Tea Party Candidates Generate Headlines but Few Votes in Primaries

Surprise tea party candidates are generating countless headlines, but most have won GOP nods for statewide office with less than 8 percent of the eligible vote — and it could hurt the Republican Party in November, according to a new analysis out Thursday.
Less than 6 percent of the electorate, on average, nominated the statewide tea party candidates, according to American University researcher Curtis Gans, in a report for the Center for the Study of the American Electorate.
Gans warns that while considerable tea party energy helped sweep long shot candidates to victory and drove GOP turnout — 9.8 percent of the electorate voted in Republican primaries this year compared with the 8.2 percent turnout for Democrats, the first time in 70 years that Republicans have turned out in higher numbers — the chosen candidates could hurt the party in the upcoming general election.
“Their position at the edge of the political spectrum and the relatively low turnout for most of their statewide candidates may make it difficult for the GOP to garner sufficient votes in some states to overcome potential tea party aversion,” Gans said in a statement.
In Delaware, Christine O’Donnell won the GOP nomination for Senate with backing from just 5 percent of eligible voters. Nevada GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle won 4 percent of the state’s voters in her primary. Former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon was nominated with votes from 6 percent of Connecticut’s eligible voters. And New York Senate nominee Carl Paladino won with just 2 percent of the eligible vote.
The most successful candidates with tea party support were Alaska Republican Joe Miller, who won over 11 percent of eligible voters to beat Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski for the GOP nomination; and Wisconsin Republican Ron Johnson, who won votes from 12 percent of the electorate and is challenging Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold.
Still, Gans predicts that many of the groups that came out in droves to put President Barack Obama in the White House are more likely to stay home this Nov. 2. He pointed to diminished enthusiasm among young voters, blacks, Latinos, disaffected independents and moderate Republicans.
“The overall primary turnout speaks to a disaffected electorate and the sad likelihood is that there will be two ensuing years of legislative gridlock,” Gans said.
Democratic turnout in this year’s primaries was the lowest it has ever been, Gans’s analysis showed.

 

Hmmmmmm........

 

Don;t all primaries typically just bring out low numbers of the electorate...mostly the hard core party members, really? I always thought so anyway. What were the average '% of electorate' numbers for the Dem side?

I am unsure how things are going to play out for some of these so-called 'Tea Party' candidates. I think it is hard to deny that the Dems are going to lose a lot of Independent voters across the board compared to the tide of them that swept the current President in.

But, of course, not all states are created equal when it comes to independents making a difference so I have a hard time thinking a very right wing candidate will do well enough to win in a heavily Democratic state (whereas a more moderate Republican might). But, in states that are closer, they probably have a good shot of flipping a state.

 

Time will tell guys....17 days from now

 

Actually the influx of money will tell, given the new rules of not having to account to anyone as to where the cash comes from, and of course, no limits as to the amounts of cash that buy what they want. Cash rules....emphatically over what benefits the majority of Americans. Whomever has the most cash wins. That sounds familiar. Morality is dictated to by the largest sums of cash, which turns out to be the needs of the few outweighing the needs of the many. That's crapitalism. That's "business". That's life today in corporate America, soon to be brought to its' knees by a higher power. Enjoy.

 

Yep. Look at 2008. McCain spent 333 million dollars and Obama spent 730 million dollars. 1/3 billion vs 3/4 billion. Amazing.

 

....and this year, 53% of the PAC money (those commercials on TV that aren't paid for by the candidate) has gone to dems & over 90% of special interest (unions mainly) money has gone to the dems....

 

On a related note to the original post, on TV this morning (GMA or Today....don't remember which), they said the 'Tea Party' candidates look like they are going to maybe win half the seats they are up for. I think they said that would be about 35 seats.

 

Corporate Greed !! Capitolism !!!! Crooks !!!!
Laughin my azz off...Every freakin post, does it never end. Time to hide the whiner again. Might as well cut and paste the same reply to every thread

 

How do they know?

 

Polls and projections and predicitons, I assume. Probably the same way these projections were come up with:

Still, Gans predicts that many of the groups that came out in droves to put President Barack Obama in the White House are more likely to stay home this Nov. 2. He pointed to diminished enthusiasm among young voters, blacks, Latinos, disaffected independents and moderate Republicans.
“The overall primary turnout speaks to a disaffected electorate and the sad likelihood is that there will be two ensuing years of legislative gridlock,” Gans said.

No one knows, of course. We will find out in a couple of weeks. The 35 number wasn't Fox News either ...it was either ABC or NBC.

 

So because only 10% of special interest money went to Reps, that makes it ok? Just trying to apply the same logic you used on the absentee ballot thing for the military.

 

Huh? How are the 2 connected?
My comments were directed to the the lefties who always belly ache when the Right gets anything. They know that if they shut down PAC money the Right gets nothing but the left still has the unions!

Now, why do you feel it is okay to hold ballots from the military?