Should we just retreat?

[minionofmidas]

Moderate Democrats are the most electable kind, just as moderate Republicans are the most electable in a General election.

Often. Not always.

[minionofmidas]

Anybody else think that Toomey running for Senate in 2004 has been a great career move despite the (narrower than expected, although we knew it to be no walkover) primary defeat?

It's by no means clear he would have held onto that house district in 2006 and 2008. (Unless the fact that Charlie Dent never even drew a decent challenger says a lot more about the Dem bench in that area than I would care to let on if I were them.)

[minionofmidas]

Yes - a seat weighs 400 pounds.

[minionofmidas]

Of course, in so far as I understand this right, the Club for Growth didn't go "Lessee, who's a RINO blocking a safe seat that ought to elect one of ourn? Wayne Gilchrest comes to mind. Let's draft someone to primary him." rather it goes "OMG there's a primary race in a safe seat between someone we like and someone we don't like! Let's throw money at it!"
It amounts to much the same thing in most respects (although not if there's no primary challenge in the first place). The first approach would be more honest, including to themselves - it would bring more clarity about what they are, in fact, doing.
It would also help avoid tactical blunders like this one.

[minionofmidas]

Doesn't really contradict my argument (maybe it wasn't worded well), which is basically that a little more clarity about what they themselves are would, you know, help them.

[minionofmidas]

CFG does do some good things, like this:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/08/new_ad_in_alaska.php


Parnell would have been more electable than Young

I mentioned that as the exception.

One exception does not disprove the rule.

It's not even an exception. It would be an exception only if they were actually intending to lose the Republican Party seats, rather than just blind to the possibility of it happening.