issues of concern to grassroots conservatives. Chairman Al Cardenas and ACU Foundation Chairman Carly Fiorina presented the award.
“Conservatives have a responsibility to fight the out-of-control growth of government in Congress. We are proud to honor the fine work of Representative Hall in that battle,” said ACU Chairman Al Cardenas.
Great job Tea Party!
Cantor race, they fell asleep during, and again he's IMO a solid conservative and tonight the CoC layeth the smackdown on the accident TP activist turned congressman http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,145445.0.html
Not a great score card for the millions spent. A solid blow to the TP brand. I do feel a little remorse in seeing this once strong movement full of potential becoming the sacrificial goat for our GOP redemption. But then I stop by TOS and I remember this is what they wanted. The beautifully pure undistilled conservatism untainted by RINOism. Devoid of emotion and empathy, but fueled by seething rage and conspiracy laced impotence. :vote:
-
Devoid of emotion and empathy, but fueled by seething rage
By empathy you mean liberalism.
I am driven by right and wrong, not feelings.
-
By empathy you mean liberalism.
I am driven by right and wrong, not feelings.
No, my friend. Right and wrong are feelings. Nothing more.
-
No, my friend. Right and wrong are feelings. Nothing more.
Ugh. Moral philosophy. Isn't this what led us down the path to moral equivalence?
-
No, my friend. Right and wrong are feelings. Nothing more.
Profound, when I apply it to the mystery of why Islam is acceptable to the modern American Leftist. The way they treat women and homosexuality.... :shrug:
-
Ugh. Moral philosophy. Isn't this what led us down the path to moral equivalence?
I am a distinctly amoral person. Only two fixed rules - don't hurt kids and don't hurt kids.
-
I am a distinctly amoral person. Only two fixed rules - don't hurt kids and don't hurt kids.
Having read your posts, either you're lying to me, lying to yourself, or you've completely fooled me.
Taking literally what you just posted, aside from your one rule, everything else you do in life is calculated on the risk versus reward scale?
If you could cheat on your wife, without getting caught, you would.
If you could steal without risk of being caught you would.
If you can lie to manipulate a situation to your benefit, you would.
Why? Amoral, there is no right or wrong, only what works. If you lie, cheat or steal, and there is no harm to you, why not?
Full Definition of AMORAL
1 a : being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply <science as such is completely amoral — W. S. Thompson>
b : lacking moral sensibility <infants are amoral>
-
Having read your posts, either you're lying to me, lying to yourself, or you've completely fooled me.
Taking literally what you just posted, aside from your one rule, everything else you do in life is calculated on the risk versus reward scale?
If you could cheat on your wife, without getting caught, you would.
If you could steal without risk of being caught you would.
If you can lie to manipulate a situation to your benefit, you would.
Why? Amoral, there is no right or wrong, only what works. If you lie, cheat or steal, and there is no harm to you, why not?
Full Definition of AMORAL
1 a : being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply <science as such is completely amoral — W. S. Thompson>
b : lacking moral sensibility <infants are amoral>
OK - make it semi - immoral
I'd never cheat on my wife. Not without her knowing and her express permission. Which she has granted from time to time. We have a slightly more relaxed view about sex over here.
Stealing - we need context. If I am stealing to keep someone else alive, I'll do it in a heartbeat. But just enough for that and no more. Stealing to benefit myself is a NO. I have too much pride for that.
In my active life, I would routinely go into hostile territory. Lying was a way of keeping head attached to shoulders, and I am rather fond of that.
Everything is shades of grey. Not black and white.
By most definitions, that makes me amoral. :shrug: