Tea Party Candidates Lose Elections

In the vote across the country tea party candidates were defeated.

In the statewide race for Governor in Virginia, a less than great candidate, Terry McAuliffe for the Democrats beat an extreme right wing, cultural war, tea party candidate of the Republicans, Ken Cuccinelli. Frankly virtually any other Republican would have beaten McAulifffe.

But the tea party wouldn't even allow Virginia Republicans to vote in a primary. The tea party politicians killed a GOP primary and chose Cuccinelli in a party convention controlled by a small number of tea party politicians. The tea party refused to let voting republicans to decide who they wanted to run for office.

National Tea party candidates such as senator's Rubio and Paul campaigned for Cuccinelli. Main stream republicans avoided him like the plague.

Cuccinelli lost. The voters did not want his ilk.

In a special Congressional Election in Alabama, main stream Republican candidate, Bradley Byrne beat a tea party candidate in a Republican primary with a general election occurring in December.

The tea party candidate Dean Young, neither conceded the election nor offered support to the main stream conservative Republican victor.

In very purple Virginia and in extreme Red Southern Southern Alabama voters, and specifically conservative voters rejected the tea party.

People want candidates who will govern, not extremists in office.

 

http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls...ia_governor_cuccinelli_vs_mcauliffe-3033.html

Reading polling data would help you to avoid being shamed with facts. The closest Cuccinelli has been to leading McAwful in the polls was two points behind, and that was in July. For every day since then, McAwful has lead Cooch by at least 5 points and as many as 12, with the last poll before the election still placing McAwful ahead of Cooch by 6.3 points.

Remind me again what the margin of victory was for McAwful in the final count? 2.5%. In other words, A completely flawed candidate like Cooch nearly closed the gap because he wasn't some retarded ObamaCare fan boy. The electoral map tells quite a tale.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/2013-elections/demographics/

The fact a third party "libertarian" candidate got involved in this very close election and took away 6.55% of the vote from the Republican candidate is curious in and of itself, but when you consider that this third party candidate (Sarvis) got his financial backing from one of Obama's top bundlers, and the fact those very same Democrats robo-called Republican voters, making the absurdly false claim that Cooch supported ObamaCare, in an effort to drive votes to Sarvis, one gets a clear sense of how Democrats are gaming our democratic voting process to hang onto power at any cost.

The real story from that election cycle is this. ObamaCare is toxic. Very toxic. You smear it and it kills whatever it sticks to. Suck that up in 2014.

 

LOL: I knew this post would make you nuts o-nation. Another tea partier takes a loss.

Frankly I live in Virginia. I saw all the polls leading up to the race. But long before that I saw the nominating process for both major party candidates. Frankly they both s#ck. neither grabbed the attention of their "party's". It didn't happen at the beginning of the race and didn't happen at the end of the race.

I didn't bother writing about the election before it occurred.

Let the results speak for themselves. TEA PARTY CANDIDATE LOSES. Its such a riot to see and listen to the tea partiers blame republicans and standard republican entities for the loss. After all it was close. Plenty of old line long term GOP financial backers didn't give Cuccinelli money.

If you listen to the tea partiers they are blaming these groups. Grow up tea party. Take responsibility. Nobody is at fault for this lack of support but the tea party and Cuccinelli. He is the one that turned off all the potential contributors. He turned them off, he wouldn't compromise with them. He is at fault.

Ha ha ha. Does anyone with even a quarter of a brain think democrats got long term republican financial backers to alter their political habits. of course not. Its the radical extremism, hate filled message of the tea party that does it itself.

As I mentioned in the opening post in a statement you completely ignored and would not comment upon: The tea party politico's were responsible for running Cuccinelli. The tea party powerhouses took the selection right out of the hands of the GOP populous. Inside politics at its most nefarious worst. Any other candidate would have killed McAuliffe. Anyone else.

The tea party cooked their own goose by stealing the selection process from the party members. Then they lost the election. Now they are blaming others. What a bunch of idiots.

meanwhile you had ZERO comments on the election in Alabama wherein another tea party idiot lost to a mainstream GOP candidate. Its the first example of the mainstream aggressively turning on the tea party.

