One of the dominant myths of this election season is that Republicans have nominated too-extreme tea party candidates who are not electable in general elections, making it difficult for them to maximize their gains. It's been easy for cable talk show hosts to make that argument, given the high-profile, seriously-flawed candidacies of Christine O'Donnell and Carl Paladino, among others.
But in reality, the clear majority of conservative and tea party nominees have proven themselves to be squarely in line with the electorate's mood and are well-positioned to usher in one of the most conservative Congresses since 1994.
Despite the Democratic portrayal of the tea party as extreme, Americans have soured over the increased scope of government under President Obama and the Democratic Congress -- and are looking for a course correction. A newly-released ABC News/Yahoo poll shows that 55 percent of Americans think the tea party can "effectively bring about major changes in the way the government operates." It's a far cry from the official Democratic Party argument that the tea party represents the American fringe.
Republican candidates who have openly advocated for conservative principles are, by and large, outperforming GOP colleagues who have run to the center. Businessman Ron Johnson, who has directly taken on Sen. Russell Feingold's economic liberalism, is over the 50 percent mark in most public polling. That's all the more impressive, given that Feingold held strong personal approval ratings back home and represents a Democratic-leaning state in Wisconsin.
In Pennsylvania, former congressman Pat Toomey, an outspoken fiscal conservative who headed the anti-tax Club for Growth before running for the Senate, has led Democrat Joe Sestak in most polls, and is the favorite to win Arlen Specter's seat.
Marco Rubio's success in the Florida Senate race has been so sweeping that it's easy to forget that the New York Times Magazine tagged him as the potential "First Senator From The Tea Party" in a January cover story.
Even in California, Carly Fiorina is running a close race against Sen. Barbara Boxer despite advocating positions well to the right of the California electorate -- opposing abortion rights, gun control regulations, and cherished environmental regulations. It's simply that kind of year.
All this should put to rest the notion that somehow conservative Republican nominees are making it tougher for the party to hold onto contested Senate and House seats. In fact, the opposite is true.
Moderate Republican candidates are dramatically underachieving in several of the key races where they should hold a comfortable advantage.
In Illinois, where GOP Rep. Mark Kirk's centrist voting record made him the Republican Senate recruit du jour of this cycle, has struggled to pull ahead of Democrat Alexi Giannoulias, despite the Democrat's significant baggage.
Former GOP Rep. Charlie Bass of New Hampshire, who headed the centrist Republican Main Street Partnership, is one of the few Republicans to trail a Democrat in a contested open seat House race, with a new UNH poll showing him trailing liberal activist Ann McLane Kuster, 43-36 percent. This in a state where Kelly Ayotte (R) is comfortably leading Paul Hodes in the Senate race running on a tea party message, and where Frank Guinta (R) holds a sizable lead over Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D) in the neighboring 1st District, in the same UNH poll.
While moderation is not looking like a political virtue for Republicans these days, some of the moderates' struggles have also been compounded by their extensive experience in Washington. I was struck by how often Kirk relied on Beltway jargon during his "Meet the Press" debate this month with Giannoulias -- a sign of his policy chops, but stylistically, something that reminds voters of all the time Kirk has spent in Washington.
Kuster, in her race against Bass, has tagged the ex-congressman as a Washington insider who was responsible for causing the economic mess in the first place. Those charges have also hurt a handful of more-conservative candidates, including ex-Rep. Tim Walberg in Michigan and former House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, running for Senate in Missouri. Walberg is in a tough fight against Rep. Mark Schauer (D), even though the district favors Republicans, and Blunt's past leadership role has made him uniquely vulnerable to criticism, although he's favored to win.
But if experience in D.C. hurts the handful of Republicans facing competitive races, it's a trait that's been absolutely toxic to many Democratic members on the stump.
Look no further than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's disastrous debate performance last week against Sharron Angle. Reid's rhetoric may have been acceptable on the Senate floor, but it probably sounded like he was speaking a different language to many Nevada voters.
That tendency to speak in congressional jargon makes it all the more difficult for many other veteran Democratic members of Congress to communicate to their constituents, a problem made worse when they have to defend unpopular policies and provisions in legislation they voted for.
That disconnect between the public anger at congressional policies and the media reaction can be striking. I was watching Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show Monday night, when she began by mocking the notion that concern about deficits and government spending was fueling a Republican surge.
I don't know what election she's been following over the last year, but when you have ardently conservative/libertarian Republican Senate challengers all across the country -- from Rand Paul to Sharron Angle to Ron Johnson -- preaching the gospel of limited government, and leading in polls, there's something going on.
A Gallup survey this month showed that a record 54 percent of the likely midterm electorate identified themselves as conservatives -- 14 points higher than in 1994 -- a number reflecting the high level of enthusiasm among Republicans, tea party activists and disaffected independents.
