Is the Tea Party dead?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

I feel like the Tea Party isn't dead, but it's morphing into becoming the mainstream GOP, look how well Ted Cruz did in the primary last year and how poorly the establishment candidates did, but they seem to have diminished in stature and overall power now with the rise of Trump Populists.

[President Johnson]

Somewhat; at least not as visiable as they have been in 2010-2014. But not dead yet.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

They've merely become institutionalised (no, not like that).

[Person Man]

They've merely become institutionalised (no, not like that).

They are the Freedom Caucus, more or less.

[TheSaint250]

I'd say somewhat (even though I would hope it is).  In all 3 presidential elections since its creation, the Tea Party has failed to get a candidate nominated and elected as POTUS.  2016 was probably the best chance, and they blew it.

[MasterJedi]

Somewhat, they've morphed into the "no compromise, far right conservative 100%" group, so the Freedom Caucus.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The Republican "establishment" of today is the Tea Party of 2010 (i.e. the Republican Study Committee).  Once enough Tea Party-types were elected, they exerted control over the party.  But, in that process, they lost their inherently anti-establishment types (in my opinion, it's idiotic to be inherently pro-establishment or anti-establishment, and it is one of the most stupid political fights of our times).

[MarkD]

They still can't beat people like McCain and Graham, as much as they try, so yes, I think they're almost completely dead. Almost. They still make noise and run unsuccessful candidates.

[darklordoftech]

The Tea Party/Contract With America Republicans have always been strongest in the House, slightly weaker but still pretty strong in the Senate, and weak at the Presidential level.

[RINO Tom]

Still skeptical "Trumpists" represent a wing of the party besides being loyal to Donald Trump.  Once he's gone, they won't be a factor.  They barely have views.

[Del Tachi]

Still skeptical "Trumpists" represent a wing of the party besides being loyal to Donald Trump.  Once he's gone, they won't be a factor.  They barely have views.

Not sure I follow.  Trump won more votes than any other candidate in the history of Republican nominating contests and carried 88% of Republicans in the general election - he's a certified, bonafide Republican.

To think that the style of rhetoric that made Donald Trump President will simply go away after he's President is wishful thinking.  This rhetoric was given a home in the GOP (for better or worse) and there will surely be Republican politicians who try to emulate Trump's success in the future.

[RINO Tom]

Still skeptical "Trumpists" represent a wing of the party besides being loyal to Donald Trump.  Once he's gone, they won't be a factor.  They barely have views.

Not sure I follow.  Trump won more votes than any other candidate in the history of Republican nominating contests and carried 88% of Republicans in the general election - he's a certified, bonafide Republican.

To think that the style of rhetoric that made Donald Trump President will simply go away after he's President is wishful thinking.  This rhetoric was given a home in the GOP (for better or worse) and there will surely be Republican politicians who try to emulate Trump's success in the future.

Exactly.  His voters weren't ideologically coherent like Santorum's or Giuliani's were (notice they both lost).  Just from people I know, they ranged from "moderate" and apolitical types who were angry about manufacturing job losses to my dad - a staunch fiscal conservative - who simply thought we needed a non-politician in charge, as the Republicans "don't care about cutting anything, it's just a boys' club."  He was a catch-all candidate, and his rhetoric, persona and style was incredibly unique and, yes, incredibly effective.  If he ran on free trade, he still would have won the primaries, IMO.  He represented a stark contrast with both the Republican politicians in the primaries and the veteran Democrat he faced in November, and that was that he was a clear change/a TRULY new option.  So many people who would otherwise not see each other as allies and might not post-Trump voted for him, and I'm skeptical that "Trumpism" (which I've only ever seen on Atlas, mostly used by disgruntled "Rockefeller Republican types" like me or by self-assuring Democrats who want the Democratic Party to be the clear "reasonable" alternative for the educated, the intelligent, the worldly, etc., as a term that describes being nativist in your cultural views and populist in your economic views) will live on, as I don't think it ever lived.  Trump's supporters cheered when he railed against free trade because it hurt the working factory man while helping big business, and then they cheered when he slashed regulations for big business; their not evangelicals militant about abortion, they're not business conservatives committed to pro-business policies and they're not neoconservatives committed to the military industrial complex's interests ... and I'm skeptical they'll be a coherent "bloc" of the GOP in future primaries (post-Trump) even if his voters remain Republicans.

[Del Tachi]

Still skeptical "Trumpists" represent a wing of the party besides being loyal to Donald Trump.  Once he's gone, they won't be a factor.  They barely have views.

Not sure I follow.  Trump won more votes than any other candidate in the history of Republican nominating contests and carried 88% of Republicans in the general election - he's a certified, bonafide Republican.

To think that the style of rhetoric that made Donald Trump President will simply go away after he's President is wishful thinking.  This rhetoric was given a home in the GOP (for better or worse) and there will surely be Republican politicians who try to emulate Trump's success in the future.

