Focusing on sixteen high profile Senate races, Key States, High Stakes takes us on a cross-country tour of how these campaigns unfolded and how the role of the Tea Party movement and the involvement of Sarah Palin and other influential politicians [such as] South Carolina Republican Senator Jim DeMint affected the outcomes….Charles Bullock's stable of authors explain[s] why Republicans fell short in winning back the U.S. Senate. Key States, High Stakes is a must read for anyone who wants a detailed look at what factors contributed to GOP success and shortcomings in the most contentious and pivotal 2010 Senate contests.

Seth C. McKee

Much ink has been spilled over the Tea Party effect on the 2010 elections with little in the way of solid results. This interesting and informative book provides objective analyses of the important Senate races where the Tea Party and/or Palin or DeMint tried to influence the outcomes. The analyses of the individual races are interesting and conclusions regarding effects are analytical not ideological. I recommend this book to anyone interested in the Tea Party and the 2010 elections.

David W. Brady, Professor, Stanford University

The focus on Senate races distinguishes this book from others. Contributors examine 16 different 2010 contests in order to investigate the roles that Sarah Palin, Senator Jim DeMint, and the Tea Party movement played in different contests. What emerges is the view that Palin was the most pragmatic, supporting candidates who were likely to win even if they were not the most conservative, while DeMint opposed "establishment" Republicans, and the Tea Party movement, which was not as centralized and monolithic as some commentators suggested, supported many candidates. In some states, different Tea Party factions supported different Republican candidates. While Palin, DeMint, and the movement often prevailed in primaries, in some cases the candidates they backed (O'Donnell, Delaware; Angle, Nevada; Buck, Colorado) proved to be easier for Democrats to beat, which permitted the party to retain a majority. It is also clear that while these conservative forces may have helped nominate a number of candidates in 2010, they were just one of many factors that worked against the Democrats in 2010. Bullock ends the book by asking whether the Tea Party was a one-election phenomenon or if it will be a force in 2012. The answer remains to be seen. Summing Up: Recommended. General readers; undergraduate and graduate students.

Choice Reviews