Also, I think she sent the document to multiple news sources - I think the Intercept was the only one who was willing to publish it.
Eh, I think there's a credible argument to be made that they're doomed either way. (If they are, in fact doomed). They promised a repeal and fail = they lose the house. (The 1994 scenario) They promise a repeal, and we get this incredibly unpopular bill instead = they lose the house. (The 2010 scenario)
So if they're losing their majority regardless, the electoral incentives aren't as powerful and they may just default to their default political mode: slashing the social safety net to give the rich another tax cut.
With the House at risk?
Eh, I think there's a credible argument to be made that they're doomed either way. (If they are, in fact doomed). They promised a repeal and fail = they lose the house. (The 1994 scenario) They promise a repeal, and we get this incredibly unpopular bill instead = they lose the house. (The 2010 scenario)
So if they're losing their majority regardless, the electoral incentives aren't as powerful and they may just default to their default political mode: slashing the social safety net to give the rich another tax cut.