Out of a total of 5,697 votes cast by Dem reps in the 29 votes, 931 (or 16%) were cast for the GOP position. And - we're saying - these are votes on passage (or the equivalent) of bills where the ideological divide between the parties is supposed to be at its most acute!

The total votes cast for (7,157) and against (5,098) left an aggregate margin of victory of 2,059.

But - had the Dems united against the GOP on these votes, the margin would have been reduced - to just 197!

Moreover, taking the 29 votes individually, and flipping the pro-GOP votes of Dem reps to the Dem side changes the result in six of them:

• CAFTA

• Energy bill

• Endangered species bill

• Online freedom of speech bill

• PATRIOT Act renewal

• Illegal immigration bill

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that the Dems lost six votes they might have won: given the dynamic nature of the problem, there are things besides mere arithmetic to consider: such as catch-and-release.

But calling attention to catch-and-release is not a magic charm to absolve Dems from their responsibilities: it works both ways.

The argument that the GOP could have strongarmed enough of their reps to pass the bill even if the Dems had been united against it may be true in some cases (though perhaps fewer than drutherful renegade Dems might suppose).

But not only (it's a point often made, though not often enough) does that Dem support allow a lighter touch from GOP whips which buys them favors down the line from whipees.

But one has also to consider the general erosion in discipline that widespread Dem defections on key votes tends to cause among the Dem House party as a whole.

The balance of defection is clear: on the 29 votes, an average of 32 Dems supported the GOP line. The average of GOP reps supporting the Dem line was just 10. (In 12 out of 29 votes, 40 or more Dems supported the GOP position.)

Now, the last time that the Dems controlled the House with a small majority under a GOP prez was the 72nd, Hoover's second Congress, under the speakership of Cactus Jack Garner. There's obviously no experience of this in the current House, and it's not the sort of thing to leave to improv.

Clearly, plans need to be being drawn up now by the Dem House leadership - and those with pretensions to challenge for leadership positions! - to manage such a situation.

If it's all being handled with the organizational skills devoted to the publication of the much-touted Dem Contract with America - we can all give up right now!

(Kidding.)

(No, really!)