Mark,

I did read it, that is what angered me. And I stand by my assertion: No new arguments, no new information, just unjustified oracular conviction. I *DID* miss the date it was published. I first read it a week ago, and mis-interpreted your prediction to include this late trial period (which made the claim all the more ludicrous).

Still, I would have bet you the same money on the day you published it. It seems to me that your other writing suggest that you are not so out of touch with actual behaviors that you would not have accepted the bet. Perhaps you would have.

I will note this: anyone that bets that 16 members of the GOP (or either party) is going to vote in a way that diminishes their own chance for re-election is simply not watching what is happening. Your other writings do not suggest this level of misunderstanding.

But you have no choice but to accept one of two different summaries of this piece:

— disingenuous

— dramatically uninformed regarding empirically established behavior.

There is NOTHING is recent GOP behavior to suggest such a strong move against their own future re-election. And overwhelming evidence of a “close ranks” response to all threats.

(Hehe, as a poly sci guy, I might prefer to be known as occasionally disingenuous. And don’t take this attack too seriously… your other writings are good, and life it too short.)

Still if there really WAS nothing disingenuous about this post, then you will become a better poly sci guy, by becoming more of an empiricist… I know how things are **supposed** to be, but if you don’t occasionally look at how they actually ARE, then your opinions will have little value. (this is not a large attack on you personally, it is really closer to a critique on the entire Democratic party at the moment. one must actually look… if one wants to see.)

I do apologize for not catching the date of publication!