Even Boxer, one of the most liberal members of the Senate, felt the need to tout her tax-cutting bona fides on CNN last week, telling Wolf Blitzer she voted for "over $2 trillion" in tax cuts on the stimulus -- a sum that is greater than the entire stimulus itself. She quickly backtracked, after Blitzer expressed amazement at her math.
A sign of the times: When Boxer is talking up tax cuts and Feingold is trailing in the polls with little sign of reinforcements from the DSCC ($0 spent for ads in Wisconsin), voters are sending a clear message that extremism is in the eye of the beholder.
As a lifelong conservative I fully disagree with you.
The Tea Party movement itself was a great thing. It really brought a lot of powerful messages to the forefront. However, the movement as a whole has proven to be a failure due to who landed up on the ballot.
There's maybe 2-3 max who are decent, but the rest of them are an embarrassment and have absolutely zero business sitting in a Senate or Congress chair.
As a lifelong conservative I fully disagree with you, Tracy. There are some very impressive members that have been supported by the TEA Party, and they'll make excellent senators and Congressional reps.
As far as the Bass situation it is true that Bass has always been viewed as a moderate Republican in NH. Because of this he is not as attractive a candidate during this very conservative surge. Bass is also harmed by the total failure of Shay-Porter and Hods because the left has reduced their efforts in those races and are pouring everything against Bass.
All that said UNH has a rather consistent history of releasing polls that favor the left in the closing days of an election. The left needs a reason to bother to vote to avoid a down ticket drubbing.
While it's uncomfortably close, Bass is probably ahead by between 2-4%. He has been sitting on his resources until now. Ayotte has a number of major strongholds in NH-2. Don't think that the anger and passion that are reflected in those other two races are not just as strong in the second. Remember that the 2nd had to put up with Hods as their congressman. Passions are very high. Bass may not inspire those passions, but anyone in the 2nd who votes for Ayotte will be voting for Bass as well.
Close yes, but Bass will win narrowly.
If you want to understand what went wrong with our republic, start with this.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/196/747/The_Balance_of_Power:_What_Went_Wrong_with_Our_Republic.html
The reason for the support of the Tea Party candidates is that the liberal Republican Party has ignored us for decades and we are sick and tired of their destruction of freedom, the constitution, their glee in adding to more big government, their fat cat ideas of what the people want, their cozy assocaitions with the hard left, their endorsement of everything to keep the status quo in the beltway. What the fools in Washington don't get is that real Americans do not want any of their filty adgenda; any of their socialism/nazism/marxism, any longer. We want these suckers to pay attention to what we tell them and that is all. You liberals will get a real clue soon!
from one of the comments above
"...the movement as a whole has proven to be a failure due to who landed up on the ballot..."
the people who landed on the ballot are the candidates who advanced thru the electoral process because they won the largest number of votes, a plurality, or both
Well said, David Gekko.
For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. The Tea Party is a bit extreme...but it only came into existence as a counterweight to the utterly extreme and ideological Obama/Pelosi administration. The TP isn't so much about specific policies as it is about STOPPING Obama/Pelosi. The Repubs will take the House, we'll have an end to the frightening, extreme, and incompetent legislation coming from Pelosi, and I predict that the TP furor will die down somewhat over the next two years.
I agree with Coop
Say what you want about the Tea Party candidates.
It’s the so called "polish" candidates and incumbents that have been running us into the ground. The founders envisioned a citizens legislature we need more of that more than ever.
Karl
Don't misconstrue all this as a national lurch to the right. If the Republicans now held the reins of power in DC, the Dem/left would be harnessing most of these same voters right now. It is simply a reaction of frustration to tough times. This election is going to boost Obama's chances in 2012 by giving him someone else to blame for the country's decline.
"The Tea Party is a bit extreme..."
For the record I am not a supporter of the Tea Party but I don't see any extremism in their messages. Just in the interest of your statement can you provide examples of their extremism? And by that I do not mean manufactured reports--like the one generated by IREH for the NAACP--or left wing talking points.
I take offence at your "...high-profile, seriously-flawed candidacies of Christine O'Donnell and Carl Paladino, among others." comment.
I’m tired of all these elite Progressives who have dominated the political stage for decades.
It’s time to restore the Founders concept that the common man (and woman) should serve in government, not an entitled ruling class.
O'Donnell and Palandino are people just like me; you sir, are an elitist.
If Christine O'Donnell can be counted on to align her vote with Paul Ryan and the like, she would have my vote [if I lived in Delaware]. Around the time she won the primary, I heard her say "exasperate" when she should have said "exacerbate", and it bothered me. After thinking about it for a few days, I thought, "So what?". I am a retiree who has a nest egg because I lived below my means and saved, and that's how I want my country run -- I think O'Donnell would vote in alignment with the principles of fiscal conservatism. I am focused on our sky-high deficit spending, debt, and unfunded liabilities.
Tracy: "There's maybe 2-3 max who are decent, but the rest of them are an embarrassment and have absolutely zero business sitting in a Senate or Congress chair."
