What happens to the Tea Party If the GOP wins back the White House?

[Kevin]

A quick question and hypothetical here.

What happens to the Tea Party if the current historical pattern of 8 years on/8 years off of control of the Presidency holds true and the Republicans win back the White House in 2016?

Do they start to fall apart and disappear as a rallying point or do they still remain visible?

I ask because I clearly remember how very heated liberal opposition was to Bush II both inside and outside of the Democratic Party and how it all then seemed to go away over night after Obama was elected.

So all of this begs what happens to the Tea Party if a Republican wins in 2016?

[NHI]

Hopefully, they'll fade away into the pages of history.

[Indy Texas]

Liberal opposition to Bush was tepid compared to the Tea Party's hysteria and obstructionism.

If the Tea Party disappears on January 21, 2017, it will just prove the whole thing was about a black guy in the White House.

The fact that in 2012 these people were willing to vote for a white guy who invented Obamacare and openly supported TARP was all the evidence I needed that this wasn't about any of those things.

[Bureaucat]

It depends on what type of a Republican is elected; a mainstream Republican or a tea bagger.  I personally don't think a tea party dominated GOP can win at the presidential level because I don't think a hard right candidate will be successful in enough Purple States.  The results of the civil war between the faction of the GOP will heavily effect what level of success the party has in the future.

[Del Tachi]

Even if a Republican nominee who is sympathetic to the Tea Party's causes is elected in 2016, the Tea Party is going to continue to be a constant pain in the side of any Republican president. 

Presidents have to lead and that means that they often have to abandon hardcore, ideological purity in favor of a more tempered pragmatic approach.  If a Republican president is forced to do this due to Democratic opposition in the Senate then he loses the support of Tea Partiers in Congress.  A "do nothing" President combined with a Congress still in perpetual gridlock means that Republicans suffer immensely in the 2018 midterms (probably more in the House, as the 2018 Senate is already "maxed-out" in favor of the Democrats).  Tea Party types attribute a GOP shellacking at the midterms to be the fault of a president who has abandoned conservative principles, and someone like Ted Cruz gears up for a primary challenge to the incumbent president in 2020.

The Tea Party is nothing more than parasite on the GOP, it contributes nothing yet destroys everything.   

[opebo]

They go back to fully running the country again instead of only partially as at present.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

They go back to fully running the country again instead of only partially as at present.

This.

[ElectionsGuy]

Hopefully, they'll fade away into the pages of history.

This. And if they're still out and working then they'll probably be complete hacks for the republicans. They won't complain anymore about a tyrannical government or presidential power grabs as long as the person they like is in power.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

Most of them would probably assimilate back into the Republican establishment, but a small group will still keep fighting, trying to push the party further to the right.

[Kevin]

Hopefully, they'll fade away into the pages of history.

This. And if they're still out and working then they'll probably be complete hacks for the republicans. They won't complain anymore about a tyrannical government or presidential power grabs as long as the person they like is in power.

Like I said,

Just like all the liberals who complained loudly and nonstop about Bush for 8 years. Then did a complete 180 and have since supported Obama/the Democrats 100% in every instance even when the White House pushes for the same exact policies that the previous occupant did.

Ex. Debt ceiling and NSA Surveillance as one example. Hell if you look at many of the left-wing members of this forum who bitched and complained non-stop about GWB suppressing civil liberties and more for 8 years they do a complete turnaround and support Obama over the same things.

[IceSpear]

If the Tea Party was so concerned about the deficit, can someone please tell me where they were from 2001-2009?

I think that answers your question.

[Mister Mets]

Liberal opposition to Bush was tepid compared to the Tea Party's hysteria and obstructionism.

If the Tea Party disappears on January 21, 2017, it will just prove the whole thing was about a black guy in the White House.

The fact that in 2012 these people were willing to vote for a white guy who invented Obamacare and openly supported TARP was all the evidence I needed that this wasn't about any of those things.

Because of course the tea party would have treated President Howard Dean very differently.

[old timey villain]

Hopefully, they'll fade away into the pages of history.

This. And if they're still out and working then they'll probably be complete hacks for the republicans. They won't complain anymore about a tyrannical government or presidential power grabs as long as the person they like is in power.

Like I said,

Just like all the liberals who complained loudly and nonstop about Bush for 8 years. Then did a complete 180 and have since supported Obama/the Democrats 100% in every instance even when the White House pushes for the same exact policies that the previous occupant did.

Ex. Debt ceiling and NSA Surveillance as one example. Hell if you look at many of the left-wing members of this forum who bitched and complained non-stop about GWB suppressing civil liberties and more for 8 years they do a complete turnaround and support Obama over the same things.

