Will there be violence from the Tea Party if Obama wins re-election?

[DevotedDemocrat]

Let's say Obama wins re-election, by winning only the Electoral College. The Tea Party folks have had their heads filled for almost three years now with hate toward Obama, that Obama is a usurper of the Presidency, that he is a puppet and a friend to Bill Ayers. I've seen Tea Partiers say in all seriousness that they feel America will die or become like the Soviet Union if Obama is re-elected. My question is, given the current political atmosphere and hatred for Obama, could segments of the Tea Party erupt into violence if he is re-elected, especially if he only wins the EV?

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I'm sure Rubio, Paul, Martinez, Christie, Ryan and other leaders would not allow violence to erupt.

[BringinTheTruth]

Learn your politics.  The Tea Party has been largely non-existent this cycle.  Gone are the Sharon Angles, Christine O'Donnells, etc., and those of the Todd Akin variety aren't recognized by the party very much.  The current party is strong in large part because of conservatives pre-dating the Tea Party and moderates elected despite Tea Party opposition.

Why don't you wait and see what the GOP does after it wins.  Pretty sure this election isn't over yet.

[DevotedDemocrat]

Learn your politics.  The Tea Party has been largely non-existent this cycle.  Gone are the Sharon Angles, Christine O'Donnells, etc., and those of the Todd Akin variety aren't recognized by the party very much.  The current party is strong in large part because of conservatives pre-dating the Tea Party and moderates elected despite Tea Party opposition.

Why don't you wait and see what the GOP does after it wins.  Pretty sure this election isn't over yet.

"See what the GOP does after it wins"....
You mean Austerity, and eliminating the New Deal, the Great Society, and going back to pre-1900 standards in regulations?

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Learn your politics.  The Tea Party has been largely non-existent this cycle.  Gone are the Sharon Angles, Christine O'Donnells, etc., and those of the Todd Akin variety aren't recognized by the party very much.  The current party is strong in large part because of conservatives pre-dating the Tea Party and moderates elected despite Tea Party opposition.

Why don't you wait and see what the GOP does after it wins.  Pretty sure this election isn't over yet.

I wouldn't be championing a belief that the GOP is now largely ignoring the Tea Party just yet. They're still bankrolling Richard Mourdock, Deb Fischer, Josh Mandel, Linda McMahon, and Ted Cruz. This year's nominee would certainly be a Tea Partier if not for Romney burying his opponents in negative ads.

[BringinTheTruth]

Despite your spin on the labels of those positions, they all pre-date the Tea Party, which was largely a social issues faction.

[BringinTheTruth]

Learn your politics.  The Tea Party has been largely non-existent this cycle.  Gone are the Sharon Angles, Christine O'Donnells, etc., and those of the Todd Akin variety aren't recognized by the party very much.  The current party is strong in large part because of conservatives pre-dating the Tea Party and moderates elected despite Tea Party opposition.

Why don't you wait and see what the GOP does after it wins.  Pretty sure this election isn't over yet.

I wouldn't be championing a belief that the GOP is now largely ignoring the Tea Party just yet. They're still bankrolling Richard Mourdock, Deb Fischer, Josh Mandel, Linda McMahon, and Ted Cruz. This year's nominee would certainly be a Tea Partier if not for Romney burying his opponents in negative ads.

They are not ignored, but they are dispositive of nothing in the party like they were in 2010, in large part because they proved ineffective in key races.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

The Tea Party as a movement doesn't exist anymore. It's been co-opted by the Republican party and is unlikely to do anything illegal in the event they lose an election.

Watch out for Occupy if Obama loses, though.

[DevotedDemocrat]

Despite your spin on the labels of those positions, they all pre-date the Tea Party, which was largely a social issues faction.

No, it was not. It was a bunch of angry Republican voters who suddenly became concerned about taxes, and who suddenly felt they were taxed enough already, and became worried about communism around 1/20/2009. Since 2009, the Tea Party's mantra has been about deregulation and eliminating the New Deal and Great Society.

