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.)

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

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
 

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x