See? I’m not the only one who noticed…
While some GOP boosters continue to make the argument that Christine O’Donnell’s campaign cost the GOP 3 or more Senate seats, the truth is, the GOP establishment’s reaction to O’Donnell winning the Delaware Republican primary, along with Mike Castle’s refusal to then back the GOP nominee, provided cover to mainstream media narratives depicting Tea Party candidates as dangerous extremist kooks looking to bring their godbothering, their nativist federalism, and their erstwhile dalliances with the Dark One to Congress. Couple this with GOP insiders’ more tacit rebukes of Tea Party candidates — made manifest in their decision to allocate resources to more polished, “moderate” candidates like Carly Fiorina (or back Dem favorites like Lisa Murkowski) — and it is clear that, while the Tea Party was helping bring out record numbers of midterm voters and completely energizing the conservative base, the GOP establishment was plotting its revenge on those who had circumvented them in their roles as kingmakers.
— Which is why the day after the election, we had stories about the deficiencies of certain Tea Party candidates, as noted by such staunch conservatives as Lindsey Graham, strategist Carl Forti, and lobbyist Trent Lott (!); and why we hear rumors that major players inside the GOP machinery feel it necessary to bring down Sarah Palin — who, like her or loath her, is largely responsible for the astounding growth and spread of the Tea Party movement.
In reality, though, what candidacies like Christine O’Donnell’s, or Ken Buck’s, or Joe Miller’s have done is show that conservatives in any number of states are willing to buck party politics in favor of voting for candidates they find represent them in principle. It proved that a grass-roots uprising can — and will — buck party machinery, and raise money for preferred classically liberal / conservative candidates by going around the GOP if necessary.
And what were the results, in an election where exit polls showed that people still overwhelmingly distrust Republicans as well as Democrats? This:
Republicans have added over 675 seats to their ranks in this election, dramatically surpassing 1994 gains. This number could go even higher as the tallies in the undecided races are determined.
The success by Republicans at the state level could give the GOP a dramatic advantage in the redistricting cycle that will start in just a few short months. The Census Bureau will deliver data to legislatures in early February. There are many caveats when it comes to redistricting especially given the legal complexity of the task and the inevitable litigation. But Republicans are in the best shape for the decennial linedrawing that they have been in since the modern era of redistricting began in the 1970s.
All legislative chamber switches in the 2010 election are going from a Democratic majority to a new Republican majority with one going from Dem to tied. That includes an historic win in the Minnesota Senate where Republicans will be in the majority for the first time ever, although the legislature was nonpartisan until 1974. In addition, Republicans now control the Alabama Legislature for the first time since reconstruction and the North Carolina General Assembly for the first time since 1870. As of now, Republicans appear to have added at least 19 chambers and that number could grow. The GOP gained 20 chambers in the 1994 election, and it’s not out of the question they will reach that milestone again this year with control of several chambers still up in the air.
Across the country, Republicans now control 55 chambers, Democrats have 38 and two are tied. Three chambers are undecided. Remember, Nebraska legislature is a unicameral.
The chamber switches thus far are all Democratic to Republican except for Montana House which was tied and is now Republican, and the Oregon House which was Democratic and is now tied. Changes are:
GOP gains
Alabama – House and Senate
Colorado – House
Indiana – House
Iowa – House
Maine – House and Senate
Michigan – House
Minnesota – House and Senate
Montana – House
New Hampshire – House and Senate
North Carolina – House and Senate
Ohio – House
Pennsylvania – House
Wisconsin – Assembly and SenateTied
Oregon House
Alaska SenateThe GOP flexed their muscle in all regions of the country. In the south, Republicans now control 18 of the 28 legislative chambers and a majority of all southern legislative seats for the first time since reconstruction. Prior to the election, each party held 14 southern chambers, and just 20 years ago, there were no legislative chambers in the south held by the GOP. In the midwest, Democrats now control only 38 percent of the region’s legislative seats–their lowest point since 1956. Republicans also made gains in the east and west. Gains in the east were helped by the huge shift of over 120 seats to the R column in the 400 member New Hampshire House.
McConnell and Boehner seem to have taken note, and are since striking all the right chords.
Cornyn, Graham, and many GOP “realists” in the press and blogosphere?
