First Read: “The GOP got all of its desired candidates in the top Senate races — meaning there isn’t a flawed Christine O’Donnell, Todd Akin, or Sharron Angle… Republicans not winning back the Senate and not picking up double-digit House seats could be a nightmare for the party. For one thing, it will hurt recruiting in 2016 (which expects to be a tougher year map- and electorate-wise). It could spark leadership fights. And it would rekindle the central ideological debate inside the party — should it be more conservative or more pragmatic? (Conservatives will argue if the party comes up short, that the compromise candidates didn’t fire up the base; the establishment wing will argue that the brand damage done by the conservative wing was to blame.)”
“Currently, there are two schools of thought among Republicans. One school (those focused on the Senate races) is that winning back the Senate is the end-all, be all. But the other school of thought (especially those with an eye on 2016) is that they’d prefer coming JUST short of Senate control, because a GOP in charge of both the House and Senate could potentially help Hillary Clinton. But don’t underestimate the negative consequences of a Republican Party coming up short with this map and in this political climate.”
Save to Favorites