Given: The Teabaggers aren't going to change. But will the rest of the party?

[BlueStreak]

Anybody arguing about how this affects the teabaggers is wasting their breath. That is a collection of some really stupid people (Gomert, e.g.) some really possessed people (Bachmann, e.g.), some fairly smart, exploitative people (Cruz, e.g.), and some billionaires who view the teabaggers are useful idiots (the Koch brothers, e.g.) None of these people have any motivation or ability to change. They are going to keep on just as they have been.

But now that Obama has figured out how to break these people -- essentially giving them enough rope to hang themselves -- how will this affect the GOP power structure? And here I am talking about people like Rove, Boehner, McConnell et al. And to some degree this also includes people like Norquist and the various other right-wing pressure groups.

I don't see that any of them are likely to change their political philosophies. They all want to dismantle government and push down the non-1% as far and as fast as they can. But they also know they have to win some elections to make that happen. In particular, if they don't win the White House in 2016, they will lose control of the Supreme Court, and be looking at the dismantling of a 30-year court-packing effort.

Will they recognize that the teabaggers are the biggest threat to their winning on a national level? Seriously, without the teabagging pressure during the primaries, Romney could very well be President today. Now that they know that Obama has the cajones to stand up to the teabaggers, will the GOP move to marginalize them?

Frankly I don't think so. I can't see people like Ryan operating in good faith with House Democrats. I can't see Boehner departing from the Hastert Rule even though it was disastrous to him this time.

Any opinions here?

[upaloopa]

1. Two things, a lot of wing nuts see how screwed

things can get if the tea party has their way and how much better their life will be with insurance provided by the ACA.

[jeff47]

2. Their party will shrink in search of "purity".

The teabaggers will continue to throw out "RINOs" in primaries. That will cause their party to shrink and become more and more extreme. They'll quickly lose the ability to do anything on a national level.

This will massively alienate big business, because they need a working economy and basic services. The purified teabaggers will insist that we only need our own bunkers and the guns to protect them.

Big business will buy their way into the Democratic party. After all, the right flank is already where Republicans were in the 1950's. This will create a new home for the displaced Republicans, and that will drag the Democratic party to the right.

This will not be a tolerable situation to the left side of the Democratic party. They will leave, creating a new major left-of-center party. Either brand-new, or by changing to one of the existing minor parties.

Eventually, the teabagger-laden Republican party withers away. The two major parties end up about where they were in the 1950's and 60s, except with the Democrats holding the old Republican position.

It's going to be a "fun" couple of decades.

[beachbum bob]

4. pretty much agree with you

teaparty will eventually take themselves out especially if democrats, liberals and progressives take the fight to them. The teaparty mantra of destroying govt really doesn't resonate too well with most of america. Bring them and their supporters out of the shadows. Educate america on their racists, bigoted view of the world and those who provide financial support.

[BlueStreak]

5. So you don't think Rove and the others can stop this?

It isn't Rove who was funding these Tea Party groups and egging them on. But until recently the "GOP bosses" definitely saw the teabaggers as helpful for what Rove and friends wanted to accomplish.

I don't see how they could still believe the Tea Party is helpful. They all must see Cruz as the enemy. Do you really think they are powerless to do anything?

[jeff47]

6. No, economic conservatives no longer have political power.

It isn't Rove who was funding these Tea Party groups and egging them on.

Rove and the economic conservatives that back him started funding the Tea Party groups. But Tea Party voters feel no allegiance to Rove and the economic conservatives.

The social conservatives feel like they're on a mission from God. If Rove tries to stop them, well then he's just another Judas.

But until recently the "GOP bosses" definitely saw the teabaggers as helpful for what Rove and friends wanted to accomplish.

Sure. Reagan formed a coalition between economic conservatives and social conservatives. Before Reagan, the Republicans kept the social conservatives out of the party because they knew what would happen. Goldwater famously predicted that social conservatives would take over the party and turn it crazy. Reagan just wanted to win, and he saw the social conservatives as useful rubes. Throw them the occasional bone, and they'll show up and vote.

