Nonsense again.
In safe red districts, cons would come out and vote for their tea party reps.
The losses will be in the Senate, once again rendering the House majority obselete because nothing will get through the Senate, thusly nothing to the President’s desk to force his hand.
I think your calculus is overly pessimistic. People don’t follow a lack of leadership. They will not vote for Republicans when votes for Republicans are essentially throwing a vote away. 2012 is one example. Few in the Senate have the spine to be a party which fights for its issues.
That is a perception which is more deadly to the Republican party than you realize.
You can say arguments to the effect that “some spectrum of blue states will never vote conservatives, and that Republicans will never be a factor there and we wont pike up in the senate.”
It is a bogus argument to say Republicans should abandon the important fights. Who votes for a party that does not stand for anything? Rather, what inroads can you make in any of these places if you don’t genuinely represent your position as one which you stand by.
There were no losses in the Senate in 96, so why would there be in 2014?