For Pete's sake, Orrin: why would we want them to leave the Democrats? Better to have most of the neocons move over to join them, to keep the Party sane. The more polarized our parties become (and recall that the polarization on ideological grounds of the two parties was one of the prime projects of the liberals of the 50s and 60s), the more we remark our political system into a plescitary entity designed to facilitate the exercise of sheer nake will by the victory majority. And it goes without saying (or, at least, IT SHOULD) that such a plescitary system is profoundly alien to our American tradition of compromise.

I should have proofread that last one.

plescitary = plebescitary
remark = remake

Paul:

Because adding Lieberman, the Nelsons, Lincoln, etc. would give us a filibuster breaking majority and the Senate until the next Depression?

Well, that is true; but it would also leave us with a national party -- a diminished but still formidable one -- of consummate political insanity.

Wouldn't it be better to work on Nelson, Lieberman, et al to go the Zell Miller route? Vote with the Republicans on big important issues, but remain Democrats?

There's a name for people who vote Republican...Republicans.

It's a thousand to one shot, but I have wondered whether Lieberman would consider moving across the aisle after he gets treated worse the Al Sharpton at the convention.

David -

What odds would you give (where Liberman is 1000:1) Ed Koch? He has at least said he will vote for W.

David:

Here's our order of likelihood:

(1) Jim Jeffords returns to the fold.

(2) Ben Nelson (NE)

(3) Bill Nelson (FL)

(4) Joe Lieberman

Jeffords a Republican again? Are you serious? When you're a senator, abandoning your party to cozy up to the opposition isn't like changing your voter registration, it's more like running off with your sister-in-law: a no-turning-back sort of thing.

I can't see Koch switching. He's not in office or looking to run for anything, so there's no point to it and, so far, whenever I've heard him say he supports Bush, he always reaffirms his love for the Democratic party. But I do think that his support is emblematic of the good chance W has to run a competitive campaign in NY.

I hope the chances against Jeffords are a Google to 1, not because he wouldn't want to, but because the party wouldn't let him in.

He tried rejoining in November '02, but Lott brushed him off. Frist will let him.

I don't think Frist will, or should. What do they say...an example.... por encouage les outres (to encourage the others)?

Jeffords might be able to return to the Republican Party but, if he did, he wouldn't return to the Senate unless the people of Vermont are stone cold crazy.

Then again, they did elect Dean governor.....

I don't agree about Jeffords - loyalty is prized too highly (especially by Bush, not to mention many Senators). He is a non-entity, which is the way it should be.

And forget the DLC - it is a huge mistake to say that they are Republican in all but name. None of them has an ACA (?) rating of probably even 35.

I will agree, however, that if 5 or 10 prominent members of Congress switch (the Nelsons, Stenholm, etc.) the Democratic party will probably have to exile Dean, Kerry, Clark, and even Bill & Hillary Clinton to Paris for the rest of their lives. There will be some interesting goings-on, particularly in the House, because if Daschle loses next year, Nancy Pelosi will be the highest ranking Democrat in the nation. Whooo.

Lieberman won't switch - he is too tied to the Clinton nipple now.

Lieberman has a far-left spouse. He can't become a Republican without risking divorce.

Jeffords can become a Republican again. It would hardly be as shameful as switching to Independent right after the election. Republican Senators would welcome him - they just won't buy his "loyalty," having seen what's worth. Lott brushed him off because he wanted an arm and a leg to return. Frist will do the right thing - drive a hard bargain, but smile and be friendly doing it.

Jeffords will check polling numbers on his 2006 re-election chances before he jumps back, and will probably also wait to see the post-2004 Senate alignment. But a victory by Bush in Vermont in 2004 if Dean is the Democratic candidate may speed up the process a wee bit and save Jim some polling expences.

Wait'll Leahy loses...

PJ-

Jeffords has the same problem as Lieberman - and his wife already has shown once that she is willing to leave him.

Jeffords retires to a cozy lecturer position at Harvard.

I still don't buy Jeffords actually changing the 'I' behind his name back to an 'R' and being re-elected. It would take a Revlon warehouse full of lipstick to pretty up that pig, and would still be a tough sell.

I can see Frist letting him back into the caucus to solidify him as the de facto 60th Republican vote, if that's both necessary and possible after the '04 elections.

Until then he's better swinging on his gibbet as an example to keep Snowe, Chaffee, Specter, et al from trying the same maneuver.

I'm not suggesting a similar realignment in this election, but at the same point in his realigning presidency--his first re-election in 1936--FDR pushed the Democratic majority in the Senate to 75-21. If the Democrats do implode the numbers will get very, very ugly.