It doesn't mean the Tea Party can do it elsewhere:
"The truth is, Bennett would not have lost anywhere other than Utah. For starters, it's the reddest state in the nation, so what's considered "conservative enough" there is a little further to the right than what's considered conservative enough in hotbeds of liberalism like, say, Texas or Alabama (i.e., everywhere else). Secondly, a major D.C. advocacy group, the Club for Growth, decided to spend a whopping $200,000 to ensure Bennett's defeat--the kind of intraparty hit that the Club can only afford to carry out in one or two races per cycle. And thirdly--and most importantly--Utah doesn't actually let its Republican residents vote on a full slate of Republican candidates. Instead, it convenes an odd, pre-primary convention where a select group of 3,500 delegates, who tend to be even more conservative than Utah's general Republican electorate, participate in several rounds of balloting in order to narrow the field to a measly two contenders. According to a recent Dan Jones & Associates poll, Bennett leads his closest rival, Lee, by 20 points among Utah Republicans at large--meaning in a normal primary system, he probably would've won the nomination. But because the senator received 160 fewer delegates at the convention than Bridgewater--delegates who were undoubtedly swayed by the Club's expensive anti-Bennett campaign--he isn't even getting the chance to compete. Needless to say, most other candidates nationwide don't have to worry about this sort of thing."
Newsweek
<
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/05/09/bennett-lost-in-utah-should-other-conservatives-be-scared.aspx>