Daily Caller
Barone: Too many tea party “wackos, weirdos and witches” cost us Senate seats
Conservative political analyst Michael Barone told an audience in Washington that Republicans put “too many” tea party “wackos, weirdos and witches” on the ballot this year, costing them seats in the U.S. Senate.
“Twenty-three Democratic seats up, only ten Republican seats up — it looked like a sure chance for Republican gains and a good possibility of gaining four seats that would give them the majority leadership even if Barack Obama was re-elected,” Barone explained during a speech at Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center near Capitol Hill on Friday.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
It wasn’t the candidates, it was the ground game picking the electorate.
Count to 10 on November 10, 2012 at 8:27 AM
Justifying his terrible prognostication.
Flange on November 10, 2012 at 8:29 AM
Yeah, notorious right wing nuts like Scott Brown and Linda McMahon.
And can you believe the GOP nominated a witch!
Oh wait, that was two years ago.
HitNRun on November 10, 2012 at 8:31 AM
I’ll give him Akin and Mourdock, but I have a question for the all knowing Mr. Barone? How is it that we still have the House? Answer: Tea party wave in 2010. Without that, you’d be back to the evil triad. Although I wonder if that even matters with the grim weeper Boner at the helm. That spineless hapless drunk is worthless.
TxAnn56 on November 10, 2012 at 8:32 AM
Maybe we should have nominated fake Indians who lactate on bars instead.
Flange on November 10, 2012 at 8:33 AM
The Tea Party won back the House in 2010, when the RINOs couldn’t.
Wethal on November 10, 2012 at 8:33 AM
Look I can understand the complains about Christine O’Donnell in 2010, but who exactly were our wackos this year? The only one I can think of is Achin and he wasnt Tea Party. He was a Phuckabee backed SoCon.
Valkyriepundit on November 10, 2012 at 8:34 AM
Seriously.
Aside from the general failure to beat the rebirth of the Hope and Change demographic, I can’t think of a Tea Party failing.
I guess if you believe that the Tea Party is a catchall for distasteful opinions on the right, you can blame Akin and Mordoch on the Tea Party. I would have thought Barone would be smarter than that, though.
Also, is there a point to electing Republicans who aren’t sympatico with the Tea Party in a year when job 1 is repealing Obamacare and job 2 is decimating federal spending? A non Tea Party Republican is just a blame magnet.
HitNRun on November 10, 2012 at 8:34 AM
Transl;ation: Conservatives shut up, get back on the plantation, and let your Betters of the GOP elite choose your candidates for you.
Wethal on November 10, 2012 at 8:35 AM
Which, of course, explains the failures of Allen and Thompson.
Steve Eggleston on November 10, 2012 at 8:36 AM
Barone is right, we need establishment candidates like Connie Mack, George Allen, Pete Hoekstra, Linda McMahon, Tommy Thompson. Oh wait….
commodore on November 10, 2012 at 8:37 AM
Akin wasn’t the Tea Party choice, IIRC. Huckabee pushed him, and the Dems’ sneak PAC ran ads supporting Akin as the “true conservative” to help him win.
Mourdock was unprepared for the “rape” question, but the Lugar faction in IN sandbagged him. Lugar never endorsed him, although Mourdock said he would have endorsed Lugar.
Wethal on November 10, 2012 at 8:37 AM
Who is he referring to?
Weirdos don’t seem to be a problem with the dimms.
Ms. “I’m a Cherokee!..Look at my cheekbones”. “..”Guam’s gonna tip over!”..” They want to sew your cooter shut and make you have rape babies!”..”The planet is melting..yyeeeahhhhh!”…”Let’s pass the bill first, and then read it”…”windmills are the future”…”the rich don’t pay their fair share!”..etc..etc.
Those are actual unspun beliefs of the libtards.
What are some of the crazy TEA party claims?
Mimzey on November 10, 2012 at 8:37 AM
Don’t forget that extremist Tommy Thompson.
Seriously though, I’ve mentioned this a thousand times, R squishes cost us senate seats. Buck and Angle won with independents. O’Donnell tied independents. They lost because 11%, 15%, and 20% of Republican squishes didn’t vote for them like they always tell conservatives to do. The tea party groups split their vote between Jon Brunner and Sarah Steelman in Missouri, which got Akin the nomination. Of course, I’m sure Barone and the squishes won’t allow the facts to get in the way of their narrative.
topdawg on November 10, 2012 at 8:37 AM
I will enjoy watching this conservative circular firing. It should be very entertaining.
antifederalist on November 10, 2012 at 8:38 AM
The problem isn’t that they are Tea Part or establishment retreads.
