Hello:

Ted Cruz, along with my right wing friends on this board, say the Republicans haven't WON because they're not RIGHT enough. Frankly, I thought it was true, and that we're in for another wave of Tea Partiers in 2014.

But, then I look at the governors race in Virginia. What Ted Cruz says NEEDS to happen to Republicans, IS happening in Virginia. But, it ain't working out.

Ken Cuccinelli IS a Tea Partier. He came of age with the Tea Party. He's righter than Genghis Khan. Virginia is a swing state. The present governor is a Republican. Cuccinelli SHOULD WIN.

Terry McAuliffe is a FLAWED Democrat. Even Democrats hate him. Yet, he's gonna beat Cuccinelli handily. Is THIS the end of the Tea Party?

excon

Not even going to humor you on this.

Hello again, Steve:

See??? This is what I'm talking about... You SAY you're not gonna indulge me, but that ain't so. You and me, Steve, we converse where the rubber meets the road. You'll come around.

Besides, I thought you'd say that Cuccinelli isn't going to win because there's a cloud of scandal around him. IF you had said that, I'd fold like a cheap suit.. Instead, you brush me off. To me, that signals that I'm RIGHT. The Tea Party is DEAD.

Hooray, hooray, the wicked witch is dead.

excon

Real Clear Politics has all the polls posted.. only Rassmussen has the race in double digits. The rest have it at McAuliffe ahead by 7 -8 pts. That is a margin of error that can be over come in a week.
What is notable in the Va. Race ,as was true in the special election in NJ ,is the lack of support for their party's standard bearer by the Repubics. Apparently the beltway insiders would rather lose very winnable elections than cede anything to their popular base .
That is a sign of a declining party all right ;but it 'aint' the TP that is in decline ,it's the feckless Repubic party .

Hello tom:
That is a sign of a declining party all right ;but it 'aint' the TP that is in decline ,it's the feckless Repubic party .
The Tea Party came of age WITHOUT GOP support. Are you telling me that the only reason they're gonna LOSE is because they DON'T have GOP support??

I ain't buying it. But, I DO agree with what you said above. It's the Tea Party who have the conservative institutions behind them, NOT the feckless GOP.

Nahhh... This is a race they SHOULD win.

excon

It's a sign of the times when a part of the republican party rebels against itself. Far right wingers will never go away just change their names and holler some more. Extremism is here to stay, no matter what this version calls itself.

So NO! Its not the end of the TPARTY. They will change the name when different right wing loony's emerge and the old ones get discredited.

It's a sign of the times when a part of the republican party rebels against itself. You should look up the history of the party. Rebellion inside the party has been the norm ;including it's very birth .Then you had the 'radical Republicans ' .Then you had the Horace Greeley reformers . Then you had the Stalwartsvs .the Half-Breeds vs the Mugwumps during the Gilded Age.Then you had the progressive reformers of the Teddy Roosevelt Progressive era . Roosevelt broke from the party and formed the 'Bull Moose ' party (the most successful 3rd party in American history) .Then in the 1920s Senator Robert Lafollette split from the party to oppose Coolidge .
During the Depression and after the party became dominated by the Rockefeller Republicans . But there was always a conservative dissent in the ranks . That culminated in the 1964 Goldwater nomination ..his defeat ..and the Nixon progressives ;followed by the Reagan Revolution .1980John Anderson led a liberal movement that broke away from the Reagan Republicans. Then starting with GHW Bush ,the eastern establishment resumed it'd dominance of the party .That was a brief sketch that left out many details like the isolationists inside the party.
So it's not so much a sign of the times as a natural part of the party .

I tend to agree from birchers to birthers. Same ultra conservatives.

Hello again, Steve:

See??? This is what I'm talking about... You SAY you're not gonna indulge me, but that ain't so. You and me, Steve, we converse where the rubber meets the road. You'll come around.

Besides, I thought you'd say that Cuccinelli isn't going to win because there's a cloud of scandal around him. IF you had said that, I'd fold like a cheap suit.. Instead, you brush me off. To me, that signals that I'm RIGHT. The Tea Party is DEAD.

Hooray, hooray, the wicked witch is dead.

excon

A mostly manufactured cloud of scandal, like he's going to ban abortion. That's why I'm not interested in humoring you on this one, we've had this discussion.