Not so much.
You know that Trent Lott isn’t a Senator any more, right?
To get classical liberals in office, we’ll be bypassing the RNC entirely. They know that, and they don’t like it. They worked hard to get where they are, and no rubes or hicktards or snowbillies are going to go around them, dammit!
I would never donate other than directly to a candidate, and I hope everyone else does the same. Money is power, and their power needs to be taken away soonest.
“conservatives as Lindsey Graham, strategist Carl Forti, and lobbyist Trent Lott (!)”
The staunchiest of the staunch, to be sure.
The first and last are proven losers, and I don’t know much about the middle one save for he’s Rove’s right hand man.
Yep.
And I still will be telling the various party organs that I can’t give themany money. They still haven’t earned it.
Besides, just like taxes, my money is better spent at the lowest level, so I’ll just give directly to candidates that I elect to trust.
It’s fascinating that Pres. G.W. Bush gave the Tea Party full credit in this interview.
The middle one, along with Murphy, Madden, & co, all form what a very perceptive Australian of Indian
extraction, on the C4P blog, call the Clique. They are like the soup ladler in Oliver Twist, yelling
insistently “More” at the orphan asking for another spoonful of gruel, when they ask about wideranging
changes in the structure of government
I wouldn’t put too much stock in the rumors. Ed Gillespie was on with Levin the other day and thoroughly disavowed holding or expressing any sentiment such as was attributed to him. Further, he notes that Politico never called him for confirmation and that after publication he called them and was told that they weren’t going to retract or correct because “somebody told us you think that.” Somebody anonymous. Allen and Vandehei are just shit stirring.
There is a parallel motion ongoing in the ranks of political punditry as well, with the likes of Peggy Noonan, David Brooks and others — happy to sell us Barack Obama back when selling Barack Obama was the thing to do — only now discovering Barack Obama isn’t who they thought he was. Yet they seem to be happy to discount their past misjudgments to maintain a claim to our attention and credulity now. Mark them and remember.
Oh how that brings joy to my Ed Gillespie loving heart, Pablo.
“Allen and Vandehei are just shit stirring.”
My thought too Pablo. They need a diversion to cover up the post-Dempocalypse civil war.
But you need to be careful these days Pablo, lest the inquisition declare you a RINO too! By association…
Brings to mind the old Monty Pyton routine; “Heresy by word, heresy by deed, heresy by thought…”
I heard Gillespie on Levin, and I believed him sincere, but I also believe that there is that faction that wants to see Palin hamstrung entirely.
#12 is referring to a link bh posted yesterday to a comment thread at ACE’s site.
“You shall know them by their deeds, as well as their words” Yes, Allen is a paid up member of the Journolist, however, Gillespie’s actions when he was running the McDonnell campaign, last year, comport with that characterization
You’re right Jeff G.
It’s definitely the Rockafeller crew. Despite public statements there’s nothing that Romney, Pawlenty, et al fear more than her deciding to run in 2012. For some it’s an “establishment” thing. For others, it’s because they know she’d trounce them in the primaries.
Cornyn’s useless ass is getting primaried next time.
“somebody told us you think that.”
in other words “we don’t care what you actually think, we’re going with what someone else said about you because it helps our own agenda” … just another variation on the rejection of intentionalism, eh?
“… and I don’t know much about the middle one save for he’s Rove’s right hand man.”
and you know what ‘mainstream’ Republicans do with their right hand…
What is is largely responsible for the astounding growth and spread of the Tea Party movement is… the spendings. The ungodly spectacle of failshittery that is America. An America mired helplessly in debt decay despair decrepitude dysfunction. And more debt. An America what as we speak has no budget prepared for next year. And along came the Obamacare to compound the breathtaking failshittery immensely. This is what is responsible for the astounding growth and spread of the Tea Party movement I think.
But if people really really must have a person towards which to offer a tip of the hat in gratitude I’d nominate cable news personality Glenn Beck.
Hutchinson first. Pretty sure Michael Williams will follow through and run. No contest there. We’ll see who’s going to step up against Cornyn in 2016.
Substantively, yes, of course.
Palin was instrumental in spreading the message and fomenting the grass roots movement by attaching her media-reviled self to it. And Mark Levin has been spreading this message for years.
