[Republicans] made it harder on themselves because the party leadership can't control the base's tactical radicalism. Of course, the flip side of this strategy is that, by nominating extremely conservative candidates, Republicans maintain very tight party discipline among the members they do elect. Democrats are much more prone to nominate moderates in swing districts or states. This means Democrats have more seats than they "should" have, but they also have a more fractious caucus.OK, on to the question(s). First: do you agree with Chait's description -- that Republicans have become "tactical radicals" but that Democrats have not? Second, do you agree with Chait that the likely results are more Democratic seats, but a less unified Democratic caucus in Congress? Third: how do you feel about the trade-off?
[Note: edited a bit for clarity]