Tea Party is Dead?

"It was the great wildcard going into the 2012 election cycle. Republican Party insiders openly worried the Tea Party might knock off the establishment presidential candidate, just as it knocked out establishment picks in the chaotic 2010 congressional races. Party heavyweights wondered whom the upstart movement would get behind and whether Mitt Romney could even get through the early states, given the once-raging Tea Party elements in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. But after months of wondering how the Tea Party would change the primary game, leaders inside the movement admit they never came in off the sidelines. For the Tea Party movement, the 2012 presidential primaries have been a bust."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article…primaries.html

Now, my personal opinion would be that (to paraphrase Mark Twain) reports of the death of Tea Party might be premature but, with lackluster performance by Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum and with Christine O'Donnell's financial troubles (http://www.delawareonline.com/articl…tary-shortfall) it seems to me that Tea Party have become a mere shadow of its former self…

A grassroots movement like the Tea Party is going to have far more influence on local politics. The leftie view of the Tea Party as some monolithic monster is inaccurate anyway—it's an umbrella term for literally hundreds of small local groups. Small, energized groups can have a measurable impact on local politics, but they simply don't have the headcount and money to be more than bit players on the national level.

Besides, you've got two more aspects that have stolen steam from the movement in general. First, their remarkably successful impact during 2010 did squat to change the culture in Washington. That sort of disallusionment is toxic for a grassroots movement. Second, the disgraceful smear campaign run by the main stream media turned these folks into targets. It's harder to get energetic people on board when they're going to get tarred with all sorts of utterly baseless claims of racism and similar nonsense.

I expect they'll be back in 2014, impacting the off-year local elections again. If Obama wins, they'll be back big time to combat the ongoing fiscal suicide. If Romney wins (making that assumption he's the guy), they'll be back but not as aggressive.

The real issue is if the Tea Partiers are going to Perot Romney in the general election. I don't think too many people expected them to swing the primaries.

Originally Posted by dteowner
A grassroots movement like the Tea Party is going to have far more influence on local politics. The leftie view of the Tea Party as some monolithic monster is inaccurate anyway—it's an umbrella term for literally hundreds of small local groups.

We are in agreement on that.

Small, energized groups can have a measurable impact on local politics, but they simply don't have the headcount and money to be more than bit players on the national level.
snip
First, their remarkably successful impact during 2010 did squat to change the culture in Washington.

Don't you see a contradiction between those 2 sentences? TPM WAS successful in 2010 and on national level as well!

That sort of disallusionment is toxic for a grassroots movement.

You could call it "disillusionment". I call it "lack of staying power".

Second, the disgraceful smear campaign run by the main stream media turned these folks into targets.

We don't agree on that. "Main stream media conspiracy" is an old right wing excuse which, conveniently, skips over the fact that "main stream media" include right wing media as well.

I don't see it, bn. Like Z says, they've lost some steam so I just don't see them having the energy and cohesion to get behind a Perot-kinda campaign.

Originally Posted by zahratustra
Don't you see a contradiction between those 2 sentences? TPM WAS successful in 2010 and on national level as well!

Not so, my good man. The Tea Party was successful in numerous local elections. None of those candidates individually represent more than half a state (the new senators) and the majority of the Tea Party elected were actually representatives rather than senators, meaning they individually represented a rough average of 10% of a state (doing some very rough math, you're looking at around 750,000 heads per candidate, which is around 600,000 eligible voters, which is around 150,000 actual voters in play). That's a totally different ballgame than a 50-state election. You're playing to a much smaller and more homogeneous audience.

I have to grant you this point. I am still thinking about politics on European rather than American scale…

Damn Euros, always thinking the world revolves around them when everyone knows the world revolves around the USofA.

Whenever I see the words "Tea Party" I have this image my mind of the Mad Hatter and the March Hare sipping tea from porcelains cups and spouting nonsense ;-) Well, that would be more interesting at least! *ahem*

Not far from the truth either.

Yup, silly hats and nonsense. Two out of three ain't bad!

To the blind man, people speaking of colors will seem crazy.

Meditate upon this wisdom, Ed Gruberman.

Yesh Mashter.

Boot to the head!

"Is the Tea Party Dead?" a literate person would write.

I would complain to the author of the article if I were you.