The way I read the argument of the article is that if more Republicans are elected to the Senate, then the power of the Senate leadership is greatly reduced. So you can get the effective result you are seeking if more R's are elected, even if the same old RINOs keep their seat-warming posts.
This is less the Republican leadership losing their power with more Republicans, than it is the leadership being less beholden to the most liberal Republican in the Senate. Remember what John McCains' schitck was, make a deal with the more liberal dems in the senate, get enough republicans to go along with him to prevent the filibuster, while the dem he was working with (commonly Ted Kennedy) brought enough dems to guarantee that not going along with his deal means the bill will not have enough votes to pass.