It sounds intuitive that a state that skews strongly blue would be attracted by a rep from a district that does likewise.

Though, be it noted - the reasons that Keyes gives for this are not ideological:

First, if a representative must run a difficult race every two years, he or she has little opportunity to amass a large amount of money that would help in his or her bid for higher office.

Second, it is possible that even though they are not given difficult general election campaigns, congressmen from more partisan districts likely had to win a difficult primary to win their House seat - honing their campaign skills in the process - rather than a difficult general election.

Right now, there is no real difference between pleasing the majority of American voters and pleasing the Democratic base.

Obviously, the country as a whole is purple.

The point you're making on, eg, Iraq, is not a point about the opinion of blue America, but about that of purple America.

Which may be true, but isn't advanced by the Keyes proposition.

Obviously, I have been "abandoned" by my fellow Democrats, if I were to believe Krugman.  Don't get me wrong, I do like Krugman but he is capable of being an ass.

Take, for example, I am a self-identified "aggressive" Moderate of the center-left.  Thus, I believe in a single payer Universal Health Care Systemic residing within the VA's Medical Care and Hospital system.  Additionally, I believe in reinstituting the military draft as an "academic-military" draft in order to provide some upwardly mobile economic development tools for those in need, as well as halting the continuing our "abuse" of our men and women in uniform. Ya' know that Important Demographic, the one-third of one percent of our population?  

But I fear that Krugman may end up like George Will and for having written four thousand columns without ever having addressed the "need" for Egalitarianism in America.

Jaango

Krugman:

The only risk the party now faces is excessive caution on the part of its politicians. Or, to coin a phrase, the only thing Democrats have to fear is fear itself.

That is assuming that Democratic politicians regard Democratic voters as their constituency. There is a large segment of the Democratic leadership (as in DLC) that considers the rich and powerful as a significant part of its base. In a polarized electorate, such politicans must dissemble and triangulate because they serve two masters and we all know what the Good Book says about a person who serves two masters.

There are some issues like the Iraq War where independents are moving to where the left has been for a long time, however there are many issues that they may still have on the right.  The Iraq War may take precedent right now and get a Democrat elected,  then when that is solved economic policy may be more important and they may vote Republican.

What I am saying is not that there are voters who are necessarily in the middle (where middle means the middle ground on every issue).  There are many voters who are both left and right depending on the issue.  That is why voters crave someone who can reach across the aisle and find those common sense compromise solutions.

As a member of the cranky, "things were better in my day" whining . . . 55 and older set," as Chris puts it, I can remind everyone that we were winning important battles then, when I was young, battles against Jim Crow, battles about employment discrimination against women and people of color, battles against DDT.

After which progress stopped for a couple of decades; in fact, there was regression. I still can hardly believe that so many people voted for Ronnie, W, stupidity, and hatred.

Only now do I see hope of getting back on the right path---but there is so much mess to clean up. I don't expect to live long enough to see what seemed to be imminent when I was 20.

Since 2002, 36 sitting congressmen have run for higher office, half of whom won. However, representatives from competitive districts - those with a PVI of between D+5 and R+5 - were considerably less successful, winning just five of their thirteen races.

How in the world is that "considerably less successful"?  "Half" for the smaller group - 13 races - would be 6-7 wins.  Five wins is just one win removed.  Unless all the eight losses were landslides, we're talking about a fluke difference here.

This is not evidence of a difference.  Your argument would be stronger without it, Chris.

Why does Krugman hate Obama?  It must be his evil pro-Edwards bias.  It's like he's doing Karl Rove's work for him.

Also, 3, 6, 15, and 27.

The ability of both parties to compromise on the issues and become diluted brands, is what you are seeing here not america's loss of independence.

The democratic senate majority leader famously stated "we support the president's war" in 2002 or thereof (tom daschle)

This despite those of us who were shocked that such heavyhanded foreign policy could be rolled out and were , albeit a minority party - relying upon our representation to save us.

The overwhelming majority of the candidates who have won, have expressed independent views - in 2006. For example , Jim Webb in Virginia - has several and has been one of the strongest voices in the senate, and authored a plan to stop the war in iran before it happens.

But stopping war does not necessarily identify a person as a democrat, thats the point. The election in 04 was a referendum on the war - with those who were prescient, going with kerry.

The simple fact is that as long as both parties continue to take massive contributions from lobbyists and allow them to write the legislation, there will be no reason to party identify and most people will not bother to identify one way or another.

I thought you of all people, chris would have realized that there is a difference between polls and real life data - after all didn't the exit polls show that kerry had won florida?

in real life there is a huge number of dissatisfied voters, who today are basically in caucus with the democrats - but the senate's ability, for example - to have been able to kill off almost all of the work of the house - lets everyone quietly know that its still a paid vacation in DC for everyone and not necessarily such a wonderful democratic base and solid path forward for partisanship

in fact, if i might add- the one party that partisanship has served more than any other in this past two terms has been the GOP - and what did it get them? Terri Schiavo

i feel that partisanship without the resolved issue of legislation actually being written by and for the people , is like going to your doctor and having him give you the medicine he prescribed for the rich patient that went in before you just .

I will go one further - in fact, i believe that just as a doctors office gets free samples that are sometimes given to patients for the purpose of essentially a test - without really being exactly appropriate - that americans get alot of legislation that is written broadly with a huge amount of loopholes and variations on theme, and then like the colorful brochure that comes with the medication, the only view they see of it, is the neat subscript that tells them they'll feel better and skips the fact that the doctor would otherwise prescribe something else, based on their pain as opposed to someone elses dissimiliar situation.

Corporations have unprecedented control over american institutions.  Corporate money is heading to the democrats, a democrat will win the white house. this is clear.

but not because there are no independents.

Maybe you should post this on the Obama blog.

 chris  is right that we focus upon building the courage and stamina of our own apparent majority.  marginalize them instead, by repeatedly noting their minority positions on most all issues.  

we repeat the apparent truth:  that we are the goddam majority on most issues while  the rightwing is a minority pocketful o' pus. i say we repeat this reality every interview, every article.  repetition of this reality will brand it.  i at least hope it might.

we remain trapped in our feckless 'beaten dog' posture, even while we hold a majority in both houses.  'not veto proof'  does not mean 'minority party'.  confidence does not need apology or a stooped posture.

Check out Sirota today: CAUSE & EFFECT: The Anatomy of a Big Progressive Victory

Montana Dems have pressured Baucus to back off his support of fast track. This article is full of goodies.

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/ind ex.cfm?mode=entry&entry=FB0166DB-E0C 3-F08F-99B81725D937DE44