The Hill, upset that GOP activists aren’t planning to play Senate spoilers in 2016?

I’m not really sure why the Hill sounds so surprised, here: “Republican Senate incumbents look to be largely free of tough primary challenges by Tea Party candidates that could complicate the party’s efforts to retain the uppwer [sic] chamber during the pivotal 2016 election.”  We have 24 seats at stake in the next election, which is also a Presidential election. As the Hill admits, there are two open seats that are tempting prospects for conservative activists (three, if Vitter wins the governorship*); but what the Hill doesn’t quite bring up is that there aren’t that many Senators up this cycle that REALLY infuriate grassroots activists.  I mean, yes: everybody grinds their teeth over John McCain. But he is probably the only nationally recognized galloping disaster of ours this cycle.

At least, for right now.  Ask me again in March.  Then again, in March we’ll be smack dab in the middle of the Presidential election cycle, and a lot of activists are going to be understandably fixated on that. So maybe ask me in 2017? …No, wait, too late then.  Maybe just don’t ask me at all… no, that doesn’t even make any sense.

Moe Lane

*I am not about to say that he can’t.


5 thoughts on “The Hill, upset that GOP activists aren’t planning to play Senate spoilers in 2016?”

  1. Didn’t this group get elected by the initial activism of the Tea Party? Shouldn’t this be a relatively more conservative group of Senators?

    1. All politicians have a sell-by date…
      That said .. this is the 2010 class .. so while there’s *some* improvement over the average, there’s still room for improvement.

Comments are closed.