What's missing is:

When the ConservaDems lose their seats, they get to slide right over to cushy lobbying jobs - their hirings helped all the more by their shilling for the industries while in office.

And they don't give a crap about what it does to the American people.

Cha-ching!

Pessimistic, I know, but...

Actually, it seems to me that those who are in battleground districts are the ones with the most to lose. If the flame is doused from those who were fired up for change, then they won't come out to vote, leaving the member vulnerable.

I think members like Sen. Lincoln are just LAZY. She served in the House from what, '92 or '93 'til 1996, and then later ran for Senate in '98. It's 2009...she knew she'd have tough races, so you'd think she'd do more to insulate herself: constituent "care and feeding," attaching herself to a high profile issue, whatever. Pick a strategy, act on it--and move on.

I don't think she has it that much harder than say, Sen. Hagans, and Hagans just got there.

Lincoln is not new. She did not just arrive to DC. All the commotion when she or some other alleged "centrist" has to vote on something...geeze, I'm just over it.

Can't hear ya, Peach!

"But, it's the conservative Democrats who are most likely to lose their jobs. So, is there something missing from this example?"

You're assuming that intolerance for incompetency and inaction is limited to moderate and conservative districts.  Why?

The reality is that not only will health care reform not be seriously addressed again in my lifetime nor my teenage son's lifetime, I think it would take just as long for Democrats to regain a majority in Congress.  I doesn't matter where you stand on the ideaological spectrum; from any vantage point, it is becoming increasingly undeniable that Democrats can not govern.  

Progressives can blame moderates and moderates can blame progressives, but it doesn't matter because the American public will blame all Democrats in 2010. It is a kick in the ass to the entire country to have been dragged through this emotional battle for almost a year and come up with nothing.  I actually think it will be healthy to see a lot of ineffective Democrats who have been holding their seats on name recognition to be primaried.

a blind Obama adorer.  If you weren't you'd probably remember that Obama hired huge war criminals to work for him in Afghanistan too.

So, why would they be so indifferent to massive electoral losses?

They are not committed to being members of Congress forever.  Maybe they survive long enough to vest their pension and get healthcare.  Maybe not, but they have been paid to represent interests that want to block healthcare reform.  And they might just have a follow-up career working or lobbying for those same interests.

It's very simple. They.do.not.care.about.their.constituents.

It only takes a look at a map showing the number of uninsured per state to see that.

And then there's Joe "the Maverick" Lieberman, who uses it for media attention.

50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

This is not something that is going on only in politics, or only in Washington.

The attitude of 'We can live with failure' is almost everywhere I look.
 In their minds it's 'I want things to stay as they are', but because the status quo is failing so thoroughly, Americans are now buying into failure.

It just seems to me that the America of only a few years ago is gone. There is not much 'we can do that' left in my generation.  In the organizations I belong to in the fun side of my life it is just a fact that if you want to change directions or try something new, you have to go young for solutions. 55 years old and above? Forget it, they have no desire for anything that even gives the appearance of ..... sharing. Even when it does not effect them at all.

Throughout history people my age have insisted young people are spoiled and worse than they. I have no such illusions. Young people these days are so much better and nicer and inclusive of 'different' than the 55 and above.

I have always believed that for true progress to be made on race in America we have to wait until everyone born before 1960 is either dead or out of influence. Now I believe it's not only race, but in order to achieve any progress at all, on anything. The next twenty years will be a holding pattern, trying to keep damage to a minimum.

nalbar

The answer?  Identity politics.  The conservative democrats think that people in their home state won't reward them for doing the right thing if its identified as a liberal/Obama bill.  They love the public option in polls but they dislike Obama and liberals.  This really is just one part of the larger problem that people in the south generally like progressive reforms but vehemently dislike the people identified with such reforms.  The actions of the conservative dems don't make sense rationally, but then again, southern voters aren't rational.  I agree that the conservative dems are playing their political hand poorly, but there is a method to their madness.  They are playing to the irrational/emotional aspect of their constituent.  They know that the public option is popular in their homestate, but they don't think they are going to be rewarded for supporting it.  

Benen seems to be talking about issue-orientation, not electoral politics. The DINOs can live with failure because they don't care that much about the social consequences, which they don't expect to be blamed for. The progressives do care, so they can't live with failure. Many of the Lincolns and Nelsons probably felt threatened by Obama's image as a change-bringer, and so are at some level willing to see him go down in flames.

I suspect one reason for their seeming inability to read their constituents is the weird inability to factor intensity into their calculations. They assume that whatever happens, Dem voters will remain in the fold no matter what happens. They apparently can't imagine that any sellout on their part will affect turnout enough to endanger their reelection. They are frightened by loud crazies on the other side, and thus far out side has not managed to produce much in the way of passionate public anger to counterbalance that.

They listen to precisely the wrong people because that's where their "friends" are -- the ones who give them the big bucks and the ersatz deference. And those "friends", of course, would be happy to see them replaced by a Republican. They fall for Iago every damn time.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

the conservative Dems could care less about their constituents, and believe that folks are dumb and will believe their lies. I want a nice chunk of them gone.

I call this the Al Wynn/Clinton/Daschle problem. They sell out the dems in order to pave the way for more lucrative lobbying careers. You didn't really "punish" Al Wynn by voting him out of office. Al makes more money in the private sector which is why he quit early...

It's one reason why I think we should start a new party and install a plank that bars employment with industry lobbying groups after public service.

What job do you think former insurance lobbyist Jason Altmire will do once his "public service" has ended? The conservadems will make money in the private sector and that's why we can't put pressure on them. We need to put in our own people that we can trust. I'll repeat my wild eyed 5/25 plan: shoot for 5 senate seats (looks pretty big now doesn't it?) and 25 house seats. Our goal should be to keep congressional majorities once the conservadems are gone...

The Grayson moneybombs show that we can run real campaigns. You need 300000 grand for a credible house run and 2 million for credible senate runs...

Philip Shropshire http://www.threeriversonline.com

I say the answer is fear. It is appalling to witness the number of Democratic professionals on both the legislative and political sides who believe that what the Washington Post, Politico, various TV pundits constantly say - "move right; you'll be punished if you are seen as a liberal" etc. - is revealed Truth. All of the arguments that have been used to change minds - a 'no' vote will depress your base turnout, Republicans won't spare you if you vote against reform, strong legislation becomes more popular once it gets passed, you may get primaried, etc. - fall on deaf ears. Too many Democrats are just credulous fraidy cats, and believe - with two huge Democratic victories as contrary evidence - that this is a 'conservative' country.