Althouse: "Republicans have their best shot in years at taking back the Senate in 2014.... They have to pick up just six seats and defend 14..."

January 3, 2014

"Republicans have their best shot in years at taking back the Senate in 2014.... They have to pick up just six seats and defend 14..."

"... unlike Democrats who have to defend 21 seats."

45 comments:

mccullough said...: This is the party that lost Missouri and Indiana in 2012. They better field good candidates.; 1/3/14, 11:11 AM
Big Mike said...: Ads like this one and this one ought to be keeping a lot of senators up night. And they deserve it. Even Mark Warner in my commonwealth of Virginia is scared. His gun control vote and his Obamacare vote are serious issues outside of Fairfax County.; 1/3/14, 11:13 AM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: One of those six is the Duck Dynasty seat held by Mary Landrieu.; 1/3/14, 11:16 AM
Hagar said...: It won't be easy for the Republicans to lose the 2014 elections, but with hard work and persistence Karl Rove and friends may stiil achieve it.; 1/3/14, 11:27 AM
jacksonjay said...: This is the party that lost Missouri and Indiana in 2012. They better field good candidates.

Don't forget the Witchy Candidate in Delaware and the Barter Candidate in Nevada in 2010! Sharron Angle handed the Senate back to Crazy Harry!

The anti-establishment fetish in the Republican Party is a killer!; 1/3/14, 11:27 AM
cubanbob said...: Hagar said...
It won't be easy for the Republicans to lose the 2014 elections, but with hard work and persistence Karl Rove and friends may stiil achieve it.

1/3/14, 11:27 AM

Unfortunately you're probably right. I wouldn't bet against you on this.; 1/3/14, 11:30 AM
chickelit said...: The more power and wealth DC accumulates, and the more the rest of the country bleeds towards DC, the greater the backlash in The Fall.

Is he back yet?; 1/3/14, 11:32 AM
rehajm said...: The anti-establishment fetish in the Republican Party is a killer!

Given the mood of voters feeling the pain of the ACA beginning to work as designed I suspect more will be receptive to electing a Senator Whackadoodle over a Senator Obamacare.; 1/3/14, 11:36 AM
MDIJim said...: 0bamacare will work for the Republicans unless they nominate bigoted, racist, sexist, nativist nuts as they are prone to do. Then the Democrat candidates will coast to victory as their GOP opponents try to explain their desire to impose some kind of Christian sharia on the rest of us. jacksonjay and Hagar and cubanbob are exactly right.; 1/3/14, 11:44 AM
Michael K said...: "0bamacare will work for the Republicans unless they nominate bigoted, racist, sexist, nativist nuts as they are prone to do. "

The Democrats have shown impressive skill in convincing low information voters that minor slips by candidates who are not as skilled in dissimulation are serious matters. Akins was an idiot as was O'Donnell. Mourdock was a victim of skilled liars in the opposition. Angle did a pretty good job but was unable to overcome the union turnout machine in Vegas.

On the other hand, the Tea Party elected quite a few candidates last election, including Ted Cruz.; 1/3/14, 11:51 AM
Brando said...: I'm sure they'll find a way to fail. At most they pick up three.; 1/3/14, 11:54 AM
Gahrie said...: 0bamacare will work for the Republicans unless they nominate bigoted, racist, sexist, nativist nuts as they are prone to do. Then the Democrat candidates will coast to victory as their GOP opponents try to explain their desire to impose some kind of Christian sharia on the rest of us

When you look at the issues, the Republicans are much more closely aligned to the will of the people. So the Democrats and their media allies follow the Alinsky playbook, and make the elections about personalities instead, and then proceed to lie about and slander the Republican candidate. Regretfully this tactic is very effective with low information voters.; 1/3/14, 11:55 AM
Brennan said...: If Chris Christie is coaching Republican candidates on how to talk to voters and their political opponents, the Democrats are looking at a slew of defeats.

Republicans can talk about their principles that may not have wide support among the electorate, but they must talk about the issues that unite voters. If the candidate cannot sit down to a family dinner with voters and talk about anything then they're not ready for the Senate.; 1/3/14, 11:59 AM
RecChief said...: well said Hagar; 1/3/14, 12:04 PM
MadisonMan said...: I would like to see the Senate swing to the (R) side. I am confident the Republicans will nominate people who are unelectable.; 1/3/14, 12:09 PM
Hagar said...: O'Donnel, Akins, Mourdock, and Angle may not have been the best candidates for the respective offices, but they were the once who ran for office and were chosen by the primary voters.

If Karl Rove & Co. did not approve of these candidates, Ok, but the thing for them to do was to sit down and shut up, when the primaries did not go their way. Instead they vocally and viciously attacked the candidates of their own party, which, of course, the Democrats and the MSM seized upon with glee and very effectively trumpeted as evidence "the Republican can't even stand their on candidates!"

I think this contributed to Democratic victories also beyond the campaigns of these specific candidates, and generally caused great damage to the Republican Party.; 1/3/14, 12:12 PM
SteveR said...: Seems like the Tea Party types are better at influencing primary races than voting in the general election. There has never been better conditions for Republicans than there will be this year. Yet I join those who think they can screw it up.; 1/3/14, 12:26 PM
chickelit said...: 0bamacare will work for the Republicans unless they nominate bigoted, racist, sexist, nativist nuts as they are prone to do. Then the Democrat candidates will coast to victory as their GOP opponents try to explain their desire to impose some kind of Christian sharia on the rest of us.

Given that we don't have a Christian sharia at present and never have had one, many of the so-called "bigoted, racist, sexist, nativist nuts" are simply trying to preserve what already exists rather than further meld religion into government. But go ahead cokaygne -- keep pretending that you're not trying to undermine the vast middle. I think I've finally got your number.; 1/3/14, 12:30 PM
Hagar said...: I don't think it is "the tea party types" who are screwing up.; 1/3/14, 12:31 PM
Anonymous said...: It's going to be some years yet before these things work themselves out.

Right now the Republicans have a system that works for them.

Primary vote. If you elect an establishment Republican, go to general election. All right wing tea party types need to get on board and shut up. On the other hand, if you elect a Tea Party candidate, destroy them like you would never do to a Democrat, have the media love you for it, and show the tea party that you're not going to support their candidate in the general.

This is the internal struggle happening right now in the Republican Party.

The Republican Party is going to have to get used to losing elections until the left wing of the Republican Party can learn to suck up a loss and join their right wing during a general election.

If the right wing can join the left wing, why can't the left wing join the right wing?; 1/3/14, 1:07 PM
Michael K said...: "The Republican Party is going to have to get used to losing elections until the left wing of the Republican Party can learn to suck up a loss and join their right wing during a general election."

I think this was a big factor with Mourdock. Akin was a loser which is why the McCaskill campaign backed him. Sarah Palin backed another candidate in the primaries. Lugar couldn't stand the thought of being replaced. The race was close and Lugar could have helped Mourdock. He didn't.; 1/3/14, 1:15 PM
test said...: eric said...
If the right wing can join the [Republican] left wing

What evidence is there the right joins the left after the primary? If the right joined the left Obama wouldn't be president.; 1/3/14, 1:24 PM
SteveR said...: I don't think it is "the tea party types" who are screwing up.

All that matters is results and not who's "screwing up". I'm tired of the analyses, a loser's way of feeling good.; 1/3/14, 1:36 PM
Anonymous said...: So the top 9 "likely to flip" Senate seats are Democrat held, and at that they left off at least 4 seats that could flip Republican in a wave year (hello ObamaCare!).

It's going to be a fun election season.; 1/3/14, 1:57 PM
Anonymous said...: "What evidence is there the right joins the left after the primary? If the right joined the left Obama wouldn't be president. "

Maybe they don't. I haven't taken a poll or anything.

However, I only ever hear the calls going one way. I listen to a lot of talk radio and read a lot of blogs. I rarely if ever see calls for the Republican Establishment to join. Instead, I see the Roves being praised for their willingness to be Mavericks and calling a spade a spade, and whatever else they say.

