Let's look again at the races, and about recent history. We can look at the performances of the Establishment Republicans (say, in recent elections), and drill down a bit on this election.
In past elections, (say 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008) we had the following:
2002 -- a year after the 9-11 attacks, and Americans want security, dammit! The GOP gains 8 seats in the House and 2 in the Senate.
2004 -- Presidential Election; the first one after the "Sore Loserman" debacle in Florida in 2000, and the first one after 9-11.
The GOP picks up 3 seats in the House, the Donks lose 2.
The GOP picks up 4 Senate seats, the Donks lose 4.
Bush wins 31 states, but a mere 286 electoral votes, with a bare 50.7% of the popular vote.
2006 -- the Midterm elections for Bush's second term.
The Dems pick up the House, gaining 31 seats, while the GOP loses 30.
The Dems get the Senate, too, winning 6 seats.
This despite the presence of "The Architect" Karl Rove who brags about his detailed knowledge of the ground game.
But (as we will see) he learned his lesson, after a fashion.
2008 -- the annointing of Teh One.
Obama wins 365 electoral votes in 28 states + a single Congressional district in Nebraska. (Nebraska??!!)
The Donks extend their lead in the House, gaining 21 seats.
And in the Senate, they run the table, gaining 8 seats.
The election is marked by numerous unchallenged shenanigans, including voter fraud (voting by felons, votes found in car trunks) in Minnesota, and infamous re-counts in Washington State.
The only thing preventing a total rout is Sarah Palin, who is roundly condemned by the establishment, but targeted by the Dems, after being trashed by advisors lent by the Rockefeller wing of the GOP (as detailed later in Going Rogue).
So, let's look at the record of the Establishment GOP since the first election of George W. Bush (where the victory was so narrow that the Dems complained he was "selected, not elected." (And that, over Clinton's hand-picked successor.)
House: +8 +3 -30 -21 net --> -40
Senate: +2 +4 -6 -8 net --> -8
Heckuva job, Karl.
Compare that to the Tea Parties:
House: +65
Senate: +6
And before you whine, "Hey, no fair! Everyone hates Obama!"
...no, they didn't. Not two years ago. The Donks were so confident, they were still guaranteeing to keep the House as recently as this summer. So, once more I repeat: FUKR.
And, oh, by the way: FUHUCK.
Cheers!
Great post - just the facts. LOL at “the architect”!
House: +8 +3 -30 -21 net --> -40
Senate: +2 +4 -6 -8 net --> -8
Heckuva job, Karl.
Compare that to the Tea Parties:
House: +65
Senate: +6
Great post. But, the real impact of the Tea Party was not on the National level but on the State and local level where real control was wrested from the Democrats in many states that has turned into an existential threat to the public Unions who have been dictating terms to frightened politicos for 30 years.. This also resulted in the exposure of the corrupt system of extracting Union dues to fund campaigns that favored union power from the taxpayers. The vast number of government employees all forced to contribute giving the Union a seat essentially on both sides of the negotiating table. Corrupt pols on one side and unions on the other and the taxpayers paying the bill.
The Tea Party forcefully said no, and this was and is being felt across the nation.
Obama's plan has been to empower Government employees on all levels and this turn of events has come as a shock but the battle is far from won.
I think you have painted a very real picture of the impact of the Big Government Establishment Republicans in that they are just "me too" to the Progressives and they have been rejected multiple times over the last 50 years by the Conservative/Republican base. So like the Dems they often attempt to disguise themselves as "Moderates" which then become the votes that break the back of any push to fix the very real problems the Democrats have created.
Imagine a world where Bush had been able to dial back the abuses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Or, if Social Security had been fixed when it could have been fixed, not by raising taxes and feeding the problem but rather by insisting that a real investment underly the very real obligations they are base on, otherwise known as privatizing the system.
It was so called "Moderates" that undercut this whole push and acted with Democrats that were in the minority to block this reform that earned the ire of the base and thus helped with the resulting blood baths of 2006 and 2008. But, it was the feckless punching bag stance that Bush took that made much of this horror possible. Who was Bush's political advisor??? Rove.
Rove's policy, Big Government Republicanism as a replacement for old timey Roosevelt/Jackson Democrat majorities. Rove saw the Democrat party drifting to the left and felt that Republicans could take and hold the center, but this didn't work because the Big Government stance alienated one third of the Republican base.
It was the loss of these people that took Bush from 55% to 43% and this occurred when he proposed Harriet Myers for the Supreme Court. This was seen for what it was, RINO cronyism, and it was the last straw, not the first. The run away spending and earmarking that ran ramped in the Congress was frightening, as well as the rush to open the Borders. These are all positions that Rove supported and encouraged. Karl was the architect of non other than the rise of Obama.