[Drlee]

Shades of things to come.

A tea party-affiliated group is urging Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to bow out of his reelection bid next year against Democratic rival Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, citing concerns with the longtime senator's electability.

Matt Hoskins, the Senate Conservatives Fund's executive director, told the Washington Post Tuesday that McConnell isn't a strong enough candidate to face off against Grimes and that it may be time for him to "pass the torch."

“Mitch McConnell is now the least electable Republican senator running for reelection in 2014,” Hoskins said. "He could lose this race and cost Republicans the majority. He needs to consider whether it might be time to hang it up.”

The Senate Conservatives Fund is a political action committee launched by former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) prior to the 2010 elections.

Last month, the PAC swiped McConnell over the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill, mounting a $50,000 television and radio ad campaign attacking the Republican for supporting "amnesty" for undocumented immigrants.

Grimes, who assumed office in 2012, announced Monday that she would challenge McConnell in next year's Senate race. She is the only Democrat to jump in the race so far.

A poll conducted in May by the Senate Majority PAC, a Democratic super PAC, showed McConnell and Grimes tied in a hypothetical matchup.

The struggling tea party pseudo-conservatives very well may hand more than just this one seat to the democrats. We conservatives are not forwarding a cohesive agenda with which the people can identify. We are seen as mean-spirited and obstructionist. The republicans have become the party of what not to do rather than a party with an agenda. The appallingly unpopular failure to act on the sequester, right or wrong, has landed square on the republican's shoulders because they took the position of 'all spending cuts are good' and failed to successfully articulate why and where.

Looking at this article is a clear example with a conservative group spending money attacking the conservative majority leader on an issue the conservatives actually won. If the republican party had put the Senate immigration bill as written in their platform they would have made their base happy and would be proclaiming victory right now. It IS a conservative bill.

The swing back left in this country can be blamed on three sources. First is Obama who failed to act like a progressive; the second is the republican party which failed to articulate a popular conservative agenda and the third is the tea party whose obviously pro-business agenda is seen as a transparent joke by most Americans.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

The swing back left in this country can be blamed on three sources. First is Obama who failed to act like a progressive; the second is the republican party which failed to articulate a popular conservative agenda and the third is the tea party whose obviously pro-business agenda is seen as a transparent joke by most Americans.

I think you're right about all three being failures of policy and leadership, but to be honest, I'm not sure it'll mean a landslide for the Democrats. I think most Americans who vote are deeply polarized and won't change parties in significant numbers, and the more independent Americans who vote might give leverage to the Democrats on each national election but I'm not sure it'll be too significant. Just my two cents. I really do agree with your assessment on all three issues, but I wouldn't bet on a sweeping outcome.

[oppose_obama]

anyone who thinks McConnel wont win, in kentucky, doesnt know kentucky politics. easy win for him. lets be clear, the goal for democrats is to win the house, otherwise obama becomes a lame duck in november of 2014. legislatively, he already is one once immigration fails in the house.

[Poelmo]

The struggling tea party pseudo-conservatives very well may hand more than just this one seat to the democrats.

In the senate yes, in the house they can just keep on gerrymandering their way to victory. District-based elections are a joke, they screw over the liberal democrats in the UK and they screw over the democrats (and every third party) in the US.

P.S. the republicans can still afford to lose 6 seats in the senate because requiring 60 votes to get anything done is the new normal and republicans are indeed the party of inaction (then again, that's the essence of conservatism, isn't it?)

[oppose_obama]

you wouldnt mind if it was democrats who won in 2010 and were in charge of gerrymandering

[Poelmo]

you wouldnt mind if it was democrats who won in 2010 and were in charge of gerrymandering

I'm not an American, and yes, I would mind. I thought Obama was the lesser evil compared to Romney, but I found it was ridiculous that Obama got such a landslide electoral college victory even though he only got a small majority of the votes. The whole district-based voting and "swing state" circus diminishes the democratic aspect of American politics, both directly (the value of votes gets diminished) and indirectly (third parties don't get a chance).

[oppose_obama]

Sorry, that was an over-reach on my part. I dont know your stand on this or that, i just always assume people enjoy benefits to their side, politically speaking. I dont remember the vote count but i believe obama did get several million more votes then romney, in american politics that is significant. we are very divided. almost evenly really. People dont understand that its not 1 election for president, its actually over 3000 diferent elections in seperate districts. I think there are a few states that do proportional divvying of the electoral votes but by and large, its winner take all. We are also a consitutional republic, not a democracy, so thats just the system that exists. Its not designed for a third party.

edit: PS: your right about the republicans being able to lose 6 seats in the senate. and this upcoming election only has 10 republicans up and 20 democrats up in the senate. (rough number, its roughly a third of the senate up for re-election) and while the republicans probably wont take control of the senate, there are alot of democrats in red states that are pretty much done for.

[nucklepunche]

This isn't a political earthquake. Republicans have 46 senate seats, it will be pared down to 45 when Cory Booker is anointed Senator from New Jersey.

Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia have retiring Democrats and are likely to go Republican in 2014. So that gives Republicans 48 seats. They just need to win three more to break Joe Biden's tie-breaking vote.

Kentucky is really the only chance Democrats have for a pickup.

Arkansas, North Carolina, Louisiana and Alaska are the real toss ups, all are held by Democrats.

We may get a situation where Republicans take over the Senate or create a tie, all while losing their leader. 2014 will not be a landslide for either party. Republicans will almost certainly gain seats in the Senate, but Democrats will most likely flip governorships in Florida and Pennsylvania, possibly Michigan and Maine. Virginia looks like another potential flip but that is this fall. The House I'm not sure about, the majority is unpopular but most people like their own members, so I expect Republicans to retain it, maybe paring down their margin a few seats.

Either way it won't be another 2010.