Permit me to offer a meaner, less civil version of an argument I put forth on TKS recently:

Angry GOP grassroot voter: I’m mad as hell at the Republicans in office! They’re terrible on immigration and spending! I’m staying home this year to teach them a lesson!

Jim: You realize that there’s absolutely no chance that a Democratic-controlled Congress will seriously crack down on illegal immigration.

Angry GOP grassroot voter: Yes, but I’m really angry!

Jim: And you realize that despite your dreams of a paralyzing gridlock, there’s almost no chance that a Democratic-controlled Congress would spend less than a Republican one?

Angry GOP grassroot voter: Yes, but I’m really angry!

Jim: And you realize that putting Robert Byrd in charge of the appropriations committee to fight pork and earmarks is like putting Bill Clinton in charge of babysitting your hot teenage daughter?

Angry GOP grassroot voter: Yes, but I’m really angry!

Jim: And you realize that the Democrats’ first order of business in the House would be impeaching Bush and Cheney simultaneously?

Angry GOP grassroot voter: Yes, but I’m really angry!

Jim: And you realize that any future Supreme Court nominees until at least January 2009 would be whiny moderates who “grow” into liberals once they’re on the Court?

Angry GOP grassroot voter: Yes, but I’m really angry!

Jim: And you realize that the proper stance in the war on terror and/or Iran under Speaker Pelosi is to put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye?

Angry GOP grassroot voter: Yes, but I’m really angry!

Jim: And you realize that you’re also kinda retarded.

Cam: I’ve found that calling people I disagree with retarded is always a sure fire argument winner.

Just playing devil’s advocate here, it seems like what you’re suggesting is that as angry as conservatives are, they need to suck it up rather than send a message. Or at least the message that they send shouldn’t be to allow Democrats to take over either the House or the Senate.

The problem with that, of course, is that many conservatives are feeling that the Republicans aren’t all that conservative these days. They don’t see much of a difference between putting the Democrats in charge of appropriations and pork projects and the current state of affairs.

I know there are differences, and meaningful differences, but if you’re going to suggest that people don’t have reason to feel frustrated and angry, then I’m going to suggest that perhaps it’s you who should hop on the short bus.

Jim: I don’t usually practice name-calling; I save it for special occasions. I think it’s warranted for the most extreme cases of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.

As angry as conservatives are, they ought to realize that the best way to advance a conservative agenda is to replace a not-conservative Republican with a conservative one in primaries (like Laffey vs. Chafee, or Toomey vs. Specter), not to replace a Republican with a Democrat. (Okay, once in a great while, you will encounter a conservative Democrat against a liberal Republican, like Joe Lieberman vs. Lowell Weiker a few years back.)

I don’t see the choice between a GOP Congress and a Democratic Congress as the lesser of two evils. I find it a choice between a sometimes flawed, frustrating, and incumbentitis-plagued majority against a potentially-entrenched Congressional majority that is pretty much diametrically opposed to all of my priorities.

With the GOP majority, I get a certain percentage of what I want. Maybe it’s closer to 50 percent this year than 90 percent. With a Democratic majority, I will be lucky if I get 20 percent of what I want. Most conservative energy will be spent playing defense, not offense.

What’s really stunning is this certainty of angry conservatives that A) Republicans will learn the right lessons from the defeat, and not, say, respond in a panic by embracing their inner RINO and flailing around for MSM approval and B) that the Republicans can easily win back Congress in 2008, just by stiffening their spines and pledging to return to their conservative roots.

Do you have any idea what lengths Democrats will go to in order to keep power once they’ve got it? Does the “Fairness Doctrine” ring a bell? Got any doubts that Pelosi and Reid wouldn’t try that tactic to shut down conservative talk radio? How about McCain-Feingold 2.0, with a particular focus on controlling “unregulated speech” on the Internet and blogs?

Think the MSM was cheerleading for Democrats in 2004? How much more fair and balanced do you think they’ll be when their task is to defend Democratic House and Senate majorities AND elect President Hillary Rodham Clinton? My guess is, they’ll make the CBS memo story look accurate and evenhanded by comparison.

Think the GOP can prevail in close races once they’re out of power? Ask the members of the military who had their ballots in Florida blocked. Ask Doug Forrester how well his anti-Torricelli campaign worked when he suddenly faced Frank Lautenberg at the last minute. Ask Dino Rossi. Ask Democrat Tim Johnson if he’s glad the last county in South Dakota to report its results just happened to have enough of a Democratic margin to put him over the top in 2002.

Once the Democrats regain control of Congress, a GOP takeover is going to be exponentially harder than it was in 1994.

I am continually stunned that this all-or-nothing mentality is so widespread. Sometimes in life you have to use the West Coast offense, nickel and diming your way down the field instead of going for the long bomb. If I want a more conservative government, I get it by electing the more conservative of the two choices, even if he isn’t as conservative as I would like. I do not get it by sitting on the sidelines and pouting, and letting the less conservative guy take the reigns of power.

Marshall: Jim, your frustration is palpable, but applying logic to political analysis unfortunately isn’t the right way to go.

Voters vote their fear and their anger. Sometimes, in very particular circumstances, they vote their aspirations. Almost none cast their votes for Congress based on sending a message or swaying control of Congress. All of these analysts who are saying that conservative voters are lining up to send a message to Congress are wrong. They aren’t lining up to do anything. They’re disappointed in the people they elected — including and especially the President. They don’t want to vote for a Democrat. So they’re going to stay home. And Democrats will win.

Remember, the difference between a Democrat landslide and a Republican landslide is NOT about a bunch of people changing their votes from election to election. It’s about who shows at the polls on election day — and how many.