How old are you? Do you actually remember the Bush administration? Sure, liberals criticized bush, and yes, some are turning a blind eye to the same bad stuff the Obama administration is doing, but opposition to Bush was NOTHING like the tea party today.

First of all, most liberals kept their mouths shut after 9/11 and basically gave Bush free reign to start the war on terror. Honestly, I wish they had spoken up, but the administration created this false dichotomy where you either supported Bus or hated America. Bush basically got a free pass for a couple years, while Obama from day 1 had to deal with the tea party. Bush never had to face rumors that questioned his faith, patriotism or his citizenship. Democrats never threatened to shut down the government to spite Bush when they took control of congress. And Laura Bush was never compared to a monkey or a cow.

[Non Swing Voter]

Hopefully, they'll fade away into the pages of history.

This. And if they're still out and working then they'll probably be complete hacks for the republicans. They won't complain anymore about a tyrannical government or presidential power grabs as long as the person they like is in power.

Like I said,

Just like all the liberals who complained loudly and nonstop about Bush for 8 years. Then did a complete 180 and have since supported Obama/the Democrats 100% in every instance even when the White House pushes for the same exact policies that the previous occupant did.

Ex. Debt ceiling and NSA Surveillance as one example. Hell if you look at many of the left-wing members of this forum who bitched and complained non-stop about GWB suppressing civil liberties and more for 8 years they do a complete turnaround and support Obama over the same things.

What are you talking about?  Do you remember how Obama tried to start a war and was stopped by his own party?  Do you remember how it was polling badly among Democrats? 

[Mister Mets]

An analogue to the tea party might be the left in the 70s and 80s, and that didn't work out well for the Democrats. The only President the party elected in a 20+ year period found himself primaried by two top-tier candidates: a well-known Senator, and a big state Governor.

Changes in media consumption and transparency laws also make it tougher to bullsh**t the activists. And there's a market in pandering to the base. Part of the hope for a Republican would be that the fervor would decrease when the party holds the White House, and that the left would face similar problems in terms of divisions.

If a GOP President can stay popular, that would prevent a lot of the problems. But it requires political savvy and luck, since circumstances that require difficult decisions tend to result in politicians making enemies. But it's been a while since we had a really popular President. George HW Bush lost reelection with less than 40 percent (it's a three way race, but that's bad for an incumbent.) Bill Clinton had the sex scandals. George W Bush came into the presidency under controversial circumstances and made some mistakes. Obama bypassed Republicans while pushing significant changes. It wouldn't take too much for a President Christie or President Walker to surpass those four.

[Kevin]

An analogue to the tea party might be the left in the 70s and 80s, and that didn't work out well for the Democrats. The only President the party elected in a 20+ year period found himself primaried by two top-tier candidates: a well-known Senator, and a big state Governor.

Changes in media consumption and transparency laws also make it tougher to bullsh**t the activists. And there's a market in pandering to the base. Part of the hope for a Republican would be that the fervor would decrease when the party holds the White House, and that the left would face similar problems in terms of divisions.

If a GOP President can stay popular, that would prevent a lot of the problems. But it requires political savvy and luck, since circumstances that require difficult decisions tend to result in politicians making enemies. But it's been a while since we had a really popular President. George HW Bush lost reelection with less than 40 percent (it's a three way race, but that's bad for an incumbent.) Bill Clinton had the sex scandals. George W Bush came into the presidency under controversial circumstances and made some mistakes. Obama bypassed Republicans while pushing significant changes. It wouldn't take too much for a President Christie or President Walker to surpass those four.

I think the New Left is a good analogue for the Tea Party.

However, the only key difference I see is that most of the Tea Partiers is that the overwhelming majority of their leaders/supporters are in their mid 50's to early 70's. Unlike the New Left's supporters who in their heyday(from the 1960's through the 70's) were in their 20's to early 30's.

The New Right within the Republican Party as shown in 2012 is at the demographic tail end of it's influence on American politics.

Besides I figure the Tea Party is on the decline anyways as it's influence on politics is declining after the 2012 and 2013 election debacles combined with the government shutdown. But we will all have to wait and see what actually happens as they have a pretty good shot at knocking off at least two GOP Senators in primaries in 2014.   

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

So why isn't anyone looking at the chance that the Tea Party wing wins the nomination and the general. After 7 straight times of moderates getting the nod and losing 4 of those it's time the conservative/tea party wing lead for a while. I'm looking at you Rand Paul

[Flake]

So why isn't anyone looking at the chance that the Tea Party wing wins the nomination and the general. After 7 straight times of moderates getting the nod and losing 4 of those it's time the conservative/tea party wing lead for a while. I'm looking at you Rand Paul

A tea partier does not actually represent the views of most Americans and that's why a tea partier will not win the general election against the vast majority of prospective democratic candidates.

