Club for Growth argues for even more purity, because 2010

Our friend in ally toward Democratic majorities Wingnut logic:

[Club for Growth President Chris] Chocola's argument is that the path to success for Republicans is to embrace sharp ideological differences with Democrats rather than sanding them down, even in states and districts that do not inherently lean conservative. As models, he points to Senators Marco Rubio of Florida and Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, Republicans who won their seats in 2010 in states that President Obama carried in both 2008 and 2012.

The GOP governors in both Florida and Pennsylvania are facing long reelection odds in 2014. Why? Because 2010 was a fluke year, when base Democrats sat out demoralized or in protest of a Democratic Party that had squandered its 2006 and 2008 mandates. Any Republican that clings to 2010 as a rationale for anything beyond "we hope Dems sit this out again" are genuinely deluded or simply full of shit.

In an interview, Mr. Chocola dismissed the idea that Club for Growth and other conservative groups were responsible for losses in Senate races last year in Missouri and Indiana, where the Republican candidates, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, both collapsed after making statements about rape. His group had backed Mr. Mourdock but not Mr. Akin.

'Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin lost because they said stupid things,' said Mr. Chocola, a former Republican member of the House.

Why did they say stupid things? Because they are conservative enough to pass the Club for Growth litmus test. There is direct correlation.

Fact is, without the meddling of the Club for Growth and its hyper-conservative allies the past two cycles, Republicans would likely hold Democratically held Senate seats in Nevada, Colorado, Delaware, Connecticut, Missouri, and Indiana (and it almost cost them Alaska). That would've been enough to swing the Senate to GOP control.

'The real question is Heather Wilson, Tommy Thompson, George Allen, Denny Rehberg ' why did they all lose?' Mr. Chocola said, referring to Republican candidates for Senate in 2012 in New Mexico, Wisconsin, Virginia and Montana. 'If you have these kinds of establishment-backed Republican candidates who lost, in some cases in states where Romney won, that's a more interesting question and one that ought to be the focus of the party.

They lost because they're Republicans. But of those four states, Romney only won one. The rest were easily won by Obama. So how is that more interesting than why did wingnuts lose those two races in Indiana and Missouri'states that Romney won by 10 points?

The Club is now threatening to go after House incumbents like Illinois Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger, whose 53 percent Romney district is just the kind of district Democrats need to flip to get Pelosi her gavel. So like 2008 and 2012, Republican conservatives appear to be the Democrats' biggest ally.