You just need to be able to effectively communicate a conservative message. If you can’t do that, you will be demagogued and lose.
commodore on November 10, 2012 at 8:39 AM
Never should have supported Ted Cruz. What idio …. oh wait.
Dusty on November 10, 2012 at 8:39 AM
Actually that’s a good point Steve. Why did Allen and Thompson lose? My theory is that people are tired of seeing them. Why can’t the GOP find some fresh young faces and win with those? Why is it always the same people running year after year?
IdrilofGondolin on November 10, 2012 at 8:39 AM
Fixed
antifederalist on November 10, 2012 at 8:43 AM
Did they do this much navel gazing on the Democrat blogs in 2010? Or did they simply say, 2010 – the Klan is back AmeriKKKa?
CorporatePiggy on November 10, 2012 at 8:44 AM
[TxAnn56 on November 10, 2012 at 8:32 AM]
You can give him Mourdock, TxAnn56, but Akin wasn’t the Tea Party candidate.
What he did get was support of Tea Partiers after he won. And isn’t that what the Party is supposed to do (this is not a question).
Dusty on November 10, 2012 at 8:44 AM
Wow, who knew that Obamaism was contagious? Seems that blaming other people is the name of the game.
Cindy Munford on November 10, 2012 at 8:46 AM
Can’t explain Allen, but Thompson was out of Wisconsin’s sight for the past 11 years. Baldwin successfully painted him as a rich Washington insider for everybody under 32 (who never had the chance to vote for him until now) and those with weak memories because Thompson was completely off the air for the month after the primary. Never mind that Baldwin went to DC the same time that Thompson won his last election as governor 14 years ago.
Steve Eggleston on November 10, 2012 at 8:48 AM
You’ve just hit upon the major reason why I don’t think the Republican party will exist for much longer. The Tea Party and the so-called “moderates” have been in a cold war since 2006 when Bush started pushing for amnesty.
Doomberg on November 10, 2012 at 8:51 AM
Not from the party elite if a conservative (fiscal, social, or both) knocks off the preferred candidate in the primary. As pointed out above, neither Akin nor Mourdock had that support post-primary, even before their rape answers.
Heck, I’ll go back to Wisconsin’s 2004 Senate race. Tim Michels knocked off preferred candidate Russ Darrow in a crowded primary and immediately both state (pre-Priebus) and national GOP support got yanked. In fact, he had to fight to get 3 minutes at the start of one of Bush’s rallies.
Steve Eggleston on November 10, 2012 at 8:53 AM
Says the genius who predicted 330 for Romney. I’m still mad about him getting my hopes up.
KS Rex on November 10, 2012 at 8:54 AM
Thought it was 315, but point noted.
Steve Eggleston on November 10, 2012 at 8:58 AM
Excellent point. I had forgotten that the Dems poured money into Akin’s campaign expressly for his nomination. Unlike Akin, you didn’t see the Dems distance themselves from Fauxchahontas. No, they embraced her. But the elites are so afraid of their own shadow.
Also, notice how he doesn’t malign Ted Cruz who was a huge TP candidate. It was the tea party who put Cruz into the primary and he gained momentum from there.
TxAnn56 on November 10, 2012 at 9:00 AM
And speaking of amnesty, (not meaning to hijack the thread), we may not have gained senate seats but we’ve got more conservative senators in there than we did during the 2006 battle. A congressman in LA and David Vitter have already rebuked what Boehner said about “comprehensive immigration reform”. I would hope that the congressmen who are there as a result of the TP wave of 2010 will remember who brought them to dance and who can take them out when this issue rears its ugly head again.
TxAnn56 on November 10, 2012 at 9:05 AM
So, I guess tolerance, understanding and civility isn’t the exclusive domain of the Leftists.
clippermiami on November 10, 2012 at 9:08 AM
Every election is going to have some goofy candidates who screw up, which is why you can’t count on everything happening perfectly……with hundreds of politicians and slimy campaign advisers, millions of confused voters, and a media whose HQ is in the camp of the opposition. Barone expects all this to go smoothly.