Exactly.  His voters weren't ideologically coherent like Santorum's or Giuliani's were (notice they both lost).  Just from people I know, they ranged from "moderate" and apolitical types who were angry about manufacturing job losses to my dad - a staunch fiscal conservative - who simply thought we needed a non-politician in charge, as the Republicans "don't care about cutting anything, it's just a boys' club."  He was a catch-all candidate, and his rhetoric, persona and style was incredibly unique and, yes, incredibly effective.  If he ran on free trade, he still would have won the primaries, IMO.  He represented a stark contrast with both the Republican politicians in the primaries and the veteran Democrat he faced in November, and that was that he was a clear change/a TRULY new option.  So many people who would otherwise not see each other as allies and might not post-Trump voted for him, and I'm skeptical that "Trumpism" (which I've only ever seen on Atlas, mostly used by disgruntled "Rockefeller Republican types" like me or by self-assuring Democrats who want the Democratic Party to be the clear "reasonable" alternative for the educated, the intelligent, the worldly, etc., as a term that describes being nativist in your cultural views and populist in your economic views) will live on, as I don't think it ever lived.  Trump's supporters cheered when he railed against free trade because it hurt the working factory man while helping big business, and then they cheered when he slashed regulations for big business; their not evangelicals militant about abortion, they're not business conservatives committed to pro-business policies and they're not neoconservatives committed to the military industrial complex's interests ... and I'm skeptical they'll be a coherent "bloc" of the GOP in future primaries (post-Trump) even if his voters remain Republicans.

I would challenge that notion that Gingrich or Santorum, or any other politico for that matter, offers much more than Trump in terms of ideological consistency or depth.  There's no shortage of instances where "establishment" politicians have been backed into awkward positions that run counter to "party ideology" or even campaign promises - GWB expanding Medicare Part D as a payout to his friends in big Pharma, Obama neglecting to close Gitmo during his whole 8 years in office, etc.  And we better be damned glad it works this way, political leaders motivated by strict adherence to liberal or conservative orthodoxy would be incapable of getting anything accomplished (see: the Tea Party).  One of my favorite quotes by Newt Gingrich came from a speech he gave while running in Congress in 1978 when he quipped "[What is the job of a politician?] If people want to talk about parking lots, talk about parking lots".  Ideology doesn't win elections, interests do.   

In light of this, its pretty clear that for the most part style and not substance is what wins elections.  Trump's style will persist, and that will continue to turn-off educated suburbanites to the GOP.   

[All Along The Watchtower]

Well considering that Donald "Where's the birth certificate, Barry Hussein Obozo?" Trump is the President and the Republican Party's policy agenda is basically an Americans for Prosperity wishlist...

[Vosem]

No; like others said, they've morphed into the Freedom Caucus. The victory of a guy like Ralph Norman in a primary this year goes to show that they are definitely not dead. The "Tea Party candidate" (first Santorum, then Cruz) came in second in two successive Republican primaries in a row.

"Trumpism", defined as heavy nationalism, strong opposition to trade, strong opposition to immigration, and softened or eliminated social conservatism, and frequently some "awareness" of racial issues, does also exist within the Republican coalition, and it was usually not articulated prior to 2015 or so. That said, they are much less influential than the Tea Party/Freedom Caucus types (and some limited overlap does exist) and Trump in his (rather weak, all told) primary victory was able to reach far beyond them for support. Their stances on day-to-day issues, like budgets, generally tend to be very similar if not identical to those of your regular establishment Republicans, so it'll be harder for them to retain cohesion as a group, especially at moments when immigration policy isn't central in public life. I don't think they're going to go away anytime soon, but with one of their allies in the White House it becomes easy to overstate their influence.

Trump's style of politics (deeply aggressive to enemies, deeply casual speech, deeply fact-free and emotion-based proposals) won't be going away anytime soon, unfortunately. It's easy to imagine it spreading both to the left and to other factions of the Republican Party.

[Medal506]

Not neccesarily however I would say they have set back their movement unfortonatly by electing Donald Trump instead of Ted Cruz

[All Along The Watchtower]

Again, Donald Trump = the candidate of the "Tea Party." Or at the very least, a majority of them (however you define "them").

[jamestroll]

Pretty much they are going into hiding the next four to eight years along with all the anti big government conservatives.

[Person Man]

The weird thing about Donald Trump is that while he was with the birtherism a kind of Tea Party sideshow, those who said that they were "TEA Party" were with Cruz. Another strange thing was that the TEA Party HATED Rubio this time even though he was the TEA party belle of the ball in 2010.

[Figueira]

It's dead as a "mass movement" but it is still a force in politics, among voters and among politicians.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Are puppets alive?

[The Self]

Do you mean the astroturf movement inaugurated by Rick Santelli under the guise of protecting shareholder profits in February '09? That movement was never alive.

Do you mean the racial collectivist movement that has poisoned the Republican Party since? Of course.

Politics, in the future, will consist of playing the latter off against the former. I have had a riotous time, for example, waving the person of Jared Kushner under the nose of one of my dear Trumptard friends who happens to be "Judeoskeptical".

[Alabama_Indy10]

I hope the tea party is dead or its influence has greatly diminished. The tea party turned many Republicans into obstructionists instead of compromisers. They were hell-bent on opposing the Obama agenda, even on issues where they could have found common ground. I'm a relatively moderate Republican and I believe the Tea Party greatly damaged the party. Don't get me started on the Freedom Caucus

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Do you mean the astroturf movement inaugurated by Rick Santelli under the guise of protecting shareholder profits in February '09? That movement was never alive.

I think you used "under the guise of" backwards.

[Adam Griffin]

The Tea Party ceased to be a viable force the very second that a bigger bully who could hate on browns and differents more loudly and forcefully marched into town. With the exception of moaning about how the country they knew is no more, neither have ideologies and neither have principles.

The only "Tea Partiers" who do are those evolved-adult forms of pocket-protector wearin' dweebs who would have been posting on Atlas had it existed 40 years ago while carefully scanning the Constitution to see if it says anything for or against getting a blowjob in a parked car: aka the "House Freedom Caucus" and other associated congresscritters. They still haven't gotten the memo that none of those voters really care about their principles, and that they're largely only in office because they were the best catalysts during a time in which a) hating on "change" was at its peak and b) an open seat and/or weak incumbent Democrat presented itself.