The comment starts with “social con” and the illogically shifts to “tea party” and implies they are the same.
Most tea party types support socially conservative issues and most social conservatives support the tea party. But their emphasis is quite different ... and their chances of winning in November are quite different. The tea party (including the social cons in it) emphasise “Taxed Enough Already” economics. That has proven to be a winner.
Emphasizing the social issues is a loser in most areas. And in most areas where it is not a loser, it wins by a smaller margin than the economic tea party agenda.
Note that winning or losing elections has little to do with being right or wrong; But a lot to do with reality. And note that the fact that candidates don’t win on social issues does not mean the voters are not social conservative. Repeatedly voters vote social conservative in a referendum and at the same time vote for a social liberal candidate. The reasons are several. Social issues make most people uncomfortable. Social issues are stressful.
People vote for the candidate who makes them comfortable and less stressful. Most often the liberals are able to package their position in a way that makes them less stressful and the conservative candidate more stressful. Conseratives fall into this trap and escalate the stress.
But also, more people vote their perceived economic interest and the liberal is able to win that perception when the social conservatives concede the economic debate to focus on the social issues.
We haven’t had enough elections to provide sufficient data to support your claims regarding the relative value of TEA Party positions and social conservative positions.