Republicans, in particular, need several more points more of support and a larger number of successful candidates before any kind of useful results.
Dongemaharu on November 10, 2012 at 9:09 AM
No kidding. I’ll give the GOP insiders 2010 to an extent. Maybe Castle wins that seat if he’s the nominee(I still have my doubts). And it’s possible that Louden or Tarkanian would’ve done better than Angle(again, no guarantee). But other Tea Party candidates won their Senate races. Rand Paul, anyone? Mike Lee? And Joe Miller only lost because the NRSC refused to order Leena Micklewhite to stand down after she lost the primary.
Which brings me to the real problem. The Republican leadership. 2010′s bloodbath in the House races only happened because of the Tea Party. The media can trash the movement all they want, but bottom line it motivated people and got them to the polls. Meanwhile, Michael Steele was drowing the RNC in red ink as he went about promoting himself instead of House candidates.
2012 is an even bigger debacle. With the Tea Party intensity still there from 2010 and an even bigger motivator for voters to come out(our last chance to repeal Obamacare), the GOP completely drops the ball. We actually lost a net 2 Senate seats. How in the hell does that happen?! Achin’ was a fluke who managed to eek out a primary win thanks to McCasket playing interference. But he could’ve been removed before the deadline. Is the NRSC and the rest of the GOP leadership that impotent? You’re telling me you can’t bribe Achin’ with something, anything?! How did Mourdock lose so badly when Mitt won Indiana so easily? It can’t just be the abortion/rape remark. How did they lose easily winnable seats in North Dakota and Montana? Those are Republican heavy states, are they not? The former state certainly should’ve been receptive to voting GOP given what’s at state with Obama’s EPA and fracking. Why did Connie Mack and Tommy Thompson lose their races far worse than Mitt lost those states? With regard to the House races, how does Mia Love lose her race in Utah? How was Allen West’s vote total so close that the Dems may be able to steal that seat through fraud?
And another thing. Why is it the Dems keep succeeding in cheating in these elections? Do the Republicans not have access to their own lawyers and judges? Do they not know how to station poll workers to prevent this stuff from happening? I don’t know if we’re being outorganized, outhustled, or outfought, but this has to stop. The GOP won’t have our support much longer if it looks like they’re not even trying to win. If this bunch had been running the show 12 years, that Florida recount would’ve gone to Gore with a couple of days.
Doughboy on November 10, 2012 at 9:10 AM
That still must burn them… The
upstarts and rabble rousers“wackos, weirdos and witches” stormed the barricades and saved their butts. Problem is, I don’t think they wanted to be saved, not the entrenched Barone-types anyway…Fallon on November 10, 2012 at 9:11 AM
Once again, the faux conservatives blaming the tea party when it was THEIR bad candidates that lost the races. Close to 70% of Palin’s picks won in this election.
We need a true conservative to lead the party.
Palin 2016
ChuckTX on November 10, 2012 at 9:12 AM
No Tea Party, no Marco Rubio. And the House would still be Democrat.
forest on November 10, 2012 at 9:13 AM
That Barone, not content in slamming his career into the metaphorical iceberg with his prognostications, now decides to punch holes in all the lifeboats.
Double down on incompetent, Mike.
Thomas More on November 10, 2012 at 9:13 AM
This should be fun to watch
antifederalist on November 10, 2012 at 9:15 AM
[Steve Eggleston on November 10, 2012 at 8:53 AM]
Yeah, I was being sarcastic, Steve. I was being sarcastic.
I really don’t know what Barone is talking about here. The way it’s written, he might be implying Tea Party candidates down ticket, say the House races, hurt those running for the Senate. I can’t evaluate that, and we did lose a few seats on that score.
But Tea Party Senate candidates? I’ve been going through the races and so far I’ve got Tea Party support from the primary on, in no particular order, Mourdock, Cruz, Flake, Heller, Fischer, Hoekstra. Neither Flake nor Hoekstra are warlocks though both were weirdos in that they were sitting House members years and years before the Tea Party existed and one won and one lost. Cruz and Fischer are new. Heller was a sitter appointed in 2011 to replace Ensign, but was a House sitter only from 2007.
I’m sure we’ll see a full sort on this subject soon enough, but my gut says Barone will eat those words.
Dusty on November 10, 2012 at 9:18 AM
Because the Republicans in the Florida legislature put him in a more Democrat district during redistricting. I don’t know why they did that, but they did.