Besides the feckless GOP leadership in the state ,that pressured the Cuccinelli campaign to tone down it's conservative message ; there is also a so called libertarian candidate in the race (Robert Sarvis ) who is cherry picking anywheres from 7-12 points depending on which poll you read.
According to the Compost


Sarvis is a bigger complication for Cuccinelli, even as both candidates are making a play to steal away his supporters. The latest Quinnipiac University poll showed Sarvis carrying 11 percent of Republicans, compared to just two percent of Democrats. If Cuccinelli can't bring more Republican voters home by Nov. 5, it's hard to see him having much of a chance.
The five biggest takeaways from the final Cuccinelli-McAuliffe debate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/25/the-five-biggest-takeaways-from-the-final-cuccinelli-mcauliffe-debate/?tid=pm_politics_pop)

Hello again, tom:

The five biggest takeaways from the final CUccinelli-McAuliffe debateIn other words, a Tea Party candidate CAN'T win in a Southern state. Bummer for your side.

excon

Well not exactly the conclusion I would come to.. but you are free to read into it what you want. Couple things. The libertarian candidate is eroding the support from the Republican candidate (with a healthy hat tip from the GOP leadership in the state ) . Another thing that is not being mentioned is that the population centers of the state that are the suburbs of DC ,have shifted their demographics and are loaded with liberal inside the beltway commuters . So the only thing about Virginia that is a "southern " state as you imply is it's geography. You see the same dynamic in a few of the other "southern "state where liberals from the North East go there because of jobs and favorable tax policies... and like locust ,release their plague on the state .

I don't buy the TP is dead. In fact, it's making headway.

Right flanks join to push conservative goals - Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/right-flanks-huddle-to-push-conservative-goals-98902.html)

Well not exactly the conclusion I would come to.. but you are free to read into it what you want. Couple things. The libertarian candidate is eroding the support from the Republican candidate (with a healthy hat tip from the GOP leadership in the state ) . Another thing that is not being mentioned is that the population centers of the state that are the suburbs of DC ,have shifted their demographics and are loaded with liberal inside the beltway commuters . So the only thing about Virginia that is a "southern " state as you imply is it's geography. You see the same dynamic in a few of the other "southern "state where liberals from the North East go there because of jobs and favorable tax policies... and like locust ,release their plague on the state .

What, twenty first century carpet baggers, no wait, that was the republicans

Virginia (VA) Poll - October 30, 2013 - Mcauliffe Up By 4 Points In Cl | Quinnipiac University Connecticut (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/virginia/release-detail?ReleaseID=1971)

Quinnipiac now has Cuccinelli trailing by 4 with a week to go.

What, twenty first century carpet baggers, no wait, that was the republicans

What the so called carpet baggers did was travel to the South to help enact the Reconstruction . While they were there ,the former slaves enjoyed the greatest degree of liberty that they had until the 1964 civil rights legislations were enacted . Former slaves were granted the franchise . Many former slaves were elected into Congress , local legislatures ,and other elected positions . More than 1,500 blacks held public office in the South.
This lasted until the reconstruction policies of the Republicans failed . The later disparaging of carpet baggers was built into the narrative when the southern Democrats ,opponents of Reconstruction, wrote the script .
Not all of them were clean of course .As is the norm, corruption is always part of the political environment . But many more were very principled . The caricature of the carpet bagger that has survived is a false narrative . They went to the south to reform southern society ,and because the south was asking for Northern economic development aid and outside capital investment .

What the so called carpet baggers did was travel to the South to help enact the Reconstruction . While they were there ,the former slaves enjoyed the greatest degree of liberty that they had until the 1964 civil rights legislations were enacted . Former slaves were granted the franchise . Many former slaves were elected into Congress , local legislatures ,and other elected positions . More than 1,500 blacks held public office in the South.
This lasted until the reconstruction policies of the Republicans failed . The later disparaging of carpet baggers was built into the narrative when the southern Democrats ,opponents of Reconstruction, wrote the script .
Not all of them were clean of course .As is the norm, corruption is always part of the political environment . But many more were very principled . The caricature of the carpet bagger that has survived is a false narrative . They went to the south to reform southern society ,and because the south was asking for Northern economic development aid and outside capital investment .

