Teabagger Heroes Humiliated At The Polls

[cwalner]

You knowing the meaning does not signal that the term was not obscure. Anymore than my having not known it qualifies it as obscure. People in the tea party movement initially self-identified as 'teabaggers'. The obscure sexual reference associated with this term became known in the mainstream. After that, just about all tea party self-identification as 'teabaggers' stopped.

This whole discussion reminds of a sign I saw while watching the Rally to Restore Sanity.

'Teabagger for gay marraige'

Something tells me that the smart-ass holding up that sign was completely aware of the sexual reference.

 

[Almo]

That Stop the ACLU site with the hammer and sickle as a C is embarassingly silly.

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/

 

[Tony]

You knowing the meaning does not signal that the term was not obscure.

What about almost everyone I know and everyone they know?

 

[GStan]

What about almost everyone I know and everyone they know?

Nope. Almost everyone I know was not aware of the reference. We're still tied on the anecdotal evidence.

ETA: And just for giggles, you mention both 'everyone I know' and 'everyone they know' as distinct populations. I'll concede that you know what is known by 'everyone I know' but how do you know that 'everyone they know' knows this reference? If you know them well enough to know that they know what the reference means, why didn't you just include them all in the population of 'everyone I know'? All I know is that everyone I know did not know the same thing as everyone you know and everyone they know.

 

[cwalner]

What about almost everyone I know and everyone they know?

That just proves that you and friends really enjoy each other's company

 

[Freddy]

My side? I didn't realize I had a "side". Because I don't. I guess that makes you the loser, doesn't it? That kind of blew up in your face, didn't it?

For the record, I am above you. I know that won't make you very happy.

If you're calling people "teabaggers," then you have a side. That you choose to delude yourself is not my concern.

Oh, and I forgot about Ron Johnson. Successful businessman and credible tea party candidate who defeated Russ Feingold, who is a solid Senator most people, myself included, respect even in disagreement. Johnson also doesn't fit the story you've spun for yourself.

Yes, you just got owned.

 

[tyr_13]

So people would rather whine about the label 'teabagger' than discuss the actual premise of the thread? Not surprising.

 

[Freddy]

That Stop the ACLU site with the hammer and sickle as a C is embarassingly silly.

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/

Yes it is.

 

[Freddy]

So people would rather whine about the label 'teabagger' than discuss the actual premise of the thread? Not surprising.

Who's whining? I did more than just point out that CS is acting like a child. I pointed out that his premise was wrong, at least with respect to the election. As for how all those tea party freshmen will govern (an odd question to ask if "the tea party" was embarrassingly defeated last night), I'm confident that they will find it a little more difficult to "change Washington" than they thought. Same as any other freshman congressperson or senator. The OP is not all that interesting, and thus neither is the thread.


Edited to add: Do you dispute that use of the term "teabaggers" is indicative that one favors Democrats over "teabaggers"?

 

[Tony]

Nope. Almost everyone I know was not aware of the reference. We're still tied on the anecdotal evidence.

I don't think we'll find any empirical data on this. Anyway, I think this has more to do with a generation gap. I would expect that most people under 35 knew what "teabagging" meant and that old folks didn't.

And just for giggles, you mention both 'everyone I know' and 'everyone they know' as distinct populations. I'll concede that you know what is known by 'everyone I know' but how do you know that 'everyone they know' knows this reference?

Because they would be extremely sheltered if they didn't. "Teabagging" was one of those things you laughed at in Jr. High and High school and then heard about being used in pranks in college (I actually think a few kids got suspended at my High School for teabagging a kid on a bus).

 

[GStan]

So people would rather whine about the label 'teabagger' than discuss the actual premise of the thread? Not surprising.

The OP pretty much discredited its own premises with ad hominem, poisoning the well and confirmation bias.

(And I LOVE Scrut! However, the tea party movement has plently of both ideas and candidates sufficiently flawed that one does not have to argue against them on their level.)

 

[Neally]

So people would rather whine about the label 'teabagger' than discuss the actual premise of the thread? Not surprising.

