Senators from the opposite party that you are willing to vote for

[Orser67]

In a two-way race, none, because party control matters a lot more to me than individual candidates do. And it's not like there are any races on the horizon where the Republican will be to the left of the Democrat.

Things would be different in a three-way race a la Murkowski's re-election, where there's a conservative Republican, a relatively moderate Republican, and a Democrat who stands no shot at winning. Another similar scenario would be if the Democrat is pretty obviously a crook (e.g. if someone like Blagojevich somehow had the nomination).

In cases like that, I would happily vote for Murkowski, Collins, and Kirk, and wouldn't have a huge problem voting for Alexander, Corker, Flake, McCain, and Graham. I'd consider voting for Coburn, Burr, Hoeven, Wicker, Portman, Heller, Johanns, Cochran, and Chambliss. I might reluctantly vote for Ayotte, Rubio, Coats, Isakson, Boozman, and Blunt. For everyone else, I'd probably just vote for the Democratic, or write-in someone random.

[Orser67]

As it is - "person is everything for me, party - almost nothing"))))

Interesting. I don't think like that at all, but I can definitely respect where you're coming from. In some ways, I think it might be better if more people thought like that...we might have a greater chance of getting stuff done in Congress.

Regardless of what the say in terms of promises to the represent the state and not the party and so forth, when Reid needs them, they are there

I don't think this is true quite to the extent that you argue, but there's a lot of truth to what you say, which is a major reason why I wouldn't vote for a Republican. On any given attempt to get 60 votes, a Democrat from say Arkansas is gettable, while a Republican from Arkansas (usually) isn't. For that reason, when liberals say that someone like Pryor (or, before him, Ben Nelson) is no different from a Republican, I think it's a little silