They would be foolish to hand Obama such an easy excuse.

You really don't understand what happened do you?  The Republicans lost precisely because they did purge themselves of those on the right.

Mitch McConnell's grand strategy was an abject failure.  Now the House and Senate GOP is faced with the sequester, without any improvement in their political capital.  I expect there to be some continued obstructionism, but rigid adherence to the extremist positions will be the equivalent of the GOP shooting itself in the foot.  Also, with the changing demographics in the US, continued intransigence on the part of the GOP will eventually cost them in the 2014 mid terms.

Maybe we can purge ourselves of brainwashed canadians?

What happened to Lugar should be the one thing that really makes the Republican party take a long, hard look in the mirror over the next few months.

This right here is why you lost!

Keep telling yourselves that.

WOW, may god have mercy on you?

Pretty hard to wrap that story around what happened in Indiana and Missouri. Not exactly a couple of hippie-filled RINO states.

I'll be checking in with Frum daily for the next few weeks. Pretty sure if the GOP's gonna have a 'come to Jesus' moment, it'll start there. Hell, he was leading the way towards sanity in 2010 and got sacked for it.

He won't have to. That's what the echo chamber is for.

I don't know.  I was telling people back after the 2008 election that what we'd see is a GOP that regained seats in the mid-term 2010 races (combination of being out of power, President always loses mid-term seats first term, bad economy) with the house lurching to the right in some fashion, then getting spanked in the Presidential and Senatorial races in 2012 and coming to their senses. 

But right now I don't see it.  I think Limbaugh and the SuperPac donors are just too far to the right, too extreme, too condemning of RINOs.  Too many in the GOP will chalk up this loss to Romney and not the Republican party.  They'll figure that if they put either Martinez or Rubio on the ticket as a VP candidate then they'll close the latino and female gaps and that will suffice and then just run as a "True Republican".

Remember, what really was the "come to jesus" realization for the dems was in 1984 when Mondale (a good and honorable man) just got shwacked by Reagan.  The formation of the Democratic Leadership Council really took form on the basis of that election.  But you still had the nomination and loss of Michael Dukakis (another 4 year election cycle) before the DLC led to a series of more conservative/moderate democratic candidates, rules and focus that got Bill Clinton elected.  To see that happen on the GOP side, you'd have to see major, just sweeping changes with donors, primary rules, and access of the GOP media and blogs (people like Limbaugh, Hanmity, Beck and Breitburt would have to be minimized).  For instance, Limbaugh has been screaming since 2006 that the GOP is screwing up badly by not making immigration a major issue, a wedge issue, to help build support with whites by talking about law breakers, and mexican welfare cheats, etc.  That series of GOP positions on immigration and hispanics didn't happen overnight, it can't be reversed overnight and there are too many influential far right sources who aren't just going to turn the page instantly.  I actually think there's a significant chance that someone like Santorum will be a GOP front-runner in 2016.  I don't think the GOP can remake their ideology and positioning and focus in 1-2 years (which is what it would take to get someone who would have the support of the party to benefit from insights from this election).  Now, if the GOP loses the election for the Presidency in 2016 (which means they will have lost 5 out of the last 7 Presidential elections) then you may see that transition.

Ed

So what you are saying is the Republicans are not conservative enough and that's why Obama won the reelection? LOL!

If the Tea Party can't hold Florida (West is out) then shifting farther right isn't going to help.  Nobody is thinking Tea Party Gov. Scott (30% approval rating for the last two years) is going to be able to hold his seat.

What you fail to realize is that West won his seat from a long time democrat. 

The seat simply goes back to a democrat now.

It also means democrats are racist for not voting for a black man.

What you fail to realize is that the Tea Party can't hold seats because they run wacko candidates.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … -more.html

I suspect you're right- this election was a huge blow to the conservative alternate universe, but I'd wager they're likelier to patch the holes in the echo chamber than to embrace reality.  Frankly, I'm happy to see them do so, as it'll only deepen and prolong their grave electoral liabilities.

The question is, how many of those 2/3ds of the seats that were up were going to go Democrat no matter what?

There are a number of states that aren't likely to send a Republican to the Senate no matter what the quality of the candidate. My home state is one of them.

