'Tea party' struggles for lack of a leader

[Lonestar_logic]

If I were the only one thinking that, you would have no worries....

The only ones I see thinking that are the ones that oppose the tea partiers. I have no worries. the democrats are not going to fare very well in Novemeber and it will be due in large part by the tea party movement.

As history shows us, the Democrats (sitting POTUS party) NEVER does well in the midterm elections. Do you REALLY think the Tea Baggers can take credit for this?

Yes I do.

And I'd like to see a link for your claim that the "(sitting POTUS party) NEVER does well in the midterm elections."

 

[WillowTree]

the tea party didn't exist last summer either "who are these people?"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Frustrated and lacking agreement on what to do next, self-identified tea party leaders say the movement may be in danger of breaking apart before it ever really comes together.

'Tea party' hurt by lack of organization - Washington Post- msnbc.com

Now, before you MODS move this to a separate area on these boards, can you please explain why we are not allowed to discuss these Tea Party folks in the politics area? If you want to separate everything by key words, why is there no "Obama" area? Why not just do away with the "politics" area all together? You could create a "GOP" area, a "Democrats" area, etc etc...

We have no leader because we are a grassroots movement. Unless the liberals are now wanting to renig on there astroturff comment.

 

[VaYank5150]

The only ones I see thinking that are the ones that oppose the tea partiers. I have no worries. the democrats are not going to fare very well in Novemeber and it will be due in large part by the tea party movement.

As history shows us, the Democrats (sitting POTUS party) NEVER does well in the midterm elections. Do you REALLY think the Tea Baggers can take credit for this?

Yes I do.

And I'd like to see a link for your claim that the "(sitting POTUS party) NEVER does well in the midterm elections."

It's called "Google"....you ALL can't be this lazy. Please note, I am even posting from a right wing site...

Midterm elections - history lesson - reality check

Time for a history lesson. The media, the Democrats and some Freebers want you to believe that somehow this election was different. No, the losses the GOP suffered WERE to be expected. Let us review, shall we?



President Mid-term Senate House


Grant (R) 1870 -4 -31


Grant (R) 1874 -8 -96


Hayes (R) 1878 -6 -9


Arthur (R) 1882 +3 -33


Cleveland (D) 1886 +3 -12


Harrison (R) 1890 0 -85


Cleveland (D) 1894 -5 -116


McKinley (R) 1898 +7 -21


TR (R) 1902 +2 +9


TR (R) 1906 +3 -28


Taft (R) 1910 -10 -57


Wilson (D) 1914 +5 -59


Wilson (D) 1918 -6 -19


Harding (R) 1922 -8 -75


Coolidge (R) 1926 -6 -10


Hoover (R) 1930 -8 -49


FDR (D) 1934 +10 +9


FDR (D) 1938 -6 -71


FDR (D) 1942 -9 -45


Truman (D) 1946 -12 -55


Truman (D) 1950 -6 -59


Ike (R) 1954 -1 -18


Ike (R) 1958 -13 -48


JFK (D) 1962 +3 -4


LBJ (D) 1966 -4 -47


Nixon (R) 1970 +2 -12


Nixon (R) 1974 -5 -48


Carter (D) 1978 -3 -15


Reagan (R) 1982 +1 -26


Reagan (R) 1986 -8 -5


Bush '41 (R) 1990 -1 -8


Clinton (D) 1994 -9 -54


Clinton (D) 1998 0 +4


Bush '43 (R) 2002 +2 0


Bush '43 (R) 2006 -6 -28






(1) With only four exceptions, EVERY single President since Lincoln has lost seats in the House in the midterm elections. The only ones to buck the trend were the Roosevelts (TR because he was the mostly popular President EVER his first term, FDR because of the Depression), Clinton (because of Republican miscues during the Impeachment) and Bush '43 (because of 9/11). GW was bound to lose this one.

(2) Midterm years in bold are the dreaded "six year itch". I have marked 1966 as one in that LBJ was finishing out what would have been JFK's second term. GW is his sixth year. Losses in the midterm were almost certain.

