Here’s a controversial thesis: being a “tea party” candidate in 2010 was neutral but being a tea party candidate in 2012 will be a liability?
Most people think the “tea party” was responsible for the massive wins in 2010 and point to Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. But Rand Paul benefited to the millions from his relationship to the subject of libertarian money-bombers – again presidential candidate Ron Paul. Marco Rubio got his initial boost from – Mike Huckabee! For each “tea party” candidate who won, a Christine O’Donnell or a Sharon Angle or a Tom Tancredo lost. Here in Wisconsin Dave Westlake who received the support of 90%-98% of the organized tea parties – received barely 10% in the September primary.
However, polls leading up to November 2010 showed the national populace split 37-37 on whether they supported the tea party with 26% unsure (http://www.pollingreport.com/politics.htm). So such a thesis may have support.
Looking at polls in aggregate – tea party unfavorability is at 47% with only 35% favorable. That means (assuming equal voter turnout) a candidate has to win over 83% of the undecideds to win a race. Even in safe GOP areas where the base is all that matters – barely one out of 4 Republicans would be more likely to support a tea party candidate. Among independents – for every vote you gain, you would lose two if you ran as a Tea Party Movement candidate.
Why is the “tea party movement” trending toxic barely two years after it’s conception?
Is it internal factors such as that roughly 30% support it, but only 2% have given a dime to help it? Is it that for every tea party supporter that gave anything financial – another four believe they do their part by clicking the “Take Action” link in their emails? or that eleven haven’t even done that?
Or is it external – that the 30% of people who support the tea party have allowed for a de facto echo chamber to form on the right, resulting in the fact that virtually all tea party haters believe the tea party movement is racist, virtually all tea party supporters disagree – but somehow the anti-TP’ers get the undecided middle to shift to the left? Is this because of a lack of a debate in the public square and instead an insularizing of the “tea party”?
Either way it will be interesting if any significant candidate at any level will self-identify with the tea party movement or if the “smart money” will lead to the term disappearing from vogue almost as fast as it came. Perhaps the new term – will not be a new term – but just people returning to the old term.
Conservative.