Please stop rewriting history, the carpet baggers enjoyed the spoils of war. There may have been some largesse to former slaves after all that was allegedly what the war was about. We know the war was really about states rights, the imposition of federal rule by republicans, another case of our way or the highway . There was much noble breast beating but the proclamation was really about sinking the south and avoiding the possibility of the south freeing the slaves to fight.

Please stop rewriting history, the carpet baggers enjoyed the spoils of war. There may have been some largesse to former slaves after all that was allegedly what the war was about. We know the war was really about states rights, the imposition of federal rule by republicans, another case of our way or the highway . There was much noble breast beating but the proclamation was really about sinking the south and avoiding the possibility of the south freeing the slaves to fight.

Not rewriting history.. giving you the facts . Your facts are way off... beginning with the nonsense about the war being about states "rights" .

States rights to own slaves and tell the feds to get screwed.

States don't have rights and someone better show me where the word 'rights ' is applied to any governing entity in the constitution. The founders specifically used the word 'powers' regarding the governing entities ;and specifically enumerated which ones the federal government possesses .
The war was always about slavery ;and every other cause that was taught to us in history classes all have a direct link back to the slavery issue .

States don't have rights and someone better show me where the word 'rights ' is applied to any governing entity in the constitution. The founders specifically used the word 'powers' regarding the governing entities ;and specifically enumerated which ones the federal government possesses .
The war was always about slavery ;and every other cause that was taught to us in history classes all have a direct link back to the slavery issue .

OK Tom have it your way the north violated the rights of the states by claiming powers it didn't have.

Wrong again . The southern states seceded and then waged war against the North.

Wrong again . The southern states seceded and then waged war against the North.

And why did they feel the necessity to sucede, probably the same reason some Republicans recently attempted to enforce their will on others

I already told you the cause of the war. Slavery . The southern states believed that the emergence of the Republican party would usher in the end of the 'Peculiar Institution'.

I already told you the cause of the war. Slavery . The southern states believed that the emergence of the Republican party would usher in the end of the 'Peculiar Institution'.

The issue in the Civil War was freedom with a peripheral issue of slavery. They were right that the Republicans would take a strong stance since their base was in the non slave states. That the Republicans didn't see the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens as reprehensible carries through to this day. What did they win, a shattered nation', and an end to slavery in name only, since the freed slaves still had to be employed. In fact, they very nearly lost the war against a smaller, determined foe. Doesn't it strike you strange that the average citizen of the south would fight so strongly for an institution they didn't directly benefit from. The notion of states rights or "powers" was firmly ingrained in their thinking. The Republican idea of sending a punitive force into the Carolina's was at the heart of what transpired and it was an unnecessary overreaction

The Republican idea of sending a punitive force into the Carolina's was at the heart of what transpired and it was an unnecessary overreaction The American fort at Charleston was attacked you mean.

The issue in the Civil War was freedom with a peripheral issue of slavery. Nope ,slavery was the only issue and all the other issues were related to slavery . When the south spoke of states rights ,they spoke of states rights to permit slavery . Every other issue, if they had not been tied directly to slavery ,could have and would have been resolved without war.

The American fort at Charleston was attacked you mean.

Yes a small isolated fort was taken over, but they were at the point of surrendering when the war began, it was unnecessary


Nope ,slavery was the only issue and all the other issues were related to slavery . When the south spoke of states rights ,they spoke of states rights to permit slavery . Every other issue, if they had not been tied directly to slavery ,could have and would have been resolved without war.

Point being the Constitution didn't give the Feds the right "power" to regulate commerce within a state. They had the "power" to suppress insurrections but their actions widened the insurrection

I can't help it if you get you facts from 1930s scholarship ;and propaganda films like 'The Birth of a Nation'. Studying the Civil War has been a personal hobby of mine since childhood. The whole nobel 'Lost Cause ' narrative is mythology . Next you'll be using the southern renamining of the conflict as "the War of Northern Aggression". Your whole narrative is what the south used to justify their untenable position that the issue was "states rights", instead of the preservation of slavery.

Well you see Tom I have found that war interesting ever since I read the Lincoln letters. What is interesting is the different perceptions on each side. Freedom wasn't an issue for the northern states, it wasn't their land that was been trampled over by armies

FYI, an Emerson College poll (http://www.emersoncollegepollingsociety.com/VA_PRESS_RELEASE_11_1.pdf) has Cucinelli only down by 2 points.