[BringinTheTruth]

The Tea Party as a movement doesn't exist anymore. It's been co-opted by the Republican party and is unlikely to do anything illegal in the event they lose an election.

Watch out for Occupy if Obama loses, though.

TRUTH, TRUTH, TRUTH.  The left tend to respond more violently in these situations.  In the end for them, it's all about "fairness," which is a touchy subject.  Much like it is for little children.

[Brittain33]

Some crazy percentage of the Republican base doesn't accept that Obama's win in 2008 was legitimate and blame ACORN for cheating. Since this election is guaranteed to be close, and people have been stoking the fires with bogus claims of voter fraud, I do worry.

[DevotedDemocrat]

The Tea Party as a movement doesn't exist anymore. It's been co-opted by the Republican party and is unlikely to do anything illegal in the event they lose an election.

Watch out for Occupy if Obama loses, though.

From my experience, Occupy doesn't exactly view Obama as the great champion of their causes. They see him, again from my experience, as only slightly less bad than Romney.

[BringinTheTruth]

Despite your spin on the labels of those positions, they all pre-date the Tea Party, which was largely a social issues faction.

No, it was not. It was a bunch of angry Republican voters who suddenly became concerned about taxes, and who suddenly felt they were taxed enough already, and became worried about communism around 1/20/2009. Since 2009, the Tea Party's mantra has been about deregulation and eliminating the New Deal and Great Society.

Complete and total misread of who is the Tea Party.  Taxes, communism (), and deregulation are long-standing, Paleoconservative issues.  Read into this guy named Ronald Reagan...you'll learn a lot about those things.  

[BringinTheTruth]

Some crazy percentage of the Republican base doesn't accept that Obama's win in 2008 was legitimate and blame ACORN for cheating. Since this election is guaranteed to be close, and people have been stoking the fires with bogus claims of voter fraud, I do worry.

Whatever.  If there wasn't violence in the streets after 2000, there won't be this time.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Despite your spin on the labels of those positions, they all pre-date the Tea Party, which was largely a social issues faction.

Actually, the Tea Party came about because they were angry about the Wall Street Bailouts and what they saw as out of control spending in 2009-2010. I don't recall social issues really rearing its head until around February with Rick Santorum. The Tea Party, at its purist, was a movement by citizens concerned about the direction their country was taking. It had the potential to change the way things were done in a way Obama could not. If he had kept his supporters in the streets, rallying for his causes, he could've really Changed The World. But sadly, the Tea Party was co-opted by radicals and turned into a crazy right wing group and subsidiary of the Republican Party.

The Tea Party as a movement doesn't exist anymore. It's been co-opted by the Republican party and is unlikely to do anything illegal in the event they lose an election.

Watch out for Occupy if Obama loses, though.

The difference between the Tea Party and Occupy is that Occupy hasn't endorsed a candidate and does not support Obama. 99% of the Tea Party members are Republicans or conservatives. Occupy Wall Street on the other hand has Conservatives, Libertarians, Liberals, and Moderates, which makes it unlikely to become a subsidiary of the Dems.

[DevotedDemocrat]

Despite your spin on the labels of those positions, they all pre-date the Tea Party, which was largely a social issues faction.

No, it was not. It was a bunch of angry Republican voters who suddenly became concerned about taxes, and who suddenly felt they were taxed enough already, and became worried about communism around 1/20/2009. Since 2009, the Tea Party's mantra has been about deregulation and eliminating the New Deal and Great Society.

Complete and total misread of who is the Tea Party.  Taxes, communism (), and deregulation are long-standing, Paleoconservative issues.  Read into this guy named Ronald Reagan...you'll learn a lot about those things.  

The Tea Party is and has always been an insane mix of Paleoconservative, John Birch inspired economic ideals and Religious Right social stances.

