I guess we'll see next year. I expect the Democrats will lose 15-20 seats in the House, mostly from red districts they won in recent years, and perhaps 1-2 in the Senate. That is to be expected. Beyond that, I think you're dreaming.

It was interesting to read today that the newly formed Florida Tea Party is planning to run a candidate for the open Senate seat next year because the Republican candidate, former Governor Crist, is not conservative enough.

So now, a race that he was sure to win, puts the Democratic candidate back in play because the right, with its death wish, will split itself apart.

In races across the country, like the recent House race in New York, there will be similar litmus tests for Republican candidates. Those not conservative enough will be threatened with opposition from the extreme right.

Who do you think wins in those scenarios?

In the longer term, the demographics are against you. Your "angry old white guy" rhetoric just won't play, dude.

UG....I'm curious who you see as a leader of this so-called grass roots movement....one who shares your mentality and virtue?

Keep in mind that it must be someone who panders to Limbaugh, Beck et al , because w/o their stamp of approval, you lose their minions and he/she would be DOA.

Thats another incorrect liberal talking point. Most R's that I know do not affiliate nor agree with the perspectives of Beck, Hannity, Rush and their ilk. Its the same as thinking every liberal is a bleeding heart tree hugger. Again, Most D's that I know are far from that.

I really expect that you are just messing with UG, I thought you were above this type of incorrect, malicious negative stereotyping.

I would agree that many mainstream conservative Republicans are not guided by Limbaugh and Beck.

However, it is a fact, not malicious negative stereotyping, that the demographics of political talk radio listeners are overwhelmingly conservative, white, male and middle age. You may believe they simply listen to the dominant voices like Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity/Savage for the entertainment value, but are not influenced by what they hear. I disagree.

And it is not a liberal talking point that when the Republican party leader (Steele) or Republican members of Congress criticized Limbaugh for some of his harsh and ignorant rhetoric, they were inundated with hate mail from their constituents and went crawling to apologize to Rush.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele:

"Rush is not the head of the Republican Party. He's an "entertainer" whose show is "incendiary" and "ugly."

Steele - the next day - I'm sorry, Rush

"My intent was not to go after Rush - I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh..."

"I was maybe a little bit inarticulate... There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership."

"I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking..."

But, I was referring to the Tea Baggers, many of whom, if you judge by their signs and rhetoric, are simply regurgitating the Limbaugh/Beck talking points almost word-for-word.

Not all, or maybe not even most, but enough to significantly influence the selection of Republican party candidates...whether those candidates are conservative enough.

You may believe that is coincidental.....I don't.

And you believe that these separate diverse groups are some how unified under one group?

What bullshit. That is your definition. No one needs et al to win a seat in the Senate or House.

Tell that to Dede Scozzafava, the Republican candidate who was leading the polls in the recent special election in NY-23 and would likely have won.....but she was not conservative enough and was effectively pushed out by Palin, Limbaugh..and yes, et al.

Who benefited? The Democratic candidate won the seat that had been Republican for over 100 years.

Sort of like the races in VA and NJ? Obama threw down everything but the underware he wore to stump in NJ and the voters turned up their noses at him. He has no coat tails with the electorate.

Not at all like Virginia, where the governorship swings back and forth every six-eight years....the Democrats certainly haven't controlled it for 100 years.

And NJ, they both were crooks.

That is your excuse for the utter failure of Obama to swing the vote and help out the Dem incumbent?

Hey...I hope the Republicans and Tea Baggers keep their litmus test in place.

The Florida Senate race that I mentioned, where the Tea Baggers now intend to be on the ballot because the leading Republican is not conservative enough, is the latest example.

It works for me!

Great answer.

I'm in Virginia. Obama did virtually nothing in the governor race here. The candidate didn't make use of him. Towards the election, Obama gave one speech at the campaign's request. And that was it. It was too little too late in a horribly run campaign. The Obama folks were complaining about it a month or so out and leaked several comments trying to distance the administration from the debacle that was coming in Virginia.

I heard that about Obama and the White House, they pretty much ignored the whole race there.

I don't think it's so much that they ignored it as they didn't jump in and start bossing the guy around, and he didn't ask for help.

It was frustrating to watch. It was obvious that the candidate (Deeds) was running it poorly, but he kept doing it the same way, which was to pound one negative issue in his opponent over and over and over again. He never once said why anyone should vote for him.