As have I, which is of no import since the big right blogs decided to freeze me out, anyhow.
on a related note with the redistrictings here is a look at what to maybe expect with reapportionment
highlights are include
TX +4
NY -2
MI -1
MA -1
we can agree to disagree about that Mr. Jeff the important thing is that we stand together in determined staunchness to thwart destiny
and use lots of words starting with r
happyfeet,
Are you sure? Because Rick Santelli at CNBC is widely credited with kicking off the tea-party movement with his Rant in February 2009, where he called for a “Chicago tea party” in protest to Obama’s proposed mortgage modification program ( http://tiny.cc/RickRant ).
Next it became a more widespread phenomenon when the town-hall meeting regarding Obamacare were held; where people told their representatives to just say no! In the course of that opposition become as deep as it was wide, or it would be better to say in parallel with, and in response to the charges of opposition by racism, was the great number of folks awareness raised reding the lethal level of spending. In the course of realizing we couldn’t afford another entitlement program folks really began to notice the excessive spending going on.
But you’re right about Glenn Beck’s help in developing what organization does exist amongst the groups.
Towards the tea party I like the notion that success has many fathers. If everyone thinks its their little baby, they’ll be less likely to want to strangle it.
The best thing, IMO, about the Tea Party is the leaderless resistance model. There are Tea Pary leaders, but no Leader of the Tea Party. High profile leaders like Palin and Beck do a great job of helping to popularize and spread the movement, but there’s no ownership, there, or anywhere else for that matter.
“. . . success has many fathers . . .”
An’ parallel evolution from many directions bespeaks great sturdiness and sensibility. Like say with Newton and Leibniz, or cephalopod eyes and vertebrate eyes.
Yes that’s true Bob but I don’t think Santelli nurtured the movement anywhere near as passionately as Mr. Beck has. My sense is Mr. Beck has the ears of “influentials” as they pertain to the Tea Party. And Mr. Beck isn’t just about the rah rah he’s filthy with ideas like no other single figure excepting misters Ryan and Daniels.
influentials
I nominate Ric Locke to head Texas redistricting. Happy to help.
I don’t know if Beck is filthy with his own ideas, but more like a clearinghouse for the same; but I don’t want to sell him short until I read his book Broke and hear his suggestions.
Me? I’m inclined to agree with bh in #26 and SSgt RTO in #27.
I agree feets, this is why I have some arguments with some of his strategies, those who disdain him ‘are dead to me’
on a related note with the redistrictings here is a look at what to maybe expect with reapportionment
highlights are include
TX +4
NY -2
MI -1
MA -1
Yea, and you know who’s district they’re going to do away with in Michigan? Early bets are on Gary Peter’s district. BA HAAA HAA HAAAA.
Gary ran a dirty campaign against Rocky Rockowski (I’m sure I butchered that, but I don’t feel like looking it up). He was a lapdog for Nancy.
Gary Peters was, I mean,
I like that thought, sdferr.
I’m just relieved to see that California has stopped gaining seats.
Oh and I read somewhere Republicans picked up seats in the ork delegation. If that hadn’t happened and there’d only been two GOP seats going into reapportionment, with Dems controlling the Legislature, which two seats d’you suppose would have disappeared?
Damn keyboard.
New Y
Toss it in wherever it works best.
AS oppose to the Nazguls on the other coast, got it.
I’ll try not to make a hobbit of that.
[…] war, and want to fight it again. Let them use up their time and energy while we gird ourselves for the next one. Tip Jar Donations (via PayPal)Hit it, folks. :fx:Calvin eyes:Puuleeeez?You don't know […]
#31 I nominate Ric Locke to head Texas redistricting.
If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve.
Unless there are groupies. Are there groupies? If there are I might reconsider.
Regards,
Ric
Be a fucking conservative warrior, Ric.
I am a conservative warrior.
That is fun to say.
JD,
You forgot the *fucking* part; it’s integral.
I am a fucking conservative warrior.
I wonder when the last time my Illini won on the road at Penn State and Michigan in the same year was.
They don’t usually suck at the same time.
True, very true.
