In thinking about the big win for Republicans I am anticipating some I-told-you-sos from moderate factions within the Party. They will point to Brown's win as evidence that moderate Republicans can win and suggest we run more of them. I think this may be reaching too far.
If anything, Brown's win is a sign that there is still potential for a strong faction of New England Republicans, socially liberal and conservative on fiscal and foreign policy. I'm happy to see that and think it can certainly be good for the party. What I don't think we should assume is that these moderates will have success everywhere. There are many Republican-leaning districts where a Scott Brown could not win because there would be more conservative challengers that voters would prefer.
Being one of those moderates that Mike talks about, I would love to see the party run more Scott Brown-types, but I have to concede that Mike might be correct. Brown worked in Massachusetts because the area is a liberal part of the nation. But what worked in the Bay State might not work in other areas.
Of course, the same is true about running conservatives as well.
Maybe the crux of the matter is that moderates and conservatives in the GOP are going have find ways to live together and learn to run candidates that are tailored to their area.
What do others think?
Crossposted at Republicans United