If by "a fairly good article looking at what really motivates the tea party" you mean "a laughable screed by Michael Kinsley (which is par for the course for Michael Kinsley) in which he turns up his nose at the tea party because it's not romantic, and excuses all the excesses of the '60s countercultural protesters because they 'meant well'", then yes.

The lack of self-awareness in that piece is truly astounding. I mean, if your major gripe with a political movement is that they're just not cool enough for you to ever, ever want to associate yourself with them, maybe you're the self-absorbed twat.

NYtimes is a horrible polling group compared to the ones i've posted.  Gallup & Raussermin.

I'd trust Gallup over a NYTimes/CBS poll anyday.

Heck, just by compairing the two's methods you can see why the NYtimes poll sucks.

Pretty sure that the NYT sample has been debunked numerous times..

Damn racists!

Um the Tea Party adopted the whole grassroots, libertarian ideals from the Ron Paul campaign and twisted them into some Neo-conservative, dogamatic perversion.

Their followers are idiotic: as evident by their self-appointed leader, Sarah Palin.

Opa -

Self-appointment means they do it...Not the movement. The only tea party candidates that I can think of (that really were promoted by the movement) is Rand Paul, who is libertarian.

Well, I've been thinking that it would be a good thing if the Tea Party leeched the wackjobs, racists, etc. out of the Republican Party. And if it's actually the reverse that happens -- the Tea Party is the reasonable one and most of the sane people jump ship -- that's just as good, or actually most likely better.

Yeah I know right?

When the pro-life, anti-health-care, anti-cap-and-trade, pro-gun, democrat wins in blue PA it sure is a sign that the conservative brand is going to be in trouble in the general election .....  Democrats moving to the right and winning aren't exactly an endorsement of their chances in November given the current climate and perceptions.  Things may change on both counts, but you can't give a serious analysis of a race without actually considering what the candidates ran on.  If it takes a conservative democrat to win in an already blue territory don't you think any stemming of losses in November will come at the expense of moving those seats to the right anyways?  Even if it is less than if they had lost?

As for the difference in votes, it's pretty basic that  participation in primary voting is far from being a primary indicator of true voter enthusiasm, the breakdowns in party participation simply don't hold in the general.  I'm really not sure how you thought this was anything but a non sequitur.

Who knows, maybe you're right, maybe things won't go so well for the republicans in November, but your reasoning for it here is closer to wishful thinking than reality.

The difference between a Republican and Democrat in Pensylvania is nothing more then where they thought it would be easier to win in the primary.

Since it's a slight conservative district, it's pretty sure that the Democrat will have some conservative beliefs as well like many other right blue areas. Since this election happened, I still think Republicans won't be taking as much seats as they have hoped to have. Also, PA 12 isn't really a 'true' blue district since McCain had won it, and it still went Democrat. Burns was really endorsed by the right, even the almighty blue-turnin'-red Scott Brown came. FL 19, NY 23, CA 10, CA 32, IL 5... special elections before this was all won by Democrats. In 1994, it was the other way around with red districts winning consecutively. So, I don't really see Republicans really winning BIG this November like it happened in '94 if they couldn't win PA 12. Sure, Dems might lose some seats, but just not a lot.

OT: Me thinks the Tea Party will affect Republicans more than Democrats by introducing more libertarians, I get what they're rallying for, and I respect that.