Skip to footer

Six US Senate races where the tea party counts

After playing kingmaker in the 2010 election cycle, the tea party movement is having a less prominent role in 2012. But its support or opposition could swing some key races and even determine whether Republicans win control of the Senate. Here are six US Senate contests where the tea party could make a difference.

5. Nebraska: even divided, tea party spurs an upset

Nati Harnik/AP
The four Republicans who sought the GOP nomination for the US Senate from Nebraska – from left, state Sen. Deb Fischer, state Attorney General Jon Bruning, state Treasurer Don Stenberg, and investment adviser Pat Flynn – attended a debate in Omaha, Neb., on April 15. Ms. Fischer won the GOP primary on May 15.

In a surprise, state Sen. Deb Fischer, backed by Sarah Palin, edged out establishment favorite Attorney General Jon Bruning and state Treasurer Don Stenberg in her first statewide race.

Coming May 15, just a week after the upset of veteran Sen. Richard Lugar (R) of Indiana by tea party favorite Richard Mourdock, the Nebraska primary signaled the volatility of the 2012 campaign season and the clout of independent expenditures. Ms. Fischer was outspent 8 to 1 by Mr. Bruning, the front-runner, but he was overwhelmed by millions of dollars in negative ads from national tea party groups, as well as the antitax Club for Growth. In the final weekend of the race, Chicago Cubs co-owner Joe Ricketts spent $200,000 on pro-Fischer ads, attacking Bruning.

Tea party groups were divided in their endorsements. The Senate Conservatives Fund (led by Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina, a godfather of the tea party movement) and the Club for Growth backed Mr. Stenberg.The Tea Party Express supported Bruning, citing his refusal, while a state legislator, to go along with a Republican governor’s bid to raise taxes.

With the retirement of Sen. Ben Nelson (D), the GOP saw an opportunity to pick up a seat in a typically conservative state. That could be harder with a relative unknown GOP candidate facing former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D), a former Nebraska governor still popular in the state.

5 of 6
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.