It Was the Tea Party Movement That Saved Democratic Control of the Senate

It Was the Tea Party Movement That Saved Democratic Control of the Senate

It Was the Tea Party Movement That Saved Democratic Control of the Senate

Tea Party candidates who beat electable Republicans made it possible for Democrats to keep a majority. (Updated with fresh results.)

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

The Tea Party movement gave the Republican Party an energy boost and some genuine grassroots support.

But it did a lot more for the Democratic Party.

With Republicans taking complete control of the US House and most of the states, the only thing that kept the 2010 midterms from being worse for Democrats than the 1994 "Republican Revolution" was the GOP failure to take the Senate.

And for that the Democrats have the Tea Party movement to thank.

As of Thursday morning, Republican had secured forty-seven US Senate seats.

Washington state had re-elected Democratic Senator Patty Murray, while Alaska is still sorting things out.

The Alaska count looks at this point as if it will produce a win for Senator Lisa Murkowski, whose write-in votes substantially exceed those cast for the man who beat her in the state’s Republican primary, Joe Miller. Murkowski, who pursued her re-election campaign without national party support, would likely sit as a Republican or a Republican-leaning independent. Were Miller to win, he would sit as a Republican—albeit grudgingly, as he does not believe in maintaining an elected Senate. 

That puts the GOP two seats short of a tied Senate, three seats short of a clear majority.

Could the Republicans have gotten to 51?

Consider this:

In Colorado, Republican leaders in Washington and nationally wanted former Colorado Governor Jane Norton, a popular mainstream conservative who polls suggested was a likely November winner. Norton lost to Tea Party favorite Ken Buck.

Now Buck has been beaten by Democratic Senator Michael Bennet. Count Colorado as an opportunity missed for the GOP — an opportunity missed because the Tea Party picked a weak November contender in a state that, by all indications, a stronger Republican could have won.

In Delaware, Republican leaders in Washington and locally wanted moderate Congressman Mike Castle to be their Senate candidate. Castle had never lost an election; the woman who beat him in the primary, Tea Party favorite Christine O’Donnell, had never won an election.

Even Democrats agree that Castle would have won the Delaware seat. O’Donnell continued her losing streak. With Castle as the candidate, Delaware would have given the Republicans seat 50.

In Nevada, Republican leaders in Washington and locally had several solid contenders to take on Senate majority leader Harry Reid, a very vulnerable Democrat. The primary winner was Tea Party favorite Sharon Angle, whom Nevada political observers described as "the only Republican who could lose to Harry Reid."

Angle lost. Nevada would have given the Republicans seat 51.

Democrats will be sending a lot of condolence cards today.

They might want to address one thank-you card to the Tea Party movement.

It kept the Democrats in control of the Senate and averted a narrative that would have said 2010 was a better year for Republicans than 1994.

 
Like this Blog Post? Read it on get the Nation’s free iPhone App, NationNow.
NationNow iPhone App
 

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x