It's all good when you criticize and go against the right.

Perhaps your experience is different.; 1/3/14, 2:05 PM
Original Mike said...: "Democrats, meanwhile, will do their best to hang on, distancing themselves from the president and his health care law."

ObamaCare was a moral imperative. Now it's "Who, me?"

Disgusting.; 1/3/14, 3:34 PM
Chuck said...: This story is typical inside-the-beltway thinking.

I think it is even worse, for the Democrats. Michigan -- no mentioned in the Politico story -- is now a tossup. Michigan's seat is the one that Carl Levin is vacating.

Republican Terri Lynn Land will be a formidable female candidate; she has won statewide office as Michigan's Secretary of State. Democrat opponent Gary Peters, a Detroit-Pontiac Democrat, lost the last time he ran statewide. Land has the money advantage. Peters is a dull and listless campaigner.

I predict that Terri Lynn Land will be the 51st or 52nd Republican vote in the Senate.; 1/3/14, 3:59 PM
Diogenes of Sinope said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/3/14, 4:02 PM
Diogenes of Sinope said...: You can't beat something with nothing and the Republicans have a history of running wacko's with nothing for moderates or independents. Only stupid people primary their own perfectly electable conservative incumbents. Especially in open primary states.; 1/3/14, 4:13 PM
Diogenes of Sinope said...: Republicans are stupid enough to have primary fights pissing away money they could spend defeating Democrats, wasting political capital against themselves and providing Democrats with plenty of Republican gaffs from primary fights and endless debates. There isn't a chance in hell the Republicans will net 6 seats.; 1/3/14, 4:15 PM
test said...: eric said...
Perhaps your experience is different.

In this minute my experience is you making the same one-way demand you're criticizing (on behalf of the opposite side).

I listen to a lot of talk radio and read a lot of blogs. I rarely if ever see calls for the Republican Establishment to join

You must be filtering what you read since blogs constantly criticize the establishment for refusing to support the TP or other grass roots activists.; 1/3/14, 4:24 PM
CWJ said...: Simply put, Claire McCaskill won reelection in the Republican primary. The Republican primary was a three way race in which the biggest player was the Democrat. Akin was Claire's handpicked opponent, and I believe the biggest media buys of the primary were made by her. Between that, a three-way race, and the usual low primary voter turnout, even a whackadoo like Akin could slip by. At that point, Claire had won.

She went from most vulnerable to shoo-in overnight. Brilliant.; 1/3/14, 4:47 PM
Michael K said...: "You can't beat something with nothing and the Republicans have a history of running wacko's with nothing for moderates or independents."

Actually, they don't. The Akins and O'Donnell campaigns were anomalies. Mourdock was a good candidate who was done in by a combination of a misstatement and Lugar's schadenfreude. Angle was a reasonable candidate. Cruz and Rubio were Tea Party candidates as was Lee in Utah.

Maybe you are a Democrat, eh?

We have a ruling party in this country and it is taking the country down. It has members of both parties. The conservatives are a diverse bunch. Only a minority are "social conservatives" like Akins. Most are libertarian types like me. The Democrats were taken over by their left wing in the Clinton years. Hillary is as left wing as Obama and de Blasio.; 1/3/14, 4:59 PM
Fen said...: "Republicans are stupid enough to have primary fights pissing away money they could spend defeating Democrats,"

Not "stupid". Conservatives have primary fights to field non-establishment Republicans.

Establishment Republicans (McCain, Graham, etc) are statists. They prefer to be remain a minority party, where they can trade pork barrel projects to their family and friends for cash. They'll sell out their base for a better table at Martha's Vineyard.; 1/3/14, 5:24 PM
Fen said...: So the Republican primaries are really about conservatives trying to select candidates that will actually represent their interests instead of being seduced by DC.