(3) Wilson (1918), FDR (1942), Truman (1950) and LBJ (1966) all lost seats both in the House and Senate when the country was at war. McKinley (1898) gained Senate seats, but lost seats in the House. Guess the country had mixed feelings about thumping Spain. Bush '41 can also be considered in this group as the country was gearing up for Gulf War I. Another category that GW fits into

(4) In terms of serious setbacks in the midterms this one doesn’t even come close. 1894 ranks as the all-time thumping with an astounding 116 House seats and 5 Senate seats changing hands. 1994, 1974, 1966, 1958 (I thought everyone liked Ike), 1938 (so much for the New Deal being popular), 1946, 1930 or 1874 were much, much worse. So counting our blessings is in order.

(5) Voters don't like scandals and take it out on the party in power. Midterm years underlined are considered scandal midterms. 1994 is in the list due to the number of scandals in Congress plus the Clintons were hip deep in scandals as well. Foley, et al doomed the Republicans at the start.

(6) Voters don't like excess spending. The thumping the Republicans received in 1890 was a voter rebellion against the "Billion Dollar Congress". The same can be said about FDR's spanking in 1938 (New Deal overreach) and Clinton's in 1994 (attempted takeover of the health care system). With bridges to nowhere is it any wonder the GOP lost seats?

(7)The historical average is a loss of 3 Senate seats and 34 House seats for the President's party in the midterms. For the "six year curse" the averge is 6 Senate seats and 39 House seats. The 2006 losses fit the historical norms.

Given the political history of our nation and add in the fact that most of the races were decided by very thin margins all the hand wringing is unjustified. Time to dust off the jeans and get back into the fight. This little history lesson should remind you that in our Republic the political fortunes of the parties ebb and flow. So the next time a liberal gloats in your face, remind him or her that this wasn't 1994, 1946 or 1938 and it sure as heck wasn't 1894.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

As history shows us, the Democrats (sitting POTUS party) NEVER does well in the midterm elections. Do you REALLY think the Tea Baggers can take credit for this?

It's comments like this that make the mods move or lock a thread. So back off bub

 

[VaYank5150]

Frustrated and lacking agreement on what to do next, self-identified tea party leaders say the movement may be in danger of breaking apart before it ever really comes together.

'Tea party' hurt by lack of organization - Washington Post- msnbc.com

Now, before you MODS move this to a separate area on these boards, can you please explain why we are not allowed to discuss these Tea Party folks in the politics area? If you want to separate everything by key words, why is there no "Obama" area? Why not just do away with the "politics" area all together? You could create a "GOP" area, a "Democrats" area, etc etc...

We have no leader because we are a grassroots movement. Unless the liberals are now wanting to renig on there astroturff comment.

Ummm, that's renege....but I understand how a Tea Bagger could get it mixed up.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

'Tea party' hurt by lack of organization - Washington Post- msnbc.com

Now, before you MODS move this to a separate area on these boards, can you please explain why we are not allowed to discuss these Tea Party folks in the politics area? If you want to separate everything by key words, why is there no "Obama" area? Why not just do away with the "politics" area all together? You could create a "GOP" area, a "Democrats" area, etc etc...

We have no leader because we are a grassroots movement. Unless the liberals are now wanting to renig on there astroturff comment.

Ummm, that's renege....but I understand how a Tea Bagger could get it mixed up.

The act of teabagging take two. Since we are the baggers who do yoiu think is the reciever of the bagging? obama and the liberals that's who so how does itr taste dirt baggie?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Tea Party suffers from...

Dish pan hands
Lack of its own cable show
that "not so fresh" feeling
iron poor tired blood
a few extra pounds
bad cholesterol
pays too much for car insurance

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We have no leader because we are a grassroots movement. Unless the liberals are now wanting to renig on there astroturff comment.

Ummm, that's renege....but I understand how a Tea Bagger could get it mixed up.

