Of course, we will end up with "values" and "aspirations" that are more like the opposition than not (a great irony of all the right wing vitriol currently being spewed), as we are all people who would rather thrive than not.  We all love our children and want a better world for them.  We all have a survival instinct, as all living creatures do, from the most complex to the single cell variety. We all want what makes us happy.  And that is food, shelter and love, and the chance to do better.  To put a little extra in our and our family's and community's pockets for a little enjoyment or future security.

a more progressive Democratic caucus

In fact, it is just as plausible that something entirely different that either 1995-1996 or 2007-2008 could happen if Republicans take control of the House next year.  The point is that just because political events unfolded a certain way in the past doesn't mean they would unfold that way in the future.

And it's worth noting that the 1995-1996 scenario depended on a politician (Bill Clinton) who was a master of the political comeback.  

Most politicians aren't masters of the comeback.

Another likely scenario is the 1979-1980 one.  The '78 congressional elections saw a slip from 61 to 58 seats in the Senate, and a loss of 15 seats in the House.  Not a major power shift, but it set the stage for the 1980 election.

So, how do you turn the goal into reality instead of something you dust off every two years to raise money with so you can guilt and scare people into voting for you?

Well, riffing off Seinfeld, it seems they know how to identify the goals, but they don't know how to reach the goals.

Or, is there a disconnect between what our goals are and what they are willing to settle for?

I'm guessing that if they had all 535 seats in the Congress, the minority view would still win; maybe the answer is that the "progressives" and the conservatives need to duke it out to see which one is the minority and can wield all the leverage.  Nah, because as soon as they did that, the rules of this ridiculous game would change and the progressives would still be on the outside looking in.

The problem with Obama is that far too many people..think of him as an ally who needs to be persuaded rather than an enemy who needs to be opposed.

"I for one have decided that I simply will not vote for another elected official until Hyde is overturned and I hope others will do the same. There is no reason for prochoice voters to accept Democratic pussyfooting around on repealing Hyde."

I'm wondering if this anger will stay strong or fade, be muted by calls to save the House! Save Obama's presidency!

Thoughts?

Are "progressives" a majority or a minority of that coalition? I don't know. That's largely a matter of definition.

Should "progressives" be a majority of the governing coalition? I don't know about that either. I'd rather we'd be a vanguard, a leading edge, pushing ideas whose time has not yet come.

I do know that a progressive majority of a governing coalition won't control that coalition. The members most subject to defection or defeat will always have more leverage when it comes to bargaining out the details and direction of legislative packages.