Ya know, that Republic thing.; 1/3/14, 5:26 PM
Fen said...: There are Establishment Democrats too. Maybe we should start designating politicians as (D) (R) and (E).; 1/3/14, 5:38 PM
Paco Wové said...: "The Democrats were taken over by their left wing in the Clinton years"

Whatever happened to the Democratic Leadership Council, anyway? Weren't they supposed to be the 'moderate wing' of the Democrats?; 1/3/14, 5:46 PM
Paco Wové said...: Fen:
Essentially, we have Establishment Republicans (ERs), Establishment Democrats (EDs), Populist Republicans (PRs), and Populist Democrats (PDs). The ERs and EDs are probably as close to each other in viewpoint as either is to the populist elements of their own party, whom they consider a pack of ignorant, if occasionally useful, yahoos.

The only one of these factions currently recognized as such is the PRs, better known as the "TEA Party". I'm not sure the PDs have formed any sort of coherent bloc.; 1/3/14, 5:55 PM
CWJ said...: Michael K,

I admire your mind and commentary, but Akin's campaign was not an anomaly. It was the result of an astute and desperate Democratic incumbant reading the Republicans and turning the tables on them. If the party cannot take to heart the lessons of that primary, they will be played time and time again.

The closest analogy with which I can come up is Austerlitz. At least after Austerlitz, Alexander and Francis knew they had been played.; 1/3/14, 5:55 PM
Diogenes of Sinope said...: These "Conservatives" who support obviously seriously flawed "true Conservative" Republicans are actually supporting Democratic Liberals. These elections are not heroic principled suicide stands, they are lost opportunities to slow the movement of the USA to the Left. Somehow, Tea Party "Conservatives" are unable to grasp the concepts of the Democrats who are willing to play the role of the tortoise.; 1/3/14, 6:28 PM
Diogenes of Sinope said...: Tea Partiers think moderate Republicans are a bigger threat to their agenda than extreme Left-wing Democrats. So they work hard to unelect incumbent Republican moderates instead of working against Liberal Democrats. Sure, I'd love "true Conservatives" in office, but I'd take Lugar over Joe Donnelly, every time.; 1/3/14, 6:36 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/3/14, 7:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Diogenes: These elections are not heroic principled suicide stands, they are lost opportunities to slow the movement of the USA to the Left. Somehow, Tea Party "Conservatives" are unable to grasp the concepts of the Democrats who are willing to play the role of the tortoise.

"Lost opportunities to slow the movement of the USA to the Left." LOL.

Diogenes, I agree with you that certain concepts are eluding Tea Partiers, bless their innocent hearts, but the utter stupidity of continuing to support "moderate Republicans" is not among them.; 1/3/14, 7:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Hagar: If Karl Rove & Co. did not approve of these candidates, Ok, but the thing for them to do was to sit down and shut up, when the primaries did not go their way. Instead they vocally and viciously attacked the candidates of their own party, which, of course, the Democrats and the MSM seized upon with glee and very effectively trumpeted as evidence "the Republican can't even stand their on candidates!"

Hagar, the Republican establishment hates its base and wants them to dry up and blow away. (And that conservative "base" includes urban atheists like me as well as the rural Christians the MSM loves to hate.)

They want the same things that the Democrats want - in a nutshell, they're globalists who don't give a damn about any of the values that animate Tea Party types. They may as well be Democrats, for all the good they'll ever do advancing your interests or mine.

Why should Rove and company "sit still"? Of course they attacked any candidate that wasn't the choice of the party machine. They were the enemy, just like you and I are their enemies.

Being the disgusted cynic that I am, I'm almost heartened by the view that the Obamacare juggernaut is going to roll right along, no matter how bad it gets, and regardless of how much mileage Republican candidates try to get out of its indisputable fubar-osity. The Republican establishment is useless scum and the Republican party has to die, the sooner the better, if a meaningful opposition party is ever going to arise. And that's a big "if".; 1/3/14, 7:19 PM
SteveR said...: but the utter stupidity of continuing to support "moderate Republicans" is not among them.

It most certainly is; 1/3/14, 9:32 PM