The act of teabagging take two. Since we are the baggers who do yoiu think is the reciever of the bagging? obama and the liberals that's who so how does itr taste dirt baggie?

Watch it, VaYank is still coming to terms with his sexual identity.

 

[Oddball]

Tea Party suffers from...

Dish pan hands
Lack of its own cable show
that "not so fresh" feeling
iron poor tired blood
a few extra pounds
bad cholesterol
pays too much for car insurance

....and not enough cowbell.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

As history shows us, the Democrats (sitting POTUS party) NEVER does well in the midterm elections. Do you REALLY think the Tea Baggers can take credit for this?

Yes I do.

And I'd like to see a link for your claim that the "(sitting POTUS party) NEVER does well in the midterm elections."

It's called "Google"....you ALL can't be this lazy. Please note, I am even posting from a right wing site...

Midterm elections - history lesson - reality check

Time for a history lesson. The media, the Democrats and some Freebers want you to believe that somehow this election was different. No, the losses the GOP suffered WERE to be expected. Let us review, shall we?



President Mid-term Senate House


Grant (R) 1870 -4 -31


Grant (R) 1874 -8 -96


Hayes (R) 1878 -6 -9


Arthur (R) 1882 +3 -33


Cleveland (D) 1886 +3 -12


Harrison (R) 1890 0 -85


Cleveland (D) 1894 -5 -116


McKinley (R) 1898 +7 -21


TR (R) 1902 +2 +9


TR (R) 1906 +3 -28


Taft (R) 1910 -10 -57


Wilson (D) 1914 +5 -59


Wilson (D) 1918 -6 -19


Harding (R) 1922 -8 -75


Coolidge (R) 1926 -6 -10


Hoover (R) 1930 -8 -49


FDR (D) 1934 +10 +9


FDR (D) 1938 -6 -71


FDR (D) 1942 -9 -45


Truman (D) 1946 -12 -55


Truman (D) 1950 -6 -59


Ike (R) 1954 -1 -18


Ike (R) 1958 -13 -48


JFK (D) 1962 +3 -4


LBJ (D) 1966 -4 -47


Nixon (R) 1970 +2 -12


Nixon (R) 1974 -5 -48


Carter (D) 1978 -3 -15


Reagan (R) 1982 +1 -26


Reagan (R) 1986 -8 -5


Bush '41 (R) 1990 -1 -8


Clinton (D) 1994 -9 -54


Clinton (D) 1998 0 +4


Bush '43 (R) 2002 +2 0


Bush '43 (R) 2006 -6 -28






(1) With only four exceptions, EVERY single President since Lincoln has lost seats in the House in the midterm elections. The only ones to buck the trend were the Roosevelts (TR because he was the mostly popular President EVER his first term, FDR because of the Depression), Clinton (because of Republican miscues during the Impeachment) and Bush '43 (because of 9/11). GW was bound to lose this one.

(2) Midterm years in bold are the dreaded "six year itch". I have marked 1966 as one in that LBJ was finishing out what would have been JFK's second term. GW is his sixth year. Losses in the midterm were almost certain.

(3) Wilson (1918), FDR (1942), Truman (1950) and LBJ (1966) all lost seats both in the House and Senate when the country was at war. McKinley (1898) gained Senate seats, but lost seats in the House. Guess the country had mixed feelings about thumping Spain. Bush '41 can also be considered in this group as the country was gearing up for Gulf War I. Another category that GW fits into

(4) In terms of serious setbacks in the midterms this one doesn’t even come close. 1894 ranks as the all-time thumping with an astounding 116 House seats and 5 Senate seats changing hands. 1994, 1974, 1966, 1958 (I thought everyone liked Ike), 1938 (so much for the New Deal being popular), 1946, 1930 or 1874 were much, much worse. So counting our blessings is in order.

(5) Voters don't like scandals and take it out on the party in power. Midterm years underlined are considered scandal midterms. 1994 is in the list due to the number of scandals in Congress plus the Clintons were hip deep in scandals as well. Foley, et al doomed the Republicans at the start.

