This meme is going around is so so terribly ignorant of what Tea Party actually did that it’s painful, unless it’s deliberately misleading. Tea Party took over *electorally* by being energized *and* strategic and well-funded—the protests mattered some but only through that path. https://t.co/hJQQhOEOm8
-
-
Numeric weakness? Go look at the shift in the # of partisan positions held in 2008 vs now. That didn’t happen with numerical weakness. These are just governors. If you look at state legislatures it’s even more striking. This is not random.pic.twitter.com/fOSfUkLKGT
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This looks like a pretty interesting analysis https://web.education.wisc.edu/nwhillman/index.php/2017/02/01/party-control-in-congress-and-state-legislatures/ …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "laser focused electoral actions", but I probably wouldn't use that precise turn of phrase for a movement that nominated Roy Moore, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Christine O'Donnell, and Sharon Angle for Senate.
-
That's five senate seats minimum that they forfeited. I agree that Tea Party methods are worth studying, but you are post-fact reinterpreting everything that they did as strategic genius.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.