How did Palin backed candidates do? Pretty good according to CBS News

[Grim17]

CBS news did a story about Sarah Palin this morning, where they analyzed how well the candidates she backed did in last nights elections. It was a well done story by CBS that surprisingly depicted Palin in a positive light.

Eyeblast.tv

 

[Manc Skipper]

I read almost half didn't make it. Still, being half right is an improvement for her.

 

[obvious Child]

Well, her endorsed candidates cost the GOP the Senate. The GOP likely would have taken the house without her endorsements. So in terms of Republican gains, Palin may have been a drag.

 

[Hoplite]

Considering O'Donnel got slaughtered, I wouldn't be crowing about Palin's successes.

O'Donnel was supposed to be a flagship Republican as a representative of the teabagger movement.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Well, her endorsed candidates cost the GOP the Senate. The GOP likely would have taken the house without her endorsements. So in terms of Republican gains, Palin may have been a drag.

nay, i disagree. The tea party candidates that failed had a lot of personal baggage, and were unable to campaign flawless like those entrenched in the states.

Still, the fact even half won, some dispite their personal failings during the campaign, still managed the win. And I think Marc Rubio has the potential to replace Palin fairly quickly.

 

[Caine]

..........the teabagger movement.

Im sorry... What kind of movement? Im confused.

Since when did weird sexual fettishes become a "movement"???

 

[DarkWizard12]

Im sorry... What kind of movement? Im confused.

Since when did weird sexual fettishes become a "movement"???

the 60's man.

 

[Zyphlin]

Considering O'Donnel got slaughtered, I wouldn't be crowing about Palin's successes.

O'Donnel was supposed to be a flagship Republican as a representative of the teabagger movement.

O'Donnel wasn't supposed to be a flagship Republican except for those in the media and on the left who decided she'd be great to set up as the "face" because she completely lacked polish. God forbid they zoom in on Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, or Johnson up in Wisconsin...then people may see Tea Party members with polish, who speak well, who are charismatic, who don't have all the baggage. They may actually see them as REASONABLE folk and we can't have that!

Most people, including many tea partiers, realized that O'Donnel's shot was a long one...at best. They accepted that. People bitch, and bitch, and BITCH about people "choosing the lesser evil" and "playing politics" and doing "politics as usual"...so when the republicans in a state choose to NOT choose the lesser evil, choose NOT to play politics, choose to vote on principle even though it will likely cost them an election, then they get bitched at then too?

The republicans in that state said they'd rather have the chance to put a staunch conservative in office but likely have a democrat than having the chance to put a "moderate" conservative into the seat.

Not to mention some polling suggests even Castle would've lost that.

 

[Hicup]

Considering O'Donnel got slaughtered, I wouldn't be crowing about Palin's successes.

O'Donnel was supposed to be a flagship Republican as a representative of the teabagger movement.

Like your power center in the White House, you are misreading this loss. It's almost like o'Donnel losing, and Angle in NV, oh and Whittman in CA is the only thing you can latch on too, as two nights ago must have been gut wrenching to witness for you all?

Winning DE was a long shot to begin with, same goes for CA. NV was a disappointment, but the good news is that in some wild twist of fate, it actually works out better for Republicans that the dimwits kept the Senate, if only in the token variety. We all know that the Republicans control the agenda now in both houses, and the White House. Sure, we'll let it appear as though the President is calling the shots, but we all know he's not really..

Do I need to explain why it's good that Shumer wasn't injected into the role of Senate Majority leader?


Tim-

 

[chino]

Like your power center in the White House, you are misreading this loss. It's almost like o'Donnel losing, and Angle in NV, oh and Whittman in CA is the only thing you can latch on too, as two nights ago must have been gut wrenching to witness for you all?

Winning DE was a long shot to begin with, same goes for CA. NV was a disappointment, but the good news is that in some wild twist of fate, it actually works out better for Republicans that the dimwits kept the Senate, if only in the token variety. We all know that the Republicans control the agenda now in both houses, and the White House. Sure, we'll let it appear as though the President is calling the shots, but we all know he's not really..

Do I need to explain why it's good that Shumer wasn't injected into the role of Senate Majority leader?


Tim-

Hmm, It's not really a big deal that you guys won the house. It's all due to bad timing and brain washing that you guys won anything. It will all be controlled by democrats again soon enough.

 

[obvious Child]

nay, i disagree. The tea party candidates that failed had a lot of personal baggage, and were unable to campaign flawless like those entrenched in the states.

That doesn't address my point here. The fact that got the nomination is the problem. Bennet would have lost to a moderate in Colorado. Coons would have been utter toast against Castle. That's 2 right there. Harry Reid by all measures should have been defeated. Putting NORMAL people against them would have likely given the GOP the Senate. I agree that they had lots of personal baggage. So much so they shouldn't even have been endorsed at all.