FYI, an Emerson College poll (http://www.emersoncollegepollingsociety.com/VA_PRESS_RELEASE_11_1.pdf) has Cucinelli only down by 2 points.

Yes the race predictably tightened. McAuliffe is getting nervous . He messaged his supporters, in a get out the vote email ,warning that the election isn't over yet and told them he could lose. Sarvis is still showing double digit support. But I don't think he'll get close to that . So most of his support is still up for grabs.

This race is close enough now to say that if Cuccinelli loses it will be because of the lack of support he got from his own party establishment. In the last week both Bill and Evita Clintoon have campaigned for McAuliffe, and the emperor will campaign for him today. (McAuliffe is one of the guys who slept in the Lincoln bedroom for campaign cash... he has other shady dealings that the OP alluded to ,but appear to be completely irrelevant if the GOP won't fund ads that bring them to the public attention)...

Cuccinelli was the 1st state Att General to sue over Obamacare .He deserved to have the GOP stand by him. The GOP despises their base . If there was any doubt about that then this election proves it. The established GOP has with few exceptions been complicit in the success of the progressive agenda of the last century.

This race is close enough now to say that if Cuccinelli loses it will be because of the lack of support he got from his own party establishment. In the last week both Bill and Evita Clintoon have campaigned for McAuliffe, and the emperor will campaign for him today. (McAuliffe is one of the guys who slept in the Lincoln bedroom for campaign cash... he has other shady dealings that the OP alluded to ,but appear to be completely irrelevant if the GOP won't fund ads that bring them to the public attention)...

Cuccinelli was the 1st state Att General to sue over Obamacare .He deserved to have the GOP stand by him. The GOP despises their base . If there was any doubt about that then this election proves it. The established GOP has with few exceptions been complicit in the success of the progressive agenda of the last century.

Yup, the base was certainly not excited about our last two presidential nominees.

And I was right . The game changer in this race was the 3rd party challenge by the pseudo-libertarian who just happened to have his campaign financed by billionaire Obama bundler Joe Liemandt. Cuccinelli narrowed the race to about 1 point in the final days and the issue that narrowed the gap was dissatisfaction of the electorate to Obamacare . He narrowed the gap DESPITE the campaign appearances of the Clintoons and the emperor over the weekend.
Also ,Ron Paul appeared over the weekend and denounced Sarvis for the phony libertarian he is . That appears to have peeled some of Sarvis' support to Cuccinelli .

Shame on the Repubic establishment for letting this one get away. Apparently the biggest issue they had against Cuccinelli was his opposition to a big spending transportation bill that Rep Guv Bob McDonnell signed .

Well, McAulliffe should put on an interesting show.

What we have in VA as of today is a Guv that is a Clintonoid ,and 2 Dem Senators in a swing state going into the 2016 elections where Evita will be the Dem standard bearer . Next year Mark Warner is up for reelection . He most likely will be challenged by Bob McDonnell who was term limitted this year. Not sure if Cuccinelli ,or another TP will stage a primary challenge. I'm sure the inside the beltway GOP cronies will put their money on McDonnell .

The biggest mistake the state made is written in US history .As part of a compromise with Federalists over the nation paying off state war debts; (which many in Va . Including Jefferson opposed ,in no small part because Va. Actually paid off it's own war debts ) , it was decided that the national capitol would be located on the bank of the Potamic River .Both Maryland and Va. Donated land on both sides of the river .
Well as things worked out ,back then no one anticipated that the Federal Gvt would grow to such a size that the capitol area would sprawl beyond the property ceded . On the contrary ,it was decided that Va would annex back the property it had donated in 1847. The retrocession of the Virginia portion of DC was not constitutional under the contract clause of the Constitution ( Article I, section 10, clause 1 ). But that has never been challenged .
So now with the Federal gvt growing to leviathan size ,there has been a huge influx of Federal employees into the area ;especially in the northern counties of Va.. These locust of course vote in their own self interest .So the northern counties of Va. No longer resemble the former red state character of Va.

Hello again,

Ok. Virginia is purple.. But, Alabama is as RED as you get. The Tea Party LOST (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/us/politics/tea-party-republican-loses-alabama-runoff.html?emc=edit_na_20131105&_r=0)there too against just an ordinary conservative Republican. Does the Christy landslide along with these losses mean the Tea Party is toast?

excon

Seems the TParty and the establishment republican party need a compromise, not a conflict for them both to survive. Ya think the TParty will get that message?

Hello again,

Ok. Virginia is purple.. But, Alabama is as RED as you get. The Tea Party LOST (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/us/politics/tea-party-republican-loses-alabama-runoff.html?emc=edit_na_20131105&_r=0)there too against just an ordinary conservative Republican. Does the Christy landslide along with these losses mean the Tea Party is toast?

excon

No. And remember, the show boating amateur with no state government experience still has a GOP House to deal with.

Christy will still have to deal with the TParty once he leaves NJ. I don't see Ted Cruz running. So who will be the TParty darling of 2016.

Hello again,

Ok. Virginia is purple.. But, Alabama is as RED as you get. The Tea Party LOST (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/us/politics/tea-party-republican-loses-alabama-runoff.html?emc=edit_na_20131105&_r=0)there too against just an ordinary conservative Republican. Does the Christy landslide along with these losses mean the Tea Party is toast?

excon

Christie won't make it out of the primaries . There are things about him that the national media has not concentrated on.. yet . Hint .There is a reason that he didn't make the final cut for Romney's VP running mate

Hello again, tom:

Christie won't make it out of the primaries So what unelectable nut job, I mean candidate, ARE you gonna run against Hillary.

excon

Let's put it this way . The GOP may very well nominate him . I won't vote for him for my own reasons . He is like McCain ;every Dems' favorite repubic ,until it's time for the general election. Then he'll be the most evil man on the planet . The GOP may think there is some national appeal there . But it won't translate out of blue North East.

Run Sarah run! See Sarah run! Run, run, run! Naw, Ted and Sarah make too much money slinging red meat. Whose left. Rand, Marco, Jeb?????? Mitt, Ron, who?

Hello again, tom:

Let's put it this way . The GOP may very well nominate him .I agree with you. He won't make it out of the primary's.

Look. The message is loud and clear. The reason you haven't won the presidency is because you've nominated people who look TOO much like Democrats. If you nominate a REAL conservative, you think you'll win.

If I haven't misstated your position, and I haven't, who, then is that REAL conservative?

Ted Cruz is the ONLY one who qualifies. No?

excon

FYI (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/05/exit-polls-division-over-obamacare-not-so-much-on-obama/)...


The botched Obamacare rollout has dominated the headlines over the past couple of weeks. So how do Virginia and New Jersey voters feel about it? They’re divided. In Virginia, 48% support the Affordable Care Act and 50% are opposed to it. The early exit poll numbers are almost identical in New Jersey, where 49% support the law and 50% oppose it.

Other exit polls show even less approval for Obamacare in VA, so don't think McAuliffe won because the people loved zerocare.

He won because jobs and the economy are what 3/4 people were most concerned about. In addition other states voted to raise the minimum wage, and raise the pay of airport workers, and in NY a landslide for the progressive union guy.

He won because jobs and the economy are what 3/4 people were most concerned about. In addition other states voted to raise the minimum wage, and raise the pay of airport workers, and in NY a landslide for the progressive union guy.

Yeah the morons in NJ voted to add min wage increases into their constitution.

Here's the deal with Christie . He's all about Christie . He set the special election for Senate for a different day so Booker voters would not be voting on the same day . He padded his results ,but had zero coat tails . The Dems lost a grand total of 1 seat in the Legislature ,and didn't lose anyone in the state Senate , which is absurd given the numbers that Christie carried .
He has a bit of a cult of personality here... half way between a Sopranos wannabe ,and a Sprinsteen groupie.
If he gave a damn about anything but his own political future he would've carried the legislature ,the Senate ,and he could've been the difference to bring Lonegan over the top in his race against Booker. That's what a real leader who was thinking of taking his act on the road would've done.
Now he thinks he's going to get national cred by campaigning for goober Graham... If it wasn't so pathetic it would be laughable .

Let's put it this way . The GOP may very well nominate him . I won't vote for him for my own reasons . He is like McCain ;every Dems' favorite repubic ,until it's time for the general election. Then he'll be the most evil man on the planet . The GOP may think there is some national appeal there . But it won't translate out of blue North East.

"repubic", interesting slip there Tom

Not a slip at all. I have been calling them that for years .
Urban Dictionary: Repubic (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Repubic)