So back in Reagan's day, the economic conservatives had all the power. That gradually shifted over the years. In 1994, the social conservatives seized power, but they were still relatively even. But the trends continued. With the rise of the Tea Party, the social conservatives have shut out the economic conservatives - they are now tossed the occasional bone while the social conservatives get their way.

Aside from their self-righteousness, the Teabaggers don't need the funding from people like Rove. They don't need money to create a lot of motivated voters. They already have motivated voters. And Limbaugh, Beck and others keep them motivated by propagandizing for free. And they will keep pushing the social conservative message because that's what their listeners/viewers want.

I don't see how they could still believe the Tea Party is helpful. They all must see Cruz as the enemy. Do you really think they are powerless to do anything?

Oh, I'm sure they think the Tea Party is not very helpful anymore. They might get a tax cut out of them, but market chaos vastly swamps the benefits of such tax cuts.

As for are they really powerless, the Chamber of Commerce wrote two letters warning about how disastrous a shutdown and default would be, and that the CoC really didn't want the Republicans to do it. Back in the day, they could have just made one or two phone calls. Today, two public letters and the Republicans in Congress ignored them.

[BlueStreak]

7. I follow what you are saying

Last edited Wed Oct 16, 2013, 10:44 PM - Edit history (1)

If I may summarize, you are saying the teabaggers are beyond control by the economic conservatives.

That may be the case. I think what makes this confusing is that the "big money" is split. If it were the "Big Crazy" versus the "Big Money", I would go with big money in 100 cases out of 100.

But the problem with that assessment is that people like the Koch brothers seem willing to put super-tankers full of money on the most extreme candidates. This is nothing new for them. Their Daddy started this 60 years ago with his efforts to manipulate the political system under the umbrella of the John Birch Society.

So maybe my question is, "How will the money split?" If there is more money behind "party approved" candidates, then the teabaggers won't be such a threat to the other Republicans.

[jeff47]

8. One can be "Big Crazy" and still have "Big Money".

Wealth is not a measure of sanity. See: Koch family.

As for the split, "Big Money" goes with the economic conservatives. But "Big Money" isn't all that helpful anymore - look how Rove and company did in 2012 while VASTLY outspending the Democrats.

Instead, "Big Motivation" is important - "Big Crazy" can motivate a hell of a lot of people to show up for the Republican primary, so much so that they decide who wins the primary. And their methods for doing so do not require much money - Limbaugh is free to his listeners. Which means "Big Crazy" controls the Republican party - if "Big Money" can't get it's candidates on the general ballot, it can't do squat in the Republican party.

Which is why Big Money will next try to buy its way into the Democratic Party.

[BlueStreak]

9. Interesting, but I can't see "Big money" giving up on the GOP yet.

You may be right.

But that just leads to the question, aren't we equally screwed either way? It is hard enough to get today's Democrats to do the right thing today. There just aren't thatt many Elizabeth Warrens, Sherrod Browns, Henry Waxmans.

If the choice were black and white (and it never is) between

A) Teabaggers continue to gain in power

B) Economic conservatives continue to gain control over the Democratic party

I think I might just have to hang myself. I'm trying to see a more favorable outcome from what clearly was a strong day for Obama, Democrats, progressive causes ...

[jeff47]

10. That's why we move on to the next stage of my prediction

Where the "left" end of the Democratic party leaves to form a new left-of-center party.

[Wounded Bear]

3. I disagree that Romney could have been Pres today...

in pretty much any believable scenario. That would have taken an epic faceplant by the Obama team, one of the best campaign teams in recent memory.

You're right about the TBers. They are fanatics, and nothing will dissuade them from their ignorant, radical RWNJ-erism.

I do hope that the Repub power structure marginalizes them somewhat, though. If Dems can keep this whole clusterfuck in the public consciousness for the next 12-13 months, they could stand to win quite a few seats next November. If the Repubs try to double down on stupid once more, they are looking at a generational swing, which could happen anyway if Obamacare really does what it's supposed to do. They were right about that, the ACA could be a major game changer ala SS and Medicare.

Expected Repub response:

&feature=player_detailpage