Skip to footer

Three reasons Republicans may not want to capture the Senate

Control of the Senate is the big prize in the November midterms. Increasingly, the Republicans’ prospects are looking good.

If Republicans do capture the Senate, isn’t that great for them? In many ways, yes. They’d get to set the Senate agenda, for starters. But winning also brings risks. Here are some:

3. Republicans will hurt their chances of winning the presidency in 2016

Chris Tilley/AP
Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R) as speaks at Tamarack during the Working for Jobs Rally in Beckley, W.Va., Aug. 19. looking on are Sen. Evan Jenkins and Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Ms. Capito hopes to capture a West Virginia Senate seat that Republicans have not held for more than 50 years.

To be blunt, an important element of the 2014 midterms is positioning for the next presidential race.

If Republicans win the Senate, public expectations will rise for their ability to “get things done.” But with President Obama still in the White House for two more years, the best Republicans can probably hope for is small-ball stuff. Major immigration reform or tax reform is probably too much to hope for. It’s possible that a fully Republican-controlled Congress could put approval of the Keystone XL pipeline on Mr. Obama’s desk, and if he vetoed it, they might muster enough votes for an override.

But the main thing for Republicans would be to show that they know how to govern, and not just oppose things. And that could be difficult in a continued world of divided government – particularly if the far right really throws its weight around.

3 of 3
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.