It was how it was done, and who the players are that is the problem here.

The August primary would unite a candidate to stop Stabenow. This was actually an attempt to stop Hoekstra, but was never marketed that way.

In addition, many tea parties weren't invited or not involved because of "PAC" rules, so in reality this isn't "the tea party candidate" but a candidate supported by a group supposedly representing the majority of tea parties. The local tea parties here weren't involved. Many weren't. I view this as no different than most of the leadership supporting a Hoekstra coronation.

Rallying around one conservative works great when you have a RINO or very liberal republican, especially as an incumbent. We want to avoid Joe Schwarz 2004 situations splitting the vote five ways. Or Snyder.

However, It also only works when the other candidates agree to it. Indiana actually had a one on one primary. How the M4CS did not succeed, is that it did not have the political clout to get the rest of the candidates to drop if they didn't get the endorsement. Glenn got the endorsement, but Durant isn't leaving anytime soon. Konetchy didn't like the gamesmanship behind it, and I happen to agree with him. As it looks now, at least four, if not five candidates (I'm not discounting Boman either) will be on the ballot. Maybe more. So did MI4CS succeed? Glenn's got a tough road.

I think the process itself in who was selected or excluded in the selection process was quite divisive with some in, some out, and leadership making choices for members. The tea parties I'm in contact with (Retakeourgov and Brighton) were not involved and I don't it would have gone over well with the members if they were.

The timing was also off, as it was during the presidential primary season and only us die hards were paying attention to the senate.

Mourdock was the right candidate at the right time, in the right situation for this to be a success. He was also a statewide elected official.