(6) Voters don't like excess spending. The thumping the Republicans received in 1890 was a voter rebellion against the "Billion Dollar Congress". The same can be said about FDR's spanking in 1938 (New Deal overreach) and Clinton's in 1994 (attempted takeover of the health care system). With bridges to nowhere is it any wonder the GOP lost seats?

(7)The historical average is a loss of 3 Senate seats and 34 House seats for the President's party in the midterms. For the "six year curse" the averge is 6 Senate seats and 39 House seats. The 2006 losses fit the historical norms.

Given the political history of our nation and add in the fact that most of the races were decided by very thin margins all the hand wringing is unjustified. Time to dust off the jeans and get back into the fight. This little history lesson should remind you that in our Republic the political fortunes of the parties ebb and flow. So the next time a liberal gloats in your face, remind him or her that this wasn't 1994, 1946 or 1938 and it sure as heck wasn't 1894.

How does it feel to reveal yourself as a liar?

 

[VaYank5150]

Yes I do.

And I'd like to see a link for your claim that the "(sitting POTUS party) NEVER does well in the midterm elections."

It's called "Google"....you ALL can't be this lazy. Please note, I am even posting from a right wing site...

Midterm elections - history lesson - reality check

Time for a history lesson. The media, the Democrats and some Freebers want you to believe that somehow this election was different. No, the losses the GOP suffered WERE to be expected. Let us review, shall we?



President Mid-term Senate House


Grant (R) 1870 -4 -31


Grant (R) 1874 -8 -96


Hayes (R) 1878 -6 -9


Arthur (R) 1882 +3 -33


Cleveland (D) 1886 +3 -12


Harrison (R) 1890 0 -85


Cleveland (D) 1894 -5 -116


McKinley (R) 1898 +7 -21


TR (R) 1902 +2 +9


TR (R) 1906 +3 -28


Taft (R) 1910 -10 -57


Wilson (D) 1914 +5 -59


Wilson (D) 1918 -6 -19


Harding (R) 1922 -8 -75


Coolidge (R) 1926 -6 -10


Hoover (R) 1930 -8 -49


FDR (D) 1934 +10 +9


FDR (D) 1938 -6 -71


FDR (D) 1942 -9 -45


Truman (D) 1946 -12 -55


Truman (D) 1950 -6 -59


Ike (R) 1954 -1 -18


Ike (R) 1958 -13 -48


JFK (D) 1962 +3 -4


LBJ (D) 1966 -4 -47


Nixon (R) 1970 +2 -12


Nixon (R) 1974 -5 -48


Carter (D) 1978 -3 -15


Reagan (R) 1982 +1 -26


Reagan (R) 1986 -8 -5


Bush '41 (R) 1990 -1 -8


Clinton (D) 1994 -9 -54


Clinton (D) 1998 0 +4


Bush '43 (R) 2002 +2 0


Bush '43 (R) 2006 -6 -28






(1) With only four exceptions, EVERY single President since Lincoln has lost seats in the House in the midterm elections. The only ones to buck the trend were the Roosevelts (TR because he was the mostly popular President EVER his first term, FDR because of the Depression), Clinton (because of Republican miscues during the Impeachment) and Bush '43 (because of 9/11). GW was bound to lose this one.

(2) Midterm years in bold are the dreaded "six year itch". I have marked 1966 as one in that LBJ was finishing out what would have been JFK's second term. GW is his sixth year. Losses in the midterm were almost certain.

(3) Wilson (1918), FDR (1942), Truman (1950) and LBJ (1966) all lost seats both in the House and Senate when the country was at war. McKinley (1898) gained Senate seats, but lost seats in the House. Guess the country had mixed feelings about thumping Spain. Bush '41 can also be considered in this group as the country was gearing up for Gulf War I. Another category that GW fits into

(4) In terms of serious setbacks in the midterms this one doesn’t even come close. 1894 ranks as the all-time thumping with an astounding 116 House seats and 5 Senate seats changing hands. 1994, 1974, 1966, 1958 (I thought everyone liked Ike), 1938 (so much for the New Deal being popular), 1946, 1930 or 1874 were much, much worse. So counting our blessings is in order.