So, of the seats that were up for re-election, how many of them actually were in play? Now, the Republicans lost seats, so without question, they didn't do as well as they should have, but it is not really honest to suggest that all of the seats that were up for election were really in play (for either party).

June 2012:

Can Republicans take the Senate? The odds are in their favor

You lack familiarity with the situation.  In Florida, you do not have to reside in the congressional district you run in.  Allen West originally won his seat in a district that was so heavily Gerrymandered as Republican, that it was a miracle a Democrat had gotten in in the first place.  When the Gerrymandering problem was substantially improved by a citizen-mandated state amendment, West went searching for another district that was viewed as Republican-friendly.  He thought he found it in district 18, and the initial polls were all in his favor, so it wasn't racism.  His opponent fought a good battle and edged him out fair and square.

Today, though, Allen West refuses to concede and is suing.  Sour grapes to the max.

And you and your ilk are to blame for the next 4 years
I am no longer a Republican because of you and your ilk,but make no mistake about it,I despise
liberal economic policies,and other policies that could be implimented by Obama.

Get a clue,if there was any mandate this past Tuesday it was because most of America rejectedExtremist Christian/rascist/homophobic intrusion into their lives.
Look at all the soical issues that passed.
Look at the 2 extremist Christian senate candidates that lost very winnable seats.

First, you're right--all races aren't equal.  A hypothetical open Senate race in California is just going to be really, really tough for a republican to be competitive in.  Ditto with a senate race in, say, Mississippi.

Here were the open Senate races:  AZ, CT, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Nebraska, NM, ND, TX, VA, and WI.  Out of those races, only CT and Hawaii is a state that you'd expect to automatically go democratic (and the GOP contender was a very popular governor). Additionally, you had democrats competing in a couple of states (Fl, MN, Missouri, Ohio) as incombents where they were vulnerable.   Either that state is republican (Missouri) or is a battleground state (FL, MN, Ohio) or in Sherrod Brown's case, he was targeted by a bunch of SuperPacs and dramatically outspent.

So we're talking 15 races in which 13 of them either favor the GOP or they're battleground states in which the GOP was seeking to compete nationally and there was SuperPac money...comparatively even ground.  All the GOP has to do is win 40% of the states where they SHOULD win (b/c it's a GOP state) or it's an open seat in a battleground state and they take the senate.  But by my count they went 10-5 in those states that either favored the GOP in an open race (like Missouri or ND) or were an even race (Ohio, VA).

If you look at the election results as a whole, you can try to discount Obama's election by arguing the percentage of vote that he won.  But there's no way of getting around the GOP senatorial results--that was just a shwacking.  That's something that can't really be blamed on Romney and probably not even John Kyl.

Ed

That means that you have seen something.

Obama doesn't need any excuses any more, since he's no longer running for anything. His job is done, and he can sit back and enjoy his lifestyle.

As for the Senate... nothing has changed... the Dems still control it, as before.

A piece of fluff is your response? Come on, that article demonstrated less research than my kids do for quick school projects.

10-5 sounds like they went 66%, which is quite a bit better than 40%.....

What happened to all the "Obama and the Dems are causing the gridlock" arguments I've seen in here the last three months?

GOP: The Temper Tantrum Party.

Are you actually saying that those people who were purged were right-wing, and they voted for Obama, who is - according to the spew - lefter than Marx?

Life's sweet

Al, I wasn't clear--my fault.  The Democrats won 10 (and lost 5) in races which were either open (and in a state that leaned republican or was a battleground state like NM, Nevada, VA and Ohio that the GOP thought they could win OR contested heavily with a President campaign presence and/or major SuperPac money) OR involved an incumbent who appeared to be swimming upstream (McCaskill for instance, maybe Sherrod Brown in Ohio would count here).  To put it another way, in 15 races where everyone would agree the GOP had a good shot or even a great shot, they (the GOP) had a 33% winning percentage.  So if we discount the states that clearly leaned democratic or republican states that had a republican incumbent, you get those 15 races.  If it has been a 50-50 split, b/c so many democratic seats were exposed this election cycle, then the Senate would be majority Republican right now (well, in January 2013).  Instead, the dems gained seats.

Ed

Ok, the Republicans went 5 - 10.... got it. Thanks.