Which is what, not all TP candidates won, therefore the TP movement is irrelevant?

 

[varwoche]

I would say you're missing Rubio, who was by far the single most important "tea party" candidate.

Just a nitpick: I'd say that Angle may have been the most important teabagger, due to Reed of course. Plus Rubio's win was a given.

But I realize they don't fit your narrative, and I don't begrudge you your coping mechanisms.

Though not addressed to me, thanks anyway! I'm not sure how I'd get by without schadenfreude, courtesy of these phenomenal nut cases.

The lesson that people with brains learned is that if you nominate unelectable candidates, they won't get elected. If you nominate decent candidates, they can win. If the tea party hadn't needed to learn that lesson, Republicans would likely have won both the Nevada and Delaware senate races as well. Hopefully they'll nominate more Rubios and fewer O'Donnells in the future. That would be better for everyone, since candidates as bad as O'Donnell deprive voters of a meaningful choice.

True, and let's add Miller to the list of abject jokes, along with O'Donnel and Angle. A list pioneered by Palin of course.

 

[Greg_in_CO]

Michael Bennet was conceded a very narrow victory over Ken Buck in Colorado this morning. I'd say this is also a pretty important defeat for the teabaggers.

 

[tyr_13]

The OP pretty much discredited its own premises with ad hominem, poisoning the well and confirmation bias.

(And I LOVE Scrut! However, the tea party movement has plently of both ideas and candidates sufficiently flawed that one does not have to argue against them on their level.)

Yet you choose to focus on the term 'teabagger'.

Which is what, not all TP candidates won, therefore the TP movement is irrelevant?

No, that the big 'tea party' candidates all lost, except Paul who really isn't someone who was brought to prominence because of the tea party movement. Sure, it was a huge part in getting him elected this year and I don't see anyone disputing that, but he had a strong political backing already. The tea party has a lot less control than it believes it does, but does have a lot of power. It can back candidates very well, but when it comes to choosing candidates and policies, well, not very popular.

The biggest victory is apparently whoever Rubio is. I have to look that one up.

 

[Greg_in_CO]

Despite what you may have heard, spelling doesn't count, intent does. If it can be construed as an attempt to write in Murkowski, it counts for her.

Oh man. I just had a flashback to 2000 and "hanging chads", "dimpled chads", and "pregnant chads."

Seriously, are we looking at another probably court decision here to name the winner?

 

[Dumb All Over]

Had they endorsed the Republican instead, they would have easily won, but by running against the 'Establishment Republican' they split the conservative vote and gave the governership to the Democrat.

No, this is not the case at all. The Republican candidate, Dan Maes, turned out to be an unelectable scumbag. He had no chance of winning, whether Tancredo ran or not.

 

[DavidJames]

Let's not overlook O'Donnel - O'Donnel was the poster child for a candidate that could, by Tea Party support alone, become a major public figure. She was a nobody who upset the established Republican candidate with the Tea Party given all the credit, then got crushed.

Let's also not forget the Tea Party is now pretty much a subset of the Republican Party as well.

 

[DavidJames]

No, this is not the case at all. The Republican candidate, Dan Maes, turned out to be an unelectable scumbag. He had no chance of winning, whether Tancredo ran or not.

Not so fast, add the votes for Maes and Tancredo and, oh wait....nevermind

 

[cwalner]

Oh man. I just had a flashback to 2000 and "hanging chads", "dimpled chads", and "pregnant chads."

Seriously, are we looking at another probably court decision here to name the winner?

I doubt it, but it will take a lot longer to actually declare a winner. automated systems can only count if the voter chose write-in but not which write-in. It will take physical bodies to actually review them and figure out which write-in candidate is listed (somebody provided a link which listed at least 50 different ones)

It is currently assumed that most of those are for Murkowski, but most is not very exact. considering 40% of voters chose one of the write-ins and 35% chose Miller, Murkowski needs about 88% of the write-ins to be the winner. This is possible, even probable, but at this point, by no means certain.