[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=ThePOC link=topic=14611.msg156563#msg156563 date=1455566782]
How would the possibility of the Democrats reclaiming control of the Senate this year throw a monkey wrench into things, if at all?  It would seem to me that the GOP's hold on the Senate is tenuous at best, and hopefully they realize that.

And furthermore, would obstructing the nominations impact any of those races?  As you mentioned, the GOP has to defend 24 of the 34 seats contested this election.  And these are seats from the 2010 election cycle, which means there are probably a good number of them in blue/purple states.  That's already a bit of a tough order, and if they are seen as obstructing the operation of the government does that give their opponents another issue to run on?
[/quote]

I absolutely think this is a bad issue for Republicans as a whole and makes it less likely that they retain the Senate.  The problem from the GOP perspective is that those purple-state Senators aren't calling the shots, and the red-state Senators (the majority of the majority) have their own standing with conservatives and the base to worry about (and Presidential candidates want to excite the base as much as possible, making it likely that they'll take this position in order to even have a chance of being the GOP nominee).  Assuming red-state Senators focus on their individual electoral survival, they're making the loss of their party's Senate majority that much more likely.  I think stupac's game theory analysis is right on if we assume the Senate GOP's goal is to retain a majority and to get the most conservative nominee possible, but we also have to consider what Senate Republicans see as the likely political cost if they support any Democratic nominee: the end of their careers in a primary loss to a more conservative candidate. 

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=ThePOC link=topic=14611.msg156563#msg156563 date=1455566782]
How would the possibility of the Democrats reclaiming control of the Senate this year throw a monkey wrench into things, if at all?  It would seem to me that the GOP's hold on the Senate is tenuous at best, and hopefully they realize that.

And furthermore, would obstructing the nominations impact any of those races?  As you mentioned, the GOP has to defend 24 of the 34 seats contested this election.  And these are seats from the 2010 election cycle, which means there are probably a good number of them in blue/purple states.  That's already a bit of a tough order, and if they are seen as obstructing the operation of the government does that give their opponents another issue to run on?
[/quote]

I absolutely think this is a bad issue for Republicans as a whole and makes it less likely that they retain the Senate.  The problem from the GOP perspective is that those purple-state Senators aren't calling the shots, and the red-state Senators (the majority of the majority) have their own standing with conservatives and the base to worry about (and Presidential candidates want to excite the base as much as possible, making it likely that they'll take this position in order to even have a chance of being the GOP nominee).  Assuming red-state Senators focus on their individual electoral survival, they're making the loss of their party's Senate majority that much more likely.  I think stupac's game theory analysis is right on if we assume the Senate GOP's goal is to retain a majority and to get the most conservative nominee possible, but we also have to consider what Senate Republicans see as the likely political cost if they support any Democratic nominee: the end of their careers in a primary loss to a more conservative candidate.