A reasonable analysis (and a long post 'splainin' it) is here.
Bottom line?
...despite the current media narrative, and the loss of three high profile races by Tea Party backed candidates (Colorado, Nevada and Delaware Senate Races), being the “Tea Party” candidate was not the detriment to a campaign that some would have you believe. In fact, by looking only at races that were truly competitive, we find that Tea Party candidates actually perform better than one would expect the generic Republican candidate to perform...
Let the Pubbie-Club boys contemplate that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The "Pubbie Boys Club" needs to pay attention. We ain't the GOP's Bitch (to borrow a phrase). And they may not admit it, but they know we hold them by the...well, you know.
There's an even bigger point. When was the last time a party appeared that could field dozens of candidates nationwide, and take about a third of its races, running against either (let alone both) institutional parties?
Anyone who says this is under-performing is nuts. There hasn't been anything like this since the Whig party died.
"by looking only at races that were truly competitive"
The only race noted above that wasn't competitive was Delaware.
These people ran as Republicans and are considered as such.
@Struppster: I would explain the difference, but you wouldn't understand. And I guess it's not important that you do....only that WE do.
Post a Comment