That’s one for Google JD,
Or maybe the three wiseguys at ESPN college gameday…
Wouldn’t it be interesting, Ric, though to produce a 100% independent redistricting plan, preferably before any official panel does, maybe get some official notice of it in a Texas journal of record, that follows the criteria that you have expounded before?
55 days to the raw data. How hard to model it and produce some options?
– Wouldn’t it be interesting…
– And that is one of the few, but immensly important bright spots in the Cal circus.
– We took apportionment and redistricting away from Sacramento. It now resides in the hands of a redistricting board, made up of 5 Dems, 5 Repubs, and 4 non-affiliated citizens.
– Goodbye Gerrymandering.
I just had a long meeting and lunch with a MO state senator, a hardcore conservative/libertarian. The MO house has around 108 Republicans (out of 164 or so seats) and 28 Republican Senators (out of 34). The Dummycrats aren’t even going to know what hit them on redistricting, right-to-work and other bedrock issues.
right-to-work is one of my favorites
That’s great to hear, Jeffersonian.
#53: I don’t know. The very thought gives me cold chills — the b*ards might take it seriously, I live alone now, I have to sleep sometimes, and the watchkittehs are not very diligent.
Coming to the active notice of the Texas political system without lots of backup is rather like taking a solo stroll ’round FOB Scania wearing shorts and a T-shirt with a dirty word in Arabic on it; in the best possible case you’d wind up badly burned. No thank you. I’m only a warrior with words, and then only when I can hide.
Regards,
Ric
At least one more could legitimately be California’s: in a contest between a “moderate” liberal Republican and a unabashed liberal Democrat, the liberals will vote for the genuine article and the Conservatives won’t vote for either, at least in no great numbers. Aside from a couple of Propsitions (20, 23, and “No” on 27), there was next to nothing on the ballot in California this year to entice conservatives to the polls.
o__o
FWIW, Prop. 19 even lost with liberals who apparently did not like the idea of the gubmint regulating their favorite toke…
BBH,
To a certain extent, anyway. The Federal courts will still demand certain seats be set aside for certain ethnic groups – who will, of course, vote solidly Democrat.
RTW is costing MO untold jobs, ‘feets. Companies are very wary of locating here for fear of being organized, and a lot of large manufacturing has pulled up stakes and left because of it. It’s a big deal that the unions have blocked for a long time, up to now.
did you see the cool PPT from the other day? It has this neat border effect analysis plus other fun facts.
One of the things a principled party would do is stand behind the candidates that win in the primary… or at the very least not be seen holding ones nose on national TV.
Scott Walker in Wisco and Daniels in Indiana both have majorities in both houses now as well. Both will probably also move on right-to-work laws.
I wonder about Michigan.
But who are they and how stupid are they? If someone has the problem and the thought that people should be thinking about it, they need to say so non-anonymously. I’m sure the faction exists, but who is it and why should I care? You can find anything you want to find in anonymous chatter.
They aren’t going to say so non-anonymously after what just happened on election night. But people like Peggy Noonan is not an original thinker, let’s just put it that way.
You know he’s become a close personal friend of Sarah Palin, right? And that he was talking to her on air 6 months before you ever heard her name?
Right. I say we render anonymous opinion mongers impotent. This crowd has seen plenty of anonymous bullshit and doesn’t care anymore, RAAAAACIST!!1! Put up or shut up are good words to live by.
Could this have played a part in how Sarah Palin wound up on John McCain’s short list? Hmmmmm…..
I don’t know about the interview necessarily Pablo, but certainly that controversy may have. I saw Larry Kudlow interview her a lot of times when oil was at 140 a barrel; he talked her up a lot.
Actually according to one source, this interview played a pivotal part,http://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio-Video/Politics/Political-Figures/Charlie-Rose–An-Conversation-with-Sarah-Palin-and-Janet-Napolitano/27956. Those of us, who had been following Bill Dyer’s excellent blog summary of her record, knew exactly what and who she was
RINOs are the problem. We need to suppress the blue-bloods. Their blood is blue for a reason.