In an example of how twisted, extreme and dependent the tea party is on spreading hate, misinformation and lies, the Alabama tea party candidate insisted Obama was not born in the US.

Therein lies the fundamental truth of the tea party. It relies on the type of lies that fuel hatred to gain support. It preys on the angry weak minded to gain support by spreading vicious blaming lies.

Historically who did that in the past? Hitler comes to mind.

Meanwhile in another ballyhooed election the very guy you crazily ranted against in DP P&R here won an election by a landslide. Christie, as a Republican and clearly a conservative overwhelmingly won an election in reliably blue state, NJ.

Why did Christie win? How did he get so many democratic and independent voters? He is a conservative.

Here is one big reason. After NJ was devastated by hurricane Sandy, Christie did what a politician is supposed to do. He went to work for his state and the people of his state. He quickly secured first alert federal government funding. He warmly thanked Obama for the federal help. He should have. That is what the state required right at that moment.

Tea party extremists have hated him ever since. You are a great example of that o-nation, creating a completely irrelevant thread full of tea party thinking that left other readers totally confused by your 150% politicizing of an irrelevant topic. Tea party big mouths invent anger filled crazed hate stories such as your post.

Real people vote for the candidate that did his job. You seem to have lost that touch with reality.

Who knows how McAuliffe will govern? One of the first things he said is he is not going to accept gifts over $100 in value from anyone. Both Cuccinelli and the existing governor took valuable gifts from business people and didn't disclose them. The business received valuable benefits from those in the government.

That is the definition of corruption. Cuccinelli originally refused to give anything back. The guy reeks of corruption on top of being a ridiculous angry tea party politician.

Something else occurred in Virginia. In the race for Lieutenant Governor the even more radical tea party fundamentalist candidate got crushed. That candidate lost by a lot relative to the purplish element of Virginia with similar volumes of people on the left and right. That candidate was a mess.

Now the new Lieutenant Governor is a Democrat. The Lieutenant Governor votes in the state Senate. The state Senate is split 50-50.

Not any more. Last year the State Senate was split 50-50 and with a Republican Lieutenant Governor....he could always vote with the GOP.

Not any more. The tea party just lost the Virginia State Senate. Nice going tea party. You took the primary vote out of the people's hands, kept in your political power mad hands, nominated an astonishing radical, watched that radical get trounced in the election and now lost the State Senate.

But....the cuccinelli tea partiers are blaming other republicans.

If they are serious about politics and were willing to move away from a power mad presence that is completely representative of societies that don't respect the population...they would look at themselves.

I'm sure it won't occur though. That isn't how the tea partiers work.

 

That seems to be the general consensus of most people who watched this election. So odd to see you admit that, and then dive right into ascribing some special meaning to the outcome.

Again, two interesting observations put side by side. It was close, despite the fact GOP financial backers didn't give Cooch any money. What does that say about popular distaste for the Tea Party? Nothing at all. It does, however, say so much about the Republican establishment. I think your post nailed it.

Bingo! The Chamber of Commerce, the establishment Republicans wanted Cooch to lose. They wanted his loss to be a statement with an exclamation point stating clearly, "You need to field candidates that kowtow to special interests or we will not back them". Its funny that, on any other day, the fact those very same financial backers (Koch brothers, Chamber of Commerce, Sheldon Adelson) contributed to the candidate would be a reason not to vote for him, from a Democrats perspective. You people are fickle, bordering on insanity.

And I think that is great. NJ has a Republican governor for another four years and the Democrats love it. Not sure what you are bragging about. Most of the country doesn't look like at all like NJ, no Snookie, no J-Wow, so what happens in Jersey really doesn't concern me. National Democrats have come to love Christie and I say good for them. Perhaps they read the exit polling where the very same people who handed him a landslide victory also stated they would elect Hillary to the white house over Christie. Its a non-starter for the white house.

I noticed you completely glossed over all the other related facts I provided, including supporting links, so I won't bother addressing the rest of your absurd claims, but I'll leave you with this article. It agrees with your basic premise above.

So far, practically word for word from your post, right?

Nailed it.