A 10/26/09 Gallup poll found that 20% of Americans consider themselves “liberal.” This is compared to 40% who consider themselves “conservative” and 36% who consider themselves “moderate.” A purist Democratic Party is even less likely to maintain a majority than a purist Republican Party, and we see how that idealism is working out for us. . .

Say what you will about Pelosi, she was smart to allow the recruitment of Blue Dogs, which is why the Democrats hold 258 seats out of 435. With 258 votes, it’s pretty easy to get to 218, even with terrible legislation.

If one person continually brushes off party line votes, over a period of three terms and has let’s say a 60% voting record – you might want to take the risk. That’s all this is, risk calculations. When the benefit is less than the potential risk, then the logical thing to do is to take the risk. Plug whatever numbers into the situation that tickles your fancy DD. It’s going to have easy predictable results; unless the benefit is less than the risk – then you don’t kick the person out. Unless you don’t act rationally – like most political actors.

The problem is, it is not always the same Rep. When you have 60 unreliable votes to use to get the extra 20 votes above the hard core to pass something, you only need 1/3 to go your way. When you have 0 unreliable votes and you are 40 short, too bad.

It is a shame that trueconservatives(tm)(r)(c) are too myopic to see that getting a percentage of unreliable votes is better than get 100% of none. Moderates empower conservatives, since it gives them not only majorities, but a working margin.

The same is true of the Pelosi House. Howard Dean’s decision to compete in every district with “conservative (less liberal)” Democrats gave them their margin.

The numbers are embellished to some degree, I’m sure they are not fixed at such a clean 90% – but that really isn’t relative to the overall point. They count on Marshall’s vote in committees and on the less publicized votes, where he racks up most of his “liberal votes.” We saw just a few weeks ago what happens when the activists go after a candidate they feel is inadequate – and we all know how that turned out. If MoveOn and their ilk pushed an ultraLib in the GA-08 primary and somehow managed to knock out Marshall, they would find themselves likely losing a seat in the general. Call it bizzaro NY-23 if you will.

Now while I do agree with you – I disagree in part. I think there are times when it becomes necessary to write someone off. While they may vote with you 80-90% of the time, if they continually buck you when you need them then it is worth the risk. Let’s talk hypothetically, what if Pelosi had lined up the votes and only had 217. She needed one more. She sets in on Marshall – but he refuses to yield. She finds the vote elsewhere. About a month later, another big vote comes up that is part of the Democrat platform – same conundrum. At some point you have to draw the line. Typing that reminds me of a portion of the book “Tell Newt to Shut Up!” in which the authors detail how Newt kept track of who took so called “allotment” votes.

What I am getting at, and I guess I have done so in a very wordy fashion, is that perhaps yes it is better to have 90% of something – but there is no difference in 90% of something and 100% of nothing when you know you can not count on either.

What you suggest would more closely resemble a republic—which we once had.

So, +1 for the Constitution.

On the other hand, if he breaks things down into a ‘freedom-vs.-control’ analysis, his commitments become much easier to recognize and stand by.

Are liberals willing to sacrifice a quasi-consistent vote for a shot at a more “progressive” Congressman?

The short answer to this question is an emphatic yes.

The long answer draws from the words of GOP moderate Christine Todd Whitman:

“To these ideological zealots, unless you oppose every gun control measure–including assault-weapons bans–you’re not a real Republican. Unless you oppose abortion in every instance–including in cases of rape or incest–you’re not a real Republican.”

“Too many of them would rather be ‘right’ than be in power.”

In other words, liberal organizations like MoveOn.org and Democracy for America would rather have an ideologically pure Democrat that supports Obama at every turn and toes the party line than maintain the current Democratic majority.

It’s why they went after Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman in 2006. Lieberman voted with the Senate Democratic Caucus over 90% of the time. But his support of the Iraq war lead to his primary challenge by Ned Lamont.

One of my favorite sayings is, “It’s better to have 90% of something, than to get 100% of nothing.”

Democrats John Barrow and Jim Marshall are 90% of something. If the liberal activists and bloggers ever get their way, and actually defeat those two Congressmen, then the Democratic Party will be stuck with 100% of nothing.

btw… I don’t live in the district and there probably won’t be a libertarian on the ballot due to access… so if I did live there , I’d most likely be supporting Valerie (aka, The Other Valerie). Marshall is ruled by the wind, not by principles.

Exactly. I’m getting sick of hearing this. How is requiring everyone to have insurance, bad for insurance companies? Think GA Power and guaranteed profits. These people really do need to get a clue.