This is so true. If Republicans do gain a Senate majority, which they may very well do in November, and manage to pick up eight or more House seats, it will be because of who they are not, not because of who they are. They aren’t in Obama’s party, and they aren’t in the party that unilaterally passed the Affordable Care Act, which, like the president, is unpopular. Republicans may win a bunch of races without measurably improving their party’s “brand” and without making any clear progress among minority, young, moderate, and female voters. The fact that midterm electorates are generally older, whiter, and more conservative than their counterparts in presidential elections exacerbates the difference between the world of 2014 and the one that will exist in 2016. The Republicans can win in 2014 without having fixed their problems.

For that matter, has the GOP learned the folly of nominating exotic and potentially problematic candidates, ones who tickle the erogenous zones of the party’s conservative base but offend many swing voters? Will they continue to nominate candidates who have the unhealthy habit of pulling the pins on political hand grenades before swallowing said grenades? See Akin, Todd (U.S. Senate race, Missouri, 2012); Mourdock, Richard (U.S. Senate race, Indiana, 2012); or O’Donnell, Christine (U.S. Senate race, Delaware, 2010)…

Given that white voters have gone from composing 89 percent of the electorate in 1992 to 72 percent in 2012—a 17-point drop in just five elections—Mitt Romney’s 59 percent share of the white vote was not enough to win the general election. In the old days, it would have been plenty. You can’t lose the African-American vote by 87 points (93 percent to 6 percent), the Latino vote by 44 points (71 percent to 27 percent), the Asian vote by 47 points (73 percent to 26 percent) and expect to win presidential elections.