Sorry I haven't been around much but family medical issues and such... The Republicans didn't do quite as well as expected (including by me) in the Senate. Here are some thoughts:
Nevada - The line coming from the Weekly Standard and National Review is that Nevada shows that candidates matter. That is true, but what does it mean? One of Sharron Angle's problems was that she had a way explaining conservative positions in a way that put them in a bad light, and she made at least one statement that was either obnoxious or a threat of sedition depending on how charitably you want to interpret it. I think an even bigger problem than her more famous quotes is that she is a rightworld provincial. She seemed very uncomfortable talking to any audience that she wasn't sure was friendly. If you can find the videos, check out her appearance on FOX and Friends and then her thirty minute interview with one of the Nevada television stations. She exuded anxiety in front of skeptical or indifferent audiences. That is probably not uncommon among the general population (I don't think that I would have done better) but such on-the-surface social anxiety is an unfortunate quality in a Senate candidate in a tough race who depends on winning over swing voters. Her combination of social anxiety and inability to translate her worldview to people who don't share her political assumptions is symbolized by her talk to a group of Latino students. She pathetically tried to form a rapport by showing that she is so unbigoted that she thought some of them looked like Asians and that one time somebody thought she was Asian.
Pennsylvania - This was as close to an even fight as you were going to get. Pat Toomey is an excellent candidate. Every principled conservative who is aspiring to office in a mixed constituency should read this profile explaining how Toomey crafted a persona and message designed to win over blue collar urban and suburban white persuadables. He isn't perfect, and his coalition might need updating, but conservatives can't hope for much better than Toomey. Joe Sestak is a principled, articulate, tough and very likeable liberal. The state leans Democratic but the national environment favored the Republicans. The closeness of Toomey's win is disturbing. Toomey's appeal is geared toward Reagan Democrats. Those Democrats (plus Republicans of course) were enough to win for most of the last thirty years. The Republican coalition is going to have to expand to win over some post-Obama Democrats. Be that as it may, a lot of Republicans have a lot to learn from Toomey.
Colorado - See Nevada. Buck wasn't too extreme exactly. He was no less conservative than Rubio or Toomey (well maybe Toomey a little on abortion.) The problem was he couldn't effectively deal with having his ideas cross-examined. This isn't the same thing as being inarticulate. I suspect Buck is very articulate in expressing the depths of his beliefs to people who share his views. The problem is in explaining those views to those not already on your side and then explaining away the misrepresentations of the opposition. Conservative candidates need to master pithy responses to the most effective liberal jabs and seem comfortable in doing so. Some of being able to do that is talent, but a lot of it is preparation. One of the reasons Reagan was so persuasive was that he pitched his message to appeal to (but not only to) FDR-loving Democrats and then practiced and practiced and practiced. I get the feeling that Buck and Angle have spent too much time in a conservative bubble and had little practice in winning over nonconservatives in elections where the relationship between ideology and policy was important.