Don’t forget Marco Rubio who they love all of a sudden. And Pat Toomey. Ron Johnson as well.
topdawg on November 10, 2012 at 9:20 AM
I’m disappointed in Barone. I thought he was smarter than this. He used to be one of my favorite analysts.
Mycroft on November 10, 2012 at 9:24 AM
Mourdock’s opponent, Joe Donnelly, on abortion (from Wikipedia):
Bet a dollar you didn’t know this.
Bob Casey, winner of the Pennsylvania Senate election, supported overturning Roe vs. Wade. Bet you didn’t know that, either.
Can we quit trying to figure out what positions, ideas, and mistakes caused the losses? Republicans are attacked for one reason: They’re not Democrats.
If a Democrat had said what Akin and Mourdock said, it would never have even made the news.
tbrosz on November 10, 2012 at 9:24 AM
[Thomas More on November 10, 2012 at 9:13 AM]
I’m not going to dump on Barone’s prognostications. John E over at AoSHQ is looking at ORCA and no one expected that to fail and with it the entire GOTV.
If one wants to look for failure, I say it was to down GOTV and what ought to be done is a ground up GOTV, by at least House district race, with the idea that if you get the people out for the House race, you get them out for Senate and President.
Dusty on November 10, 2012 at 9:25 AM
Who needs the liberal media to set the narrative when we are perfectly willing to set ourselves on fire?
MechanicalBill on November 10, 2012 at 9:27 AM
Precisely. Barone should be congratulating the TP for Ted Cruz and Deb Fischer winning.
In Texas, the GOPe and Rick Perry were pushing Dewhurst in the primary, but the TP and Palin put their efforts behind Ted Cruz. Palin traveled to Texas to campaign for Cruz, and Ted gives her the credit for his win over Dewhurst.
In Nebraska, Deb Fischer trailed two other candidates in the primary. Palin endorsed Fischer and the next thing you know she ended up the winner, and then she beat Kerrey.
Occasionally, we may end up with TP-backed, Palin-backed candidate who fails in the general election, but the winning percentage is pretty high. Rove’s American Crossroads spent $100,000,000 and didn’t back one single winner.
The loss of Senate seats is the Tea Party’s fault? I don’t think so.
NoNails on November 10, 2012 at 9:28 AM
You only need a few to support it on the Republican side and it will get through. Man, I guess it is time to fly my wife’s family over here and have them conveniently lose their passports! We cannot get one of her aunts over here to help care for our children, but every jose, maria, and honcho from Mexico is welcome to come over and live off welfare. I am really getting worn out on this stuff.
astonerii on November 10, 2012 at 9:28 AM
Would Toomey really be considered a Tea Party candidate? He ran for the nomination and lost to SPECTRE before there even was a Tea Party. Johnson I suppose could be considered Tea Party, but even that’s a stretch. Rubio no doubt though(along with Rand Paul) is a shining example of how great a Tea Party-backed candidate can turn out even with the establishment opposing them every step of the way. Either of those dudes could headline a GOP Presidential ticket in the near future.
Doughboy on November 10, 2012 at 9:30 AM
How can we watch it burn if we don’t set it on fire?
Fallon on November 10, 2012 at 9:32 AM
If Ron Johnson or Pat Toomey (great candidates both) had run this year, they would have lost. The only reason they were able to win in WI and PA was that much of the coalition of the mooching doesn’t care about non-presidential elections.
DavidW on November 10, 2012 at 9:34 AM
And the National GOP elitists cost us the White House- AGAIN! Plus the Scott Brown And McMahon races. And shall we talk about the FUBAR that was ORCA (read the article at the link, THEN watch the video here. Not sure which one is dumber.)
michaelo on November 10, 2012 at 9:36 AM
They wanted to be saved, but not by people they despise as intellectual and ideological inferiors. Remember that they’re not just talking about the O’Donnells, they’re talking about the Allen Wests and the Rand Pauls and even the Pat Toomeys.
You can come out and say it. There’s been a fairly deliberate pattern of sabotage against the more vulnerable Tea Party candidates. If there were serious Ron Paul types moving up within the party, they would get the same treatment. Priority #1 for our “moderates” has always been about making sure the current party power structure remains in place, even if it means losing some elections to the Democrats.
Doomberg on November 10, 2012 at 9:38 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »