Check out some similar questions!

excon · Oct 27, 2013, 06:23 AM

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

speechlesstx · Oct 27, 2013, 06:24 AM

Not even going to humor you on this.

excon · Oct 27, 2013, 06:30 AM

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

tomder55 · Oct 27, 2013, 06:40 AM

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 .

excon · Oct 27, 2013, 06:51 AM

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

talaniman · Oct 27, 2013, 06:55 AM

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.

tomder55 · Oct 27, 2013, 08:44 AM

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 .

talaniman · Oct 27, 2013, 09:56 AM

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

speechlesstx · Oct 28, 2013, 04:15 AM

Originally Posted by excon

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.

tomder55 · Oct 28, 2013, 08:21 AM

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

excon · Oct 28, 2013, 08:32 AM

Hello again, tom:

The five biggest takeaways from the final CUccinelli-McAuliffe debate

In other words, a Tea Party candidate CAN'T win in a Southern state. Bummer for your side.

excon

tomder55 · Oct 28, 2013, 09:16 AM

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 .

speechlesstx · Oct 28, 2013, 09:26 AM

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

paraclete · Oct 28, 2013, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

tomder55 · Oct 30, 2013, 04:51 AM

Virginia (VA) Poll - October 30, 2013 - Mcauliffe Up By 4 Points In Cl | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

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

tomder55 · Oct 30, 2013, 05:07 AM

Originally Posted by paraclete

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 .

paraclete · Oct 30, 2013, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

tomder55 · Oct 30, 2013, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by paraclete

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" .

talaniman · Oct 30, 2013, 06:00 AM

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

tomder55 · Oct 30, 2013, 06:35 AM

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 .