That seems to be the conclusion of this author. Republicans had unusual opportunities to gain significant seats in the Senate in 2010 and 2012 since Democrats had a larger number of seats to defend than Republicans, but they were unable to capitalize on it. Why?
Looking forward from the tumultuous early days of President Obama’s first term, Republicans found themselves, for different reasons, facing three consecutive Senate elections — 2010, 2012, and 2014 — with fundamentals on their side. The financial crisis had left economic ruin in its wake and, with the recovery halting, Democratic incumbents were cannon fodder for a bellicose, conservative electorate.
But the most energized portion of that electorate — the GOP base — was just as determined to oust Republican candidates and incumbents who failed to meet appropriately conservative standards as it was to unseat Democrats. At the district level, where highly ideological candidates can win gerrymandered seats, this prefigured a historic House Republican wave. At the state level — particularly the swing state level — it created enormous headaches for the national GOP, which co-opted the tea party movement, and attempted to convert its energy into partisan policy and electoral gains, but ultimately found itself powerless to prevent its followers from selecting candidates who could not credibly compete.
In the end, Republicans cut down the Democrats’ 59 vote majority to 53 in 2010, but missed golden opportunities to oust vulnerable Democratic incumbents in Nevada (Harry Reid) and Colorado (Michael Bennet), and to defeat Chris Coons, a first-time Democratic hopeful running for Joe Biden’s open former seat, in Delaware. They also squandered a less straightforward opportunity in Connecticut, where troubled Democratic nominee Richard Blumenthal was able to fend off his opponent, professional wrestling executive Linda McMahon.But for the GOP base’s ideological rigidity, those four races would have thrown control of the Senate to the GOP.
We've been discussing parties and elections, and wondering about both the impact of the primary election and the question of who in fact controls each political party. The rise of the Tea Party - a very focused. passionate and effective group - allowed a subsection within the Republican Party to determine who its candidates were going to be by dominating primary elections. Small concentrated, passionate groups can do this, but it does not necessarily translate into success in general elections since it includes moderates that may not necessarily - in fact seldom do - share the view of the passionate minority.
Now we'll watch to see if the party establishment can respond successfully and nominate better candidates in 2014.
