As soon as Colorado's Senate race was called for Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet on Wednesday, the potential implication was apparent: Republicans had lost two Senate races they looked likely to win—Colorado and Nevada—in addition to the race they were expected to lose in Delaware. What do they have in common? In each case the Republican nominee was a Tea Party-affiliated insurgent, bolstered in the primary by national Tea Party enthusiasm over the establishment's preferred candidate. Does that mean the Tea Party cost the Republicans as many as three Senate seats?
AOL's Michael Cohen thinks so: "The harsh klieg lights of public scrutiny badly hurt Tea Party candidates. In Delaware and Nevada, Tea Party insurgents Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle cost the Republicans two seats that should have been easy pick-ups."
GO HERE to read more.
It's worth weeding out the garbage I only wish the Democrats would clean up there side.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing they would have gained by electing those RHINOS would have been committee chairs. Other than that......the RHINOS would have voted as Dems so we didn't lose anything.
ReplyDeleteThe Tea Party movement was spurred by RHINOs claiming they represented mainstreet America - when in reality they were representing specials interest - (Wall Street Banks, Fortune 500 companies). Entities such as these have often used mainstreet to do their bidding - until the Tea Party emerged. There is a new balance of systems in the making and what will emerge will remain to be seen.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely not.
ReplyDeleteWhat cost the Republicans the majority in the senate was back stabbing the republicans did to the election primary winners.
We got rid of those useless "elite" republicans and I'm glad for it.
The Republican Elites and Primary losers lost the seats because they did not support the People’s choice. Go figure!
ReplyDeleteYou can never prove a counterfactual? Isn't that what you guys want Obama to do with claims of being a foreigner or being muslim? I guess logic only works when it's convenient to you guys.
ReplyDeleteAnd O'Donnell was a 100% dummy. She needed to spend more time on policy homework and less on grandstanding.