My must read of the day is "For Republicans, 2014 retirements could be blessing in disguise," in the Hill:
More than a half-dozen GOP incumbents from competitive districts have decided not to run for reelection this year. Defending those type of seats is always a headache for parties, but with 2014 shaping up to be a good year for Republicans, they’re breathing a bit easier. [...]
"Usually, you hate these retirements as NRCC chairman, but looking over the long term, it’s the best thing for the party," said former National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Davis (R., Va.). "In a way, this could be a silver lining, going into an off year when minority turnout is lower, and there’s some anti-Obama tide."
Republicans are defending open competitive seats from California to Virginia. Those vacancies might be Democrats’ best chance to make gains in a difficult year, but Republicans know a win this cycle will give them an incumbent who’s harder to defeat in future years.
This is a really interesting, but wonky, read. It’s helpful to understand why the 2014 races, in both the Senate and House, matter for Republicans in 2014.
It’s obvious why the Senate matters. Republicans need to pick up six seats in order to take the majority.
Many Democrats are running in states that are conservative leaning. There are some in which the incumbent is very vulnerable, and the typical voter turnout of a midterm election favors Republicans. All of that puts Democrats in a tough spot; add in the fact that they’re defending more Senate seats than the GOP and the field conditions looks increasingly favorable for Republicans.
But the House has not really been considered "in play." If you talk to any election analyst they’ll say it’s highly unlikely that the Democrats will pick up the seventeen seats they’d need for a majority. Part of that is because whether the districts are red, or blue, much of the House is set. The districts tend to be solidly red or solidly blue—very few are purple.
On the surface it would seem like a misguided focus if Republicans contributed any significant amount of resources to House races in 2014, when it could be going to the more critical ones in the Senate.
What this article notes is that 2014 is a critical year for Republicans everywhere because of 2016. If they don’t make significant gains now, and Hillary Clinton runs in 2016 they’re in a deep hole. Clinton would be an enormous draw for Democrats across the ticket, possibly more than Obama was and his appeal influenced many races—it’s why Sen. Kay Hagan won her seat in North Carolina.
Everyone can see 2016 coming, and that is what’s making 2014 all the more imperative if you’re in the Republican Party.