Pundits, Politics, and the Conservative Media's desire to lose

This is something I wrote to one of the foremost political pundits in the country:

It seems that many Republicans, especially the right-leaning media don't seem to realize the implications of this election: namely the possibly of Republicans becoming obliterated in the Northeast (i.e. CT, NH, and PA Congressional seats) and perhaps morphing into more of a regional party, the impact of replacing free traders in the battleground states (Rhode Island, even Ohio, Montana, Missouri, and Virginia) where the Republican incumbent in each state has a very good/excellent record on free trade, while the Democratic challenger is advocating protectionist policies (which should also concern New Democrats), and the possibility of another Supreme Court appointment in a Senate with a Democratic majority. Why are all these journalists who in many cases are Conservative Republicans (considerably more Conservative than me) not recognizing the consequences of a loss here? A Senator gets elected to a six year term with considerably better than even odds to get reelected so any protest vote in this election has consequences for the next six to possibly thirty years. A Democrat Challenger who wins in any of the Democratic leaning or trending districts for Congress is likely to be there for awhile as I don't see another Republican being able to capture a seat like the one Congressman Simmons currently holds. While the assumption is that losing this election will help a Republican Presidential candidate in '08, there is first of all no guarantees and second of all currently the Republicans are without a marquee candidate in '08 while the Democrats have several and history is usually on the side of the party out of power after a two-term incumbent. It seems like this was a winnable election for Republicans that many Republicans, specifically the Conservative media doesn't really want to win. In fact, part of the reason the mainstream media like the Washington Post has been so harsh on George Allen (other than their dislike of him and his politics) has been that they have picked up on stories by Liberal magazines like The American Prospect and The New Republic (see Ryan Lizza's piece) and by blogs like the Dailykos. The liberal media has been relentless and at times exceedingly nasty and unfair to Republican candidates. Contrast that with the National Review which to my knowledge has not provided any kind of equivalent article on any of the Democratic candidates in close races. I am uncertain as to why magazines like this have not done any candid profiles of Democratic candidates from a conservative perspective, so voters can make an informed decision on election day.I am also uncertain why Republicans haven't reached out to disaffected Libertarians who believe that having divided government may be preferable on spending and instead speak about the affect divided government has on judges. It is not unthinkable that there will be another Supreme Court appointment in the next few years and Libertarians (especially Libertarian Republicans) prefer judges like Roberts to judges like Ginsburg.