Ummm, iron deficiency?
href: A Conversation with Sarah Palin and Janet Napolitano
If the RNC & NRCC had helped, John Loughlin a fantastic republican candidate could have won in the very tight race for Rhode Island’s first district house seat, the one Patrick Kennedy retired from. Instead, a horrible democrat, David Cicilline in the mold of Barney Frank has won. Cicilline’s the son of a mafia lawyer, with a brother incarcerated for dealing drugs. Cicilline, the current mayor of Providence, RI has left the city virtually bankrupt, a fact the local media pretty much hushed up until just before the election. Loughlin, and other republican candidates in RI got little to no help from the RNC or the NRCC. Some changes need to be made before the next election, people don’t give money to the party for it to go for conferences and trips to Hawaii.
iron deficiency?
Curaçao gimlets.
The teabaggers cost the GOP the Senate, especially their bigotry, as shown in the Angle adds. What really cost the Dems was the failure of the youth vote to turn out, since everyone knows the GOP is primarily old and white and less diverse than the younger demographic.
Young voters get older, AJB. Some even mature enough to stop trolling on blogs.
So the GOP was supposed to win the Senate? Ohhhhhhhkay.
Generally, youth never turns out, since everyone knows that voters are old and white and less diverse. What really cost them was their failure to turn out the illegal vote.
Scott Walker in Wisco and Daniels in Indiana both have majorities in both houses now as well. Both will probably also move on right-to-work laws.
I wonder about Michigan.
Michigan has HUGE majorities in both houses. I’m giddy with anticipation. These fuckers better not let us down. They’ve got the reigns. GO!
Did anyone hear that South Carolina rejected Strom Thurmond’s son in favor of a scary negro? They elected a mongrel of the dothead variety too. And that one had a vagina! We’re losing America when even The Palmetto State goes darkie.
RTW is costing MO untold jobs, ‘feets. Companies are very wary of locating here for fear of being organized, and a lot of large manufacturing has pulled up stakes and left because of it. It’s a big deal that the unions have blocked for a long time, up to now.
The head of the UAW is spinning hard and fast. They’re scared. They’re advocating for a halt to all bankruptcies in Detroit – there was a huge editorial in the paper about it.
And that has what to do with the United Auto Workers?
Maybe they’re looking at moral bankruptcies, Carin.
The title of the article was enough to make me lose my breakfast. Laws needed to protect the American dream. I thought that kinda ironic, given that piece I mentioned the other day that advocated that journalists weren’t so much liberal as Statists.
Same goes for the UAW leadership.
[…] JG has an outstanding look at how the NRSC – and NOT the tea party – cost the GOP several Senate seats. The fact that they threw so much money down the crapper in California is enough to have them politically drawn-and-quartered, but this sack of evidence proves that, as suspected, the GOP still has no sack. Consequently, we, as an independent conservative base, are going to have to have to hold their feet to the fire now more than ever. While some GOP boosters continue to make the argument that Christine O’Donnell’s campaign cost the GOP 3 or more Senate seats, the truth is, the GOP establishment’s reaction to O’Donnell winning the Delaware Republican primary, along with Mike Castle’s refusal to then back the GOP nominee, provided cover to mainstream media narratives depicting Tea Party candidates as dangerous extremist kooks looking to bring their godbothering, their nativist federalism, and their erstwhile dalliances with the Dark One to Congress. Couple this with GOP insiders’ more tacit rebukes of Tea Party candidates — made manifest in their decision to allocate resources to more polished, “moderate” candidates like Carly Fiorina (or back Dem favorites like Lisa Murkowski) — and it is clear that, while the Tea Party was helping bring out record numbers of midterm voters and completely energizing the conservative base, the GOP establishment was plotting its revenge on those who had circumvented them in their roles as kingmakers. […]
Self-fulfilling prophesies.
I am not a resident of Delaware nor do I have inside knowledge of its Republican political establishment. However, those who blame the Tea Party – which is not a party – for putting up a candidate who could not win, may want to amend their conclusions about the inevitability of Christine O’Donnell’s loss.
I base my dissent on several factors. First, despite being the focus of a really vicious national campaign to denigrate her personally; a campaign that included both Democrats AND Republicans, O’Donnell’s loss was not the blowout that was widely predicted. She received 40% of the vote in a state everyone said was a deep blue state. She was even with Coons for the Independent vote. According to exit polls, she received 51% of the white vote and 50% of the vote in small communities. She lost massively among blacks (by about the same margin as Republicans often get) but only got 81% of the Conservative vote. In fact, O’Donnell got about the same percentage of the vote as Joe Biden’s opponents received despite the national campaign to make her the poster child of the “Loony Right.”