Wrong Tracy. You must have been just tickled at all the clowns and fools that already populate Congress. That's who has no business being there. Have you looked at the national debt and that cliff we're heading toward? Who are you kidding?
You guys are the real political analysts. I'm sure the liberals at the cocktail parties are giving you a hard time, but keep up the good work. Someone has to be doing the political science...
What the loony left can't stand is to watch all their dreams go up in a puff of Obama's cigarette.
Liberalism is and has always been a failure - just ask France. Obama has confiscated GM to hand out as a party favor to his union buddies and some of us get sick to our stomach and we will remember what the Libs did and the unions too.
So although you Libs think of this shellacking as revenge of the right you could not be more wrong. This is the beginning of the end of the loony toon political party formerly known as Democratic Party of the United States - bye bye.
:-) that's me voting for their demise in a little over a week.
I am constantly surprised at the lack of understanding of the nature of the Tea Party movement. This is a true grassroots movement that has been building for years.
Its candidates reflect the widespread center-America sentiment that professional politicians and "elites" have gotten us into this mess and that the status quo is no longer acceptable or sustainable. Its voters are willing to select "citizens" vs politicians. O'Donnell may not win in Delaware, but Mike Castle and those like him certainly got the message in the primary. Professional elites and insiders and pundits were shocked: "Why would they nominate O'Donnell and give up a sure win with Castle?!" Because the status quo is not acceptable to center-America. The Beltway game of "Its All About Winning" is not the game that the Tea Party is playing. They are playing for keeps, they are playing to replace what's broken with something that makes sense.
The long-tolerated, quiet frustrations with professional politicians and broken government held by the huge "center" of America have stopped being so quiet. Government at almost every level has put its citizenry into a mind-boggling financial mess, yet the "professional" politicians continue to demonstrate incredible fiscal incompetence, self serving rhetoric, party in-fighting and an unwillingness to even address the issues in a meaningful way.
Throw in the over-the-top partisanship of the mainstream media, a divisive President that refers to conservatives as "they" (versus a huge percentage of America that feels insulted and unrepresented as "they"), an unpopular healthcare bill that was rammed through with parliamentary slight of hand, example after example of spending within the stimulus bill that appears wasteful and idiotic to the basic common sense of center-Americans and a bad economy and you get sufficient energy to get center-Americans to say: "Enough!".
The immediate popularity of Sarah Palin after her plain spoken, every-day-American acceptance speech at the 2008 Convention should have been a clue to the mood of center-America's frustration with professional politics. Mr. Obama benefited from the same sentiment as he presented himself as a new type of leader and promised to change Washington.
Now that Mr. Obama has demonstrated that he is not different, just another partisan party politician, center-America has walked out their front doors and gathered at homes, stadiums, theaters, bars, churches, town halls and the Lincoln Memorial to say loudly: "Enough!".
They have shaken off the unbelievable attacks and miss-characterizations of their character by the mainstream media and by elected politicians and they kept gathering. Then most ominously for the professional politicians, they opened their wallets and purses and began going to the polls.
The Tea Party is your neighbor. The Tea Party is her neighbor. They don't agree on everything. Some are a little "freaky", but what other "organization" of millions upon millions of people doesn't have its own outliers? Look at the fringes of both professional political parties and you will see "freaky plus".
The Tea Party is the common sense center-America that has finally had "Enough!".
Congratulations all - 12 comments and still civil!
I kind of disagree with the comment by Tim Cogswell - "the Founders concept that the common man should serve in government". A few people have recently made distinctions between "elites" and "elitism" - which is what I think it comes down to. The Founders were "elites" of their day - educated and/or successful in business. They weren't elitists - believing in an entitled ruling class. The distinction is important. It separates someone like President Obama, with no real experience or success, who is "elite" according to an elitists criterion of credentialing (best schools, heck even has a Nobel prize for something or other), from someone like Carly Fiorina who is elite due to her business experience and success.
From that point of view, O'Donnell isn't the kind of candidate Fiorina is - though she still may be the best option in that particular race.
Why do you make the Tea Baggers sound so REASONABLE, Mr. Kraushaar? You gloss over the truly insane positions of this radical group of extremists and blithely claim they're just like you and me. You should re-post your blog after Sharon Angle supporters carry out their second amendment remedies. You can then remind us how they're just like you and me.
Christine O'Donnell Performs Live!
Christine O'Donnell educates us about the Constitution through music and dance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDUCra9rUxQ
Barbara Boxer is a pathological liar. She will say and do anything to maintain her power. She is a disgrace to California, but her power base has so much money, power and influence. She is a career politician who cares only about protecting her OWN job. She is the antithesis of the type of representative that the founders had in mind.
Barbara Boxer is a pathological liar. She will say and do anything to maintain her power. She is a disgrace to California, but her power base has so much money, power and influence. She is a career politician who cares only about protecting her OWN job. She is the antithesis of the type of representative that the founders had in mind.