Still, the fact even half won, some dispite their personal failings during the campaign, still managed the win. And I think Marc Rubio has the potential to replace Palin fairly quickly.

Rubio is by far preferable to Palin in every single aspect...other then cup size. eace

 

[Caine]

Hmm, It's not really a big deal that you guys won the house. It's all due to bad timing and brain washing that you guys won anything. It will all be controlled by democrats again soon enough.

Hmmm, Its not really a big deal that you guys won the white house. It's all due to bad timing and brain washing that you guys won anything. It will all be controlled by Republicans again soon enough.....

:roll:

 

[Zyphlin]

That doesn't address my point here. The fact that got the nomination is the problem. Bennet would have lost to a moderate in Colorado. Coons would have been utter toast against Castle. That's 2 right there. Harry Reid by all measures should have been defeated. Putting NORMAL people against them would have likely given the GOP the Senate. I agree that they had lots of personal baggage. So much so they shouldn't even have been endorsed at all.

Rubio is by far preferable to Palin in every single aspect...other then cup size. eace

First, from what I understand some are suggesting even Castle would've lost to Coons based on exit voting.

Second, the grassroots of the conservative movement is attempting to change the culture of the Republican Party and rebuild. Much like a sports team doing it, sometimes you've got to sit or cut a veteran or even a star that's more likely to help you in in the short term in exchange for a 2nd stringer that helps push that culture change forward. You do this because the bigger goal is sustained success in the future thanks to a changed culture rather than short term potential success but with the same failing attitude. Angle and O'Donnel were 2nd, maybe 3rd, stringers whose point was as much to the party as it was to actually winning a seat.

The success with Angle and O'Donnel was the fact of how they even got into that position, what that represents, and the message it sends to the party's establishment. You hope your 2nd stringers during a rebuilding year will all click and maybe you'll catch lightning in a bottle and win some you're not supposed to or even find a surprise star (Johnson and Paul in my eyes), but you're not exactly banking on it as a likelihood for all.

 

[haymarket]

While I disagree politically with Zyphlin, the latest post above this one does a very good job of explaining the situation and I agree with it. I would point out that the tea party movement is indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand it does boost participation in the Republican Party and does seem to energize the party. There is little doubt they were responsible for much of the GOP tsunami on Tuesday. The other side - the downside - is that they will give you the occasional Sharon Angle and a more moderate candidate probably would have fared better. But on the whole you would have to say that the tea party was a positive force in the major GOP gains.

 

[disneydude]

The Republican party needs to embrace the tea party and Sarah Palin and move further to the right. If they are going to win big in 2012 and win the whitehouse, the GOP needs to first of all run Sarah Palin as their nominee and allow Sarah Palin a larger voice in their party. I hope that the GOP does embrace Sarah Palin and does not push her and the tea party away into a third party. The success of the GOP rests entirely with them moving far to the right and adopting the tea party ideas.

 

[haymarket]

from Disneydude

The Republican party needs to embrace the tea party and Sarah Palin and move further to the right

Some of us on the left agree 100% with that statement. Not o much for the rest of the post.

 

[Captain America]

Im sorry... What kind of movement? Im confused.

Since when did weird sexual fettishes become a "movement"???

When enemas became a fad.

 

[Captain America]

I make better football picks than Palin does political ones. But I have had some upsetting pics here and there.

 

[obvious Child]

First, from what I understand some are suggesting even Castle would've lost to Coons based on exit voting.

I don't see how that's a good measure of anything. Comparing Coons to O'Donnell as a measure of Castle's potential success isn't really a justifiable argument. O'Donnell was a long shot in the first place where Castle caused several serious Democrats to drop out of the race before it started. Does comparing the results of a moderate to a crazy candidate tell us how another moderate would fair against that moderate? C'mon. That's ridiculous.

Second, the grassroots of the conservative movement is attempting to change the culture of the Republican Party and rebuild. Much like a sports team doing it, sometimes you've got to sit or cut a veteran or even a star that's more likely to help you in in the short term in exchange for a 2nd stringer that helps push that culture change forward. You do this because the bigger goal is sustained success in the future thanks to a changed culture rather than short term potential success but with the same failing attitude. Angle and O'Donnel were 2nd, maybe 3rd, stringers whose point was as much to the party as it was to actually winning a seat.

Fair enough, but potentially costing the GOP the Senate does not suggest that such a grassroots movement will find support for such changes. Furthermore, considering the current leaders of the Congressional GOP, it does not appear that they will be able to even make such changes. Boehner is not going to change how things are done. Nor will McConnell. It seems if the movement really wanted to change the culture, they'd replace the leaders.

