“Moreover, since it’s a presidential year, the republicans must finance a presidential run. The democrats only have 2 possible states that could be problems (Colorado and Nevada) to defend and zero red states.
The Republicans have a very tough defense in red states: Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, a tough task in any year. They also have to defend in purplish states: Iowa, Missouri, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Ohio.”
You’re right about the importance of the Senate in the 2016 elections and the importance of beating Landrieu to strengthen our chances of holding it in 2016. But I don’t think it’s as dire as you imply.
If they do take LA and win the presidency in 2016, the Dems would need a net gain of 5 to retake the Senate. The GOP does have seats in blue and purple states to defend, but if they win the presidency (and that’s a big “if” of course), you have to think that the electorate will also carry some of these senators across the finish line.
For example, IA, MO, NH and OH all have fairly popular GOP senators that “should” be re-elected barring a major scandal or retirement. IL, PA and WI are probably the 3 most endangered, but I think they can at least hold WI in a year when they win the presidency, especially if the candidate is Gov Walker.
Also, you mentioned the Dems have only 2 states that might be problems (CO and NV). One of those states (NV) might be a very big problem given how much of an obstructionist Dingy Harry has been when in the majority. If the GOP puts up a strong candidate in NV, that could easily be a flip, which would put the Dem pickup at potentially +1 or +2.
I meant 'blue' states, and you obviously picked up on that and didn't bash me for the mental error. Thank you.
I agree that dingy Harry is beatable, but conservatives and establishment must agree on a candidate early on. Don't need a rerun of the Sharon Angle controversy. I hope both sides are prepared to give a little WITHOUT violating bedrock principles.
That's why Scott Walker would be a decent compromise. He isn't perfect, but he's not awful either. His weakness is immigration, but he needs to learn that it is foolish to address in substance anything AFTER the border is secured UNTIL the border is secured.
Illegal entry should be stopped. Beyond that we believe in basic decency and treatment of any person, including prisoners of war. They should be abused, starved, hounded, mistreated, bullied, etc. You don't have be a jerk with people, even if you intend to return them to their country of origin.
FWIW, I would provide refuge for any Werner von Brauns or Einsteins in the numbers. That type of asset doesn't grow on trees.
They should NOT be abused