There was second factor that may give us some insight into her loss. She had to build a political machine from the ground up in the space of 45 days. Appearing on Bill O’Reilly’s show last week she said that the Republican Party in Delaware denied her their machinery to help her during the election. For all the good the Republican label gave her in blue-state Delaware, she actually ran an Independent campaign.
The bottom line is this: her loss was not foreordained. The Republican establishment – from Karl Rove on down – would rather lose an election than have people that they can’t control into that “big tent” they always say they want. When somebody as high profile as Rove denigrated O’Donnell after she beat the one the establishment anointed, Mike Castle, he was in the process of creating a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Not saying that O’Donnell would have won the election in any case, just saying that running against both the Democrats and the Republicans made it just that much harder. The lesson for the Tea Party and Conservatives in general is that you have to be careful about choosing your friends because they may be the ones who are close enough to you to stab you in the back.
HISTORICAL SIDE NOTE:
As I was writing these comments I was reminded of another event, long ago, during England’s War of the Roses. It ended in the death of the last British king killed in battle: Richard III. Most people have heard of Richard III from the play of the same name by William Shakespeare. He made Richard out to be a bloody villain. With the benefit of hindsight, Shakespeare knew that it was much safer in the England of his day to be on the side of the winner, Henry Tudor who after the battle was crowned Henry VII.
Richard III was killed at the battle of Bosworth Field because one of his key military leaders, Henry Percy – Earl of Northumberland – decided to sit out the battle, and another, William Stanley, waiting to see how the battle developed before deciding to come on Tudor’s side; in the end helped to kill Richard.
Politics hasn’t changed much in the intervening 525 years.
I know a lot of Republicans who like Sarah Palin, but do NOT want to see her get the GOP nomination for fear that she would drive millions of Republicans into re-electing Obama. I adore Sarah, but it’s true that a huge chunk of the American population will never take her seriously–for all kinds of reasons: her glamorous beauty; her high, nasal voice; her unconventional college career; her funny accent. They say she lacks “gravitas.” Yes, it’s unfair. But there is one person out there who has all of Sarah’s positives, none of her negatives, and a whole slew of other positive qualities to boot–and that is Lt. Col. Allen West. He’s as smart and articulate as the best college professors (he’s got two master’s degrees himself); and he EXUDES authority like the battle-tested (literally), 22-year-military, Iraq-veteran commander of men and women that he is. He is the kind of person that no one DARES to make fun of. I encourage all my fellow Sarah fans to take a look at him. There are videos of many of his speeches on the Internet. I particularly like this one that he gave at the “Jihad: The Third Rail in American Politics” conference last February: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgZppLvjvaE
I meant to include in my comment just above, it’s disturbing and bodes ill for any Palin presidential candidacy that her “intensely negative” ratings in the polls have not budged even the tiniest bit in the past two years. They simply WILL NOT BUDGE. I think that’s a good reason for all Palin fans to take a look at other potential candidates who do not have such a HUGE handicap. I do think Sarah is the leader of our movement–she is the undisputed mascot of the Tea Party–but I think of her more as a Gandhi figure. You may recall that Mahatma Gandhi was THE heart, soul and strategist of the Free India movement–Indians revere him as the “father of their country.” Yet he NEVER HELD ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICE. He was one of the most influential, charismatic men who ever lived–and he, more than any other single individual, secured the liberation of his country. But he was never president or prime minister or even a legislator. You don’t have to be president to lead your nation–as I think Sarah has been demonstrating very well! She more than any other single individual had the most to do with the conservative victory last Tuesday! She can be, like Gandhi, the writer, speaker, motivator and catalyst for our movement even if she never holds elected office again. Later, she would make a hugely effective Secretary of Energy–under President West!
[…] Go figure. […]
You were right to be skeptical, of how much progress, this GOP is likely to make;
http://www.shelbycountyreporter.com/2010/11/07/spencer-bachus-sarah-palin-cost-gop-control-of-u-s-senate/
And this is the subtext, like they said in Barcelona:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/07/why-is-ron-paul-supporting-spe