[Orser67]

I doubt that any president would be to the right of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell, and many Tea Partiers don't seem to care for them very much. It's not impossible for a conservative candidate to win in the general, but I do think that it would require a particularly good environment for the GOP, or a particularly bad Democratic candidate. I'm also not sure if the GOP would nominate a Tea Partier, given the party's last several nominees weren't considered the most conservative candidate in the race.

I think some of the intensity will go away once Obama leaves office (mostly for reasons other than race), but I think those on the far right are going to continue to be more vocal than they were prior to 2010. Governing as a Republican will be difficult going forward, imo, just as Boehner faces a difficult job.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

So why isn't anyone looking at the chance that the Tea Party wing wins the nomination and the general. After 7 straight times of moderates getting the nod and losing 4 of those it's time the conservative/tea party wing lead for a while. I'm looking at you Rand Paul

I don't really get this. It's like saying, "I microwaved my food and it's still cold so I'm gonna set it on fire this time because I haven't tried it before." Just because there is an alternative doesn't mean it's viable.

[hopper]

Hopefully, they'll fade away into the pages of history.

This. And if they're still out and working then they'll probably be complete hacks for the republicans. They won't complain anymore about a tyrannical government or presidential power grabs as long as the person they like is in power.

Um no that's a little crazy to say because the Republicans are in power in the US House and that doesn't prevent the Tea Party Republicans from giving Boehner a hard time.

[hopper]

So why isn't anyone looking at the chance that the Tea Party wing wins the nomination and the general. After 7 straight times of moderates getting the nod and losing 4 of those it's time the conservative/tea party wing lead for a while. I'm looking at you Rand Paul

Moderate? Gerald Ford was probably the last "Moderate" to win the Republican Nomination for President and that was almost 40 years ago.

I like Rand Paul but the guy makes off-beat comments at times and he hasn't run anything. I don't want another Obama: all bark and no bite.

[hopper]

Liberal opposition to Bush was tepid compared to the Tea Party's hysteria and obstructionism.

If the Tea Party disappears on January 21, 2017, it will just prove the whole thing was about a black guy in the White House.

The fact that in 2012 these people were willing to vote for a white guy who invented Obamacare and openly supported TARP was all the evidence I needed that this wasn't about any of those things.

No not all the Tea Partiers went crazy because of his skin tone. You have to admit the rollout of ObamaCare has been a disaster. RomneyCare was implemented in one state and not across the country like ObamaCare was.

TARP is a tough vote to take just ask former rep. Bob Inglis(R-SC.) I have heard the person who occupies his US House Seat now(Trey Gowdy) kept on bringing Inglis's TARP vote up in the Republican Primary in 2010 and that's pretty much why Inglis is not in Congress anymore.

[Person Man]

Obamacare really isn't a disaster unless you consider that one month as having overshadowed 8 million more people with insurance in 3 months. 

But this thread isn't about that. What its about what happens to the TEA party if the Democrats are steadily swept out of power in 14 and 16. The answer to that is that they probably become the type of people who always complained about Bush (hated the NCLB, bailouts, the 2001 Stimulus and Medicare D but liked the tax cuts, PATRIOT Act, the research moratoriums, the wars, the no homo amendments, the court and administrative appointments  and the Schiavo thing) but donated to his campaigns and never considered not voting for him since he started running in 1999.

[hopper]

Obamacare really isn't a disaster unless you consider that one month as having overshadowed 8 million more people with insurance in 3 months. 

But this thread isn't about that. What its about what happens to the TEA party if the Democrats are steadily swept out of power in 14 and 16. The answer to that is that they probably become the type of people who always complained about Bush (hated the NCLB, bailouts, the 2001 Stimulus and Medicare D but liked the tax cuts, PATRIOT Act, the research moratoriums, the wars, the no homo amendments, the court and administrative appointments  and the Schiavo thing) but donated to his campaigns and never considered not voting for him since he started running in 1999.

I can't take your statement seriously about the ObamaCare rollout not being a disaster. Even some Democrats think its a disaster(the rollout) who voted for him twice.

The wars: one was good(Afghanistan) and was bad(Iraq.)

No Homo Amendments: Gay Marriage wasn't favored by the Public like it is now. Heck even Democrats were nearly spilt about it in 2004. Maybe Democrats favored it back then but not overwhelmingly like now. Just look at Pew Research Data about the issue.