Ronald Reagan was only a Conservative in rhetoric. In governing, he really was not. He was center right, especially in today's political atmosphere. Compared with someone like Paul Ryan, Reagan looks like a raging Liberal. Opposition to Communism does not make one a Conservative; if it did, every President both Democratic and Republican from 1945 onward would be a Conservative. If lowering taxes would make one a Conservative, then Lyndon Johnson is a big time Conservative. All you've got with Reagan is deregulation. He didn't balance the budget, even once, even in his own submitted budgets, and rather than destroying Social Security, or phasing it out for younger people, as the Romney/Ryan team wants to do, he worked with Congress to save it.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I'm seriously worried that one of the fascists may attempt to kill President Obama.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

The Tea Party as a movement doesn't exist anymore. It's been co-opted by the Republican party and is unlikely to do anything illegal in the event they lose an election.

Watch out for Occupy if Obama loses, though.

From my experience, Occupy doesn't exactly view Obama as the great champion of their causes. They see him, again from my experience, as only slightly less bad than Romney.

True, but Romney is the definition of the "Plutocrat candidate" they hate so much. I see them going nuts less over Obama losing and more over Romney winning.

[BringinTheTruth]

Despite your spin on the labels of those positions, they all pre-date the Tea Party, which was largely a social issues faction.

No, it was not. It was a bunch of angry Republican voters who suddenly became concerned about taxes, and who suddenly felt they were taxed enough already, and became worried about communism around 1/20/2009. Since 2009, the Tea Party's mantra has been about deregulation and eliminating the New Deal and Great Society.

Complete and total misread of who is the Tea Party.  Taxes, communism (), and deregulation are long-standing, Paleoconservative issues.  Read into this guy named Ronald Reagan...you'll learn a lot about those things.  

The Tea Party is and has always been an insane mix of Paleoconservative, John Birch inspired economic ideals and Religious Right social stances.

Ronald Reagan was only a Conservative in rhetoric. In governing, he really was not. He was center right, especially in today's political atmosphere. Compared with someone like Paul Ryan, Reagan looks like a raging Liberal. Opposition to Communism does not make one a Conservative; if it did, every President both Democratic and Republican from 1945 onward would be a Conservative. If lowering taxes would make one a Conservative, then Lyndon Johnson is a big time Conservative. All you've got with Reagan is deregulation. He didn't balance the budget, even once, even in his own submitted budgets, and rather than destroying Social Security, or phasing it out for younger people, as the Romney/Ryan team wants to do, he worked with Congress to save it.

"So now you're LBJ?!?!?"  I ask, grinning wildly with crazy mannerisms (sound familiar?).

Well let's break this down.  The reason the Tea Party became a movement is because it very much was distinct from paleoconservatives. You're right that a Venn diagram would include some paleos in the mix, but those issues pre-date the Tea Party, which arose because of its commitment to social issues.

As for Reagan, he was not an ideologue, but he was the embodiment of the message for conservativism.  However, he was pragmatic as an executive, which resulted in real and lasting transformational change, due to his ability to work with the Democratic majorities in both houses.  The policies of the 80s are as much theirs as his, but today's Dem party shares nothing in common with them any more than the modern GOP does to Reagan.  The reason Obama will not similarly be transitional is because he cannot craft such coalitions.  Reagan didn't balance budgets.....but you know what he did?  VASTLY raised federal revenue (something we need). Funny you mention Johnson and taxes.  Kennedy is a very apt comparison - he lowered taxes significantly and raised federal revenue (I may have mentioned - something we need).  Both of those examples prove not that Romney is a liar, but that he's not, as the policies have been proven effective for.....wait for it.......what we need.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Uh, there's violence from the Tea Party already.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

From my experience, Occupy doesn't exactly view Obama as the great champion of their causes. They see him, again from my experience, as only slightly less bad than Romney.

Most of us in Occupy view Romney as the America-hating thug he is.