The success with Angle and O'Donnel was the fact of how they even got into that position, what that represents, and the message it sends to the party's establishment.

That people are angry? You do realize that the majority of voters view the Republicans with just as much contempt as they do the Democrats (which IMO is not a bad thing).

You hope your 2nd stringers during a rebuilding year will all click and maybe you'll catch lightning in a bottle and win some you're not supposed to or even find a surprise star (Johnson and Paul in my eyes), but you're not exactly banking on it as a likelihood for all.

Perhaps, but 2nd stringers with insane baggage doesn't suggest that they will be able to shed that baggage. It does appear that the Tea Party cost the GOP the Senate. That may actually be a benefit as the GOP is frankly clueless and even contradictory in its desired aims. By not having Congress, they can paint the problem as the Democrats even though they themselves are just as economically lost.

 

[Zyphlin]

I think the perception of the Tea Party "Costing" them the Senate is only held by people LOOKING for reasons to bash the Tea Party and failing to account for a number of other seats where the Tea Party succeeded in getting members in that would've had little shot, like in Wisconsin against a long standing Senator, or where a staunch conservative got in instead of a moderate that could be voting either way, like in Florida. It also discounts the fact that the immense republican turn out, enthusiasm, and monetary success this election was driven primarily BY the Tea Party movement and without that movement you would've not seen the same level of fervor that took a 50+ year record in the house, a 70+ year record in the state legislators, turned almost 2/3rds of the countries governorships red, AND picked up seats in the senate. You state that the Tea Party "cost" them the Senate...I say they wouldn't have had the Senate without the Tea Party and wouldn't have had near the success in every other facet without it either.

 

[haymarket]

Zyphlin - sometimes the world is rather complicated. Why can't it be true that the tea party (please - there is no Tea Party) was both a force for gains for the GOP and a force which limited their gains in the Senate? Every congressional seat is an individual vote based on individual candidates in individual states and districts. It could every well be that the tea partiers were indeed an energizing force for the GOP and proved the difference in many races and for many candidates. I would go as far as to say that if there had been no tea party movement over the past two years that the GOP gains would have been far more moderate and far more within traditional historical models.

But there can be little doubt - at least to me - that tea party candidates such as Sharon Engel in Nevada or O'Donnell in Delaware hurt the Republican chances of picking up those seats. Really folks, the idea that Harry Reid actually won reelection with his approval ratings being so low is news all by itself.

Does that mean the tea party movement cost the GOP the Senate? You would first have to prove that the GOP would have won the other seats it did pick up without any tea party influence. And I do not think that is possible. But the tea party perception of 'extremism' in the afore mentioned states certainly did cost them those seats.

 

[Zyphlin]

I'm not, and have never, suggested that running certain tea party candidates cost the republicans specific elections. That's just a simple fact, unquestionable.

My statement is that its ridiculous to state that the Tea Party COST the republicans the Senate because it assumes everything would've progressed to the point that it currently is at in exactly the same fashion if the Tea Party wasn't around, which in and of itself is HIGHLY questionable and unlikely.

 

[haymarket]

That was my point also. I ask you again....

Why can't it be true that the tea party (please - there is no Tea Party) was both a force for gains for the GOP and a force which limited their gains in the Senate?

 

[obvious Child]

I think the perception of the Tea Party "Costing" them the Senate is only held by people LOOKING for reasons to bash the Tea Party and failing to account for a number of other seats where the Tea Party succeeded in getting members in that would've had little shot, like in Wisconsin against a long standing Senator, or where a staunch conservative got in instead of a moderate that could be voting either way, like in Florida.

Perhaps, but it does appear that the tea party senate candidates didn't turn out numerically favorable to the GOP. The Tea Party absolutely helped the GOP take the house. That's irrefutable.

It also discounts the fact that the immense republican turn out, enthusiasm, and monetary success this election was driven primarily BY the Tea Party movement

I'll give you the turn out and enthusiasm but the monetary doesn't appear to be true, considering that some of the largest PACs were run by very much insider, veteran Republicans like Rove.

You state that the Tea Party "cost" them the Senate...I say they wouldn't have had the Senate without the Tea Party and wouldn't have had near the success in every other facet without it either.

Then we'll have to disagree on that.

You going to address the rest of my post?

 

[cpwill]

if the Tea Party turns on the Republicans, the Republicans will cease to be an effective national party; there are several examples of cases from 2010 where third-party "Constitutionalist" or similar candidates cost the Republican running the seat, those examples would simply increase exponentially.

I think it's also worth noting that the same wave turned over an immense number of State seats to the Republican Party.