(5) Voters don't like scandals and take it out on the party in power. Midterm years underlined are considered scandal midterms. 1994 is in the list due to the number of scandals in Congress plus the Clintons were hip deep in scandals as well. Foley, et al doomed the Republicans at the start.

(6) Voters don't like excess spending. The thumping the Republicans received in 1890 was a voter rebellion against the "Billion Dollar Congress". The same can be said about FDR's spanking in 1938 (New Deal overreach) and Clinton's in 1994 (attempted takeover of the health care system). With bridges to nowhere is it any wonder the GOP lost seats?

(7)The historical average is a loss of 3 Senate seats and 34 House seats for the President's party in the midterms. For the "six year curse" the averge is 6 Senate seats and 39 House seats. The 2006 losses fit the historical norms.

Given the political history of our nation and add in the fact that most of the races were decided by very thin margins all the hand wringing is unjustified. Time to dust off the jeans and get back into the fight. This little history lesson should remind you that in our Republic the political fortunes of the parties ebb and flow. So the next time a liberal gloats in your face, remind him or her that this wasn't 1994, 1946 or 1938 and it sure as heck wasn't 1894.

How does it feel to reveal yourself as a liar?

OK. I'll play. Besides you calling me a liar, how does this data "reveal" me as such?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

VaYank struggle to post something useful or informative or even remotely interesting

 

[geauxtohell]

Good to see Francis pulling his usual stick:

Good to see all of the predictions we made about the teabaggers coming to fruition.

It's nice to be right.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It's called "Google"....you ALL can't be this lazy. Please note, I am even posting from a right wing site...

Midterm elections - history lesson - reality check

How does it feel to reveal yourself as a liar?

OK. I'll play. Besides you calling me a liar, how does this data "reveal" me as such?

You claimed the sitting President's party NEVER does well in mid-term elections, yet your own link states four exceptions.

 

[VaYank5150]

How does it feel to reveal yourself as a liar?

OK. I'll play. Besides you calling me a liar, how does this data "reveal" me as such?

You claimed the sitting President's party NEVER does well in mid-term elections, yet your own link states four exceptions.

You are right. 4 exceptions since 1870....what was I thinking? I must have been trying to mislead everyone on purpose...

 

[geauxtohell]

OK. I'll play. Besides you calling me a liar, how does this data "reveal" me as such?

You claimed the sitting President's party NEVER does well in mid-term elections, yet your own link states four exceptions.

You are right. 4 exceptions since 1870....what was I thinking? I must have been trying to mislead everyone on purpose...

I love people who throw out the term "liar" at the drop of a hat.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

OK. I'll play. Besides you calling me a liar, how does this data "reveal" me as such?

You claimed the sitting President's party NEVER does well in mid-term elections, yet your own link states four exceptions.

You are right. 4 exceptions since 1870....what was I thinking? I must have been trying to mislead everyone on purpose...

No you simply lied.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You claimed the sitting President's party NEVER does well in mid-term elections, yet your own link states four exceptions.

You are right. 4 exceptions since 1870....what was I thinking? I must have been trying to mislead everyone on purpose...

I love people who throw out the term "liar" at the drop of a hat.

She did lie.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Frustrated and lacking agreement on what to do next, self-identified tea party leaders say the movement may be in danger of breaking apart before it ever really comes together.

'Tea party' hurt by lack of organization - Washington Post- msnbc.com

Now, before you MODS move this to a separate area on these boards, can you please explain why we are not allowed to discuss these Tea Party folks in the politics area? If you want to separate everything by key words, why is there no "Obama" area? Why not just do away with the "politics" area all together? You could create a "GOP" area, a "Democrats" area, etc etc...

Why does the Tea party need a leader? It's not a party like Democrats or Replublicans, it's a movement.

here is another grassroots movement.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7mTTjr75Ug"]YouTube - woodlice zoo[/ame]