The thing about Wisconsin is that it's not just Feingold who is a maverick; it's the voters here who are mavericks.  (This is, after all, the state that gave birth to the only third party in U.S. history that won the White House within six years and endures even to this day.)

And Feingold just does not seem to be such a maverick anymore.  He did better running against the Republican tide when it was in power, and running against the Dems when they didn't matter, than he does now in running with the Dem tide -- saying that he would not fold for the Dems on some big issues and bills but then doing so, after all.

The same Oregon team, in essence, scored a ton of points last year and then got whipped in the Rose Bowl.

And the word "Jugend" is used in Germany all the time and for all kinds of <gasp!> youth groups.

So I keep looking and listening, in the incessant ads (in the state with the most expensive race for Senate, plus we have a hugely funded governor's race and more) and the nonstop phone calls and the daily deluge of campaign literature, etc., etc., for what the Dems are giving as their positive incentive.

And I don't find it.  Do you?  What is the Dem agenda for the next two years, four years, six years?  

...we desperately need to get the corporate/private money out of elections, and publicly finance them; sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon, short of some sort of actual revolution.

It certainly means more than voting for the candidate whose positions I don't agree with in some misguided belief that that's a better way to send a message to Dems; the only message that sends is "I agree with the other party's agenda."

That's the only message sent by affirmatively casting a ballot for someone you don't agree with.

If I vote every other race on the ballot, my non-vote shows up as an undervote - as a deliberate decision not to vote for any candidate running for that particular office.

My conscience won't allow me to vote for candidates whose beliefs and agenda I abhor, and I'm tired of voting for mediocre candidates who are supposed to represent my views but increasingly regard those views as expendable in service to the corporatocracy.

My vote is a backup comment rather than the entire thesis.

Over the past 3 years my letters have been great in number. I get phone calls from their staffers, so I know my position is heard and considered.

From all I'm reading, it appears that many want congress to read their minds, or their comments on the blogs to figure out what the people want from them. If one letter doesn't get action, write another, and another, and another.

I do NOT like the way things have gone, but I do think that the Republicans set the Democrats up for this fall starting in 2007. Two years was not enough time for them to get their bearings, so millions of irritated Democrats are going to stand their ground and refuse to vote, or vote 3rd party (might as well not vote), either way, they are giving the power to the other side. Well, gosh. Goodbye to what little we have left. Thanks to the poor me voters.

If there is a silver lining to this, I sincerely hope it is that no Democrat will ever again decide to sit out an election.

On election eve, two other factoids stand out:  (1) As a teenager, when I first went to college in Indiana, Birch Bayh was elected Senator that year by 100 votes--1 vote per county. What a lesson in pragmatism/reality for me.  (2) In my wayback memory, I recall that the votes in the late Weimer Republic/Germany--circa 1933--were initially considered to be a sign of everything working well because the voter participation was quite low, which was thought then to mean a public satisfaction. Flash just shortly ahead to the naming of the new Chancellor then. Lesson for me: It makes a difference. In one way or another, the act of participation in voting involves us all in the process of governance (even in messy, nose-holding times.)

ignore the body of phone calls and e-mails and faxes

In sufficient quantities, by default, these will get any pols attention.  What I think people have to deal with is sometimes, the idea written, emailed, faxed, just ain't the best idea - for whatever reason.  It may be timing (political, economic) or too costly or some other reason.

While I know often times, the moneyed interest has all the clout, that does not mean they don't necessarily have the best answer.  A knee-jerk distrust of business does not necessarily = what's best for the people.  On the flip side, I read a Paul Krugman post the other day where he ridiculed those who bought into this line:

"How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?"

Regardless, it still seems like you might be setting up a rather high and high-minded bar for our merely mortal pols who will always be flawed and who will always have a non-pure and wide-ranging set of concerns to weigh the higher up they go on the food chain.

I'm disappointed with Reid (failure to fix the obviously broken filibuster system or push for major change back in 2006-7) and with O (long list, already discussed), and to some extent Pelosi (in 2006 taking impeachment off the table against Shrub).

But in all cases my disappointment is not quite great enough to punish them -- and me -- by staying home and enabling their opponents to gain power, which would result in a set of concerns for all of us far greater and more depressing than mere disappointment over our Dem reps.

Iow, unless the disappointment is of such magnitude that it's clearly crossed the line from disappointment to supporting someone representing actual evil -- as in 1968 and the War, if LBJ had decided to stay in the race -- my strong inclination is to back the Dem, particularly if by not doing so a snake of an evil Repub gets in.

In 1968, had I been old enough, I hope I would have been savvy enough to vote HHH even though he was badly flawed, because a) he still would have given us a better chance to end the war quickly compared to his opponent, and because b) his opponent was Richard Nixon.

Ditto 1972, despite McG's obvious flaws as a candidate.

And so on.

I could be wrong, but there is nothing either of these parties have up their sleeves that is going to give any of us a big ol' belly laugh anytime soon; you've chosen to protest vote for Republicans, who have no intention of making your life better, so "showing" those bad Dems how serious you are about your anger only hurts them to the extent those particular incumbents or candidates don't have a job come January.

Score!

Yeah, I've chosen not to vote for Dems I'm not happy with, but not voting for the Dem does not require me to vote for his or her opponent; I think my non-vote reflects my displeasure without rewarding the other side.

My vote matters too much to me to cast it for people I know do not have my best interests at heart, regardless of their party affiliation.

a healthcare bill won't cost my plan "one more dime"