There's some blog way down in Abbalama (pronounced just like that) purporting that some congressional Democrat is considering switching parties, becoming the Republican that so many of his vocal constituents aren't yelling at furiously. In there, someone blindly and ignorantly threw in the name Mike Ross as someone who might switch, being a conservative Democrat from a conservative state and being a headlining name for the time being.
Mike Ross, by the way, had to state for the record that he was remaining a Democrat. No news here; Ross has been loyal to the Democratic party since his days of driving around then-Gov. Bill Clinton. The Arkansas Democrat is a strange bird indeed, but it's been classified -- it's just a more conservative bird than the average.
But that just got me thinking about how dumb it would be for a politician to switch parties. I see no gain in it.
The obvious reason is the threat of inevitable defeat, which, I guess, makes it all okay. If a politician truly believes that a change of party has a better shot of winning than staying put, it is incumbent upon his survival to do so, no matter how embarressing. But even then, your numbers have to be terrible already.
Even then, it doesn't make sense though. Sometimes, like in the case of Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, you flee the party due to primary opposition. The best case scenario is seeing the opposition you fled in November instead of the spring, albeit, you'd be in a more favorable pool, assuming you make it through the primary of a party you obviously joined for purely political motives, rather than a "change of heart."
Ask Specter what he's thinking about those polling numbers these days, after the switch. Kinda makes Sen. Lincoln thank her lucky stars.
Othertimes, fleeing comes from the toxicity of one's native party. In the South (Sou-Prize, Sou-Prize, Sou-Prize!!!), Democrats are not viewed favorably. When it was a conservative Democrat running the show, it was tolerable for their conservative constituency to vote them in. Now, with Obama's admittedly more-liberal-than-most agenda, these Democrats not in the leadership roles are finding it hard to wear the same Democratic pins as those their constituency outright loathes.
For this Bama Boy, he would likely serve his constituency better by being a coveted swing vote than by being a roster addition to the weakened minority. As a Democratic swing vote, concessions could be made to make sure there's party unity. Take Ross, again, for example. He was able to fashion his health care halting not by being a conservative, but by being a conservative Democrat. And (no matter what Tim Griffin, the bullpen bully, is trying to rouse) Ross is sitting comfortably in Arkansas' Fourth.
To me, it just doesn't make a lot of sense. If you've got bad numbers, YOU've got bad numbers, and they'll likely follow you wherever you go, be that to the right or left. Bad luck, perhaps, forecasts that Democrats are up for a tough re-election in 2010. That's just the way it is. But for those who do jump ship, and trust me you'll see more, the uncharted waters will be just as untamed as their raging home seas.
The best bet would be to weather the storm.
I've been getting a few emails, calls, and such about this Harry Reid character in the Senate and his comments about my former and beloved employer, Stephens Media, where I worked for the Arkansas News Bureau as recently as July. 
Posts
