Sunday, April 10, 2011

Who Won the Last Election?

This is a very important question posed by Ohio Joe in the chatbox this morning. It is worth discussing.

Republicans won many races in 2010, more than the democrats to be sure. But please, let us note, republicans won many races, not the tea party. The only tea party race that I can think of off the top of my head that was a victory was Rand Paul. The tea party lost several significant races, including the losses of Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Ken Buck, Joe Miller, JD Hayworth. To be certain, the tea party deserves credit for firing up their constituents to get out and vote. Without those votes I am sure that we would not have made as many gains as we did in the House. However, without the Tea Party candidates in the Senate races, we may have taken the Senate back.

But, let me be clear. Though we won the House, we didn't win the Senate. We don't have a mandate from the people to pass laws as we see fit without negotiating with democrats. Democrats still have a majority in the Senate. They may have lost races, but they won the election as far as the Senate is concerned. No doubt this logic that I have expressed here brands me as a RINO. Have at it.

13 comments:

Pablo said...

Dan, you are dead on. However, the Tea Party folks are going to try to claim Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey and the LePaige from Maine, etc. The problem is that these candidates were glad to take Tea Party money and support, but now that the election is over, they seek to avoid the Tea Party label.

I was speaking with a friend of mine last night who has a very close relationship with Marco Rubio and she says that Rubio hates being tagged Tea Party.

The Tea Party only wins in white, rural areas like Kentucky. They lose everywhere else.

Anonymous said...

Pablo, it is also important to note that LePage is governor of Maine, not a Senator, and has nothing to do with passing legislation in DC.

BOSMAN said...

I'm reminded of a blog post by CraigS that pointed out the win loss records in 2010 based on Romney and Palin's endorsements. I realize that Palin did endorse a few non-Tea Party folks and I realize that Romney backed a few Tea Party folks. In both cases though, it was a rarity. But I find the numbers interesting:

Number of endorsed candidates who WON:

Romney 259
Palin 76

You can view the breakdown HERE.

OhioJOE said...

To paraphrase Pablo, where to we begin with this crazy talk. While you make a few true point, you leave out a lot of details. You forget that the main reason that the Dems won the Senate is because they had less seats to defend. Nevertheless, Mr. Machin had to run as a Conservative to win.

Also to use Pablo's phase. Mr. Castle was a NON Starter in DE, he was never going to be supported by Conservatives in the first place. The majority of DE GOP voted for Ms. O'Donnel over Mr. Castle. It was sheer craziness on the part of the elite to push Mr. Castle on the party in the first place thereby losing a seat.

Not's not forget that we lost NY-23, PA-12 and IN-02 in part because the party hack gave us non-Tea Party candidates in those districts. Let us also not forget that the GOP won more State House positions across the country since the Great Depression. Mr. Walker and Mr. Kasich did not become Governors by campaigning from the Left.

Finally, I used to be a Pragmatist myself. In the General elections, I voted for Republicans even if they were not as Conservative as I liked, but that game is over the party elite has lost my trust and they are making no effort to win it back. If those who lead the party would spend just half as much time compromising with Conservative as they do liberals, I would take them seriously, but time after time after time they repeat and repeat their same old song and dance. Cave to the Liberals and throw the Conservatives under the bus. Perhaps I used to be naive and Crazy, but I am no longer foolish enough to believe the party hacks.

There once was a Restaurant owner who fired a drunken Chef "it is not that I do not want you to have a job, but I do not want you to work for me. I feel like a Restaurant owner, it is not that I want the GOP to lose (that is their business,) but they will most likely have to win without my vote and money. The days of me buying alcohol for a bunk of drunks are slowly coming to an end. Perhaps somebody else will step up and buy the whiskey.

Pablo said...

Are you actually suggesting that Mike Castle would have lost? And NY-23 was the establishment's fault?

OhioJOE said...

The answer to both questions is a strong yes, and I suspect you already knew the answer. Mr. Castle blew the primary because of silly tactics, no?

Pablo said...

Well, you are wrong on both accounts then. Just look at every poll that came out during the primary season and after the primary season. It is your opinion vs. empirical evidence.

Anonymous said...

Great post, Dan.

I think we won in 2010 because of Obama, and not because of the tea party. The tea party is merely a reaction to what Obama has done, and the direction the country is going.

I also believe that we lost some seats we could have won due to some extreme and unqualified candidates the tea party pushed. I mean, come on--look at the likes of O'Donnell and Miller. Two obviously unqualified and unethical candidates.

-Martha

OhioJOE said...

"It is your opinion vs. empirical evidence." If you want empirical evidence, Mrs. O'Donnell was winning the GE race before Mr. Rove left the reservation. Oh, sorry, I forgot, Ras is not approved by Pollman. As for NY-23, I was proven right. The Conservatives got enough votes to deny the liberal Republican victory. And talk about STUPID. The party elite did not learn their lesson from the first fiasco so what do the clown do, they do? They promote a liberal loser again. But I know it is too much to ask the party elite to use common sense. After all, that would involve taking head out of sand.

OhioJOE said...

"Two obviously unqualified and unethical candidates." Oh, and you are an expert on ethical and qualified candidates? You really called WI, MA and NV right, NOT.

Anonymous said...

OJ, how about blaming the loss on O'Donnell. Did you ever bother to read her bio? She was a nutjob, tax-cheat, liar, etc. It had NOTHING to do with Rove. LOL

I'm not an expert, but I am able to read.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

O'Donnell would have been the perfect bride for JD Hayworth. Both as unethical as they come. Plus, he looks like Frankenstein and she isn't a witch.

OhioJOE said...

So you automatically believe what is said about Miss. O'Donnell, but give Mrs. Murk and Mr. Reid, not to mention Mr. Grayson, Moderates and liberals are not as queaky clean as you think Martha.