Rubio as establishment proves tea party won

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

David French notes that if Marco Rubio is now considered a RINO establishment candidate whom conservatives must oppose it demonstrates beyond doubt that the tea party has won the debate.

It seems that [Rubio’s] now the “establishment” candidate mainly because a number of establishment figures and donors have defected to him after their preferred candidate — perhaps Bush, Christie, or Kasich — failed to gain traction. But if the standard for establishment status is simply whether establishment figures have chosen to support you after their first-choice candidate fails, then every single GOP contender is either establishment or establishment-in-waiting. After all, if Rubio falters, mass numbers of establishment politicians and donors will rush to back Cruz over Trump. And if Cruz falters, those same people will presumably back Trump over Hillary.

Here’s the reality: In the battle — launched in 2010 — between the tea party and traditional GOP powers, the tea party largely won. The contest between Rubio, Cruz, and Trump is a fight between Tea Party 1.0, Tea Party 2.0, and classic American populism. And each one of these candidates would need traditional Republican or “establishment” support in the general election.

He’s right. The political debate is now being fought entirely on tea party terms, with those terms forcing the candidates consistently rightward on every issue. Not only is this a good thing, it suggests a major shift by the American public itself. Our so-called “intellectual elites” might still be liberal, standing there with their fingers in their ears and eyes closed chanting “La-la-la-la-la-la-la-LA!!” so they won’t get triggered by new ideas, but the public has heard what tea party advocates have said and has found those positions worth supporting.

This suggests to me that we might even be seeing a shift in the voting patterns of the low-information television voter, the kind of voter who only comes out during Presidential elections and routinely supports the Democratic candidate being pushed by the mainstream networks. If so, the Democratic Party is in very deep trouble, as they continue to behave as if their low-information voting block remains solid and under their control.



  • Desmond

    Is the general population turning more conservative or is it just Republican supporters who will select their candidate? The normal history of Republican presidential selection campaigns is that mainstream candidates track right to appeal to the grass roots, while carefully minimising comments and commitments that will come back to haunt them if they are selected and they are trying to appeal to independents and undecided fitters.

  • Steve

    I still remember the phone call from my sister after Scott Brown won the Senate election up here in Mass. She said “see I told you people were starting to get smart about who they vote for”

    I told her not to get too optimistic since if Ted Kennedy were to rise from the grave he would still get elected again by a huge majority in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts.

    Sure enough, Scott Brown then got beat by Lizzie “Fauxcahontas” Warren in the next election and Mass now has her and Ed Markey as the 2 Senators. Both of them Leftie Loonies….

    I would like to think that the general population has gotten smarter or better informed or more conservative, but somehow I doubt it :-(

  • Phill O

    We are really getting to a brave new world where definitions come after the laws. I can appreciate the sentiments of the president in ensuring mentally ill people do not get guns. However, it is the indiscriminate or misdirected aspects that scare me. Consider the case of Sheriff Dever vs the Obama administration on border security. Dever was probably targeted by the current administration. The Obama administrations use of the IRS as a political targeting tool is well documented if not well prosecuted. When this group refrains from profiling, it is only to those who support it or potentially will support it. So it scares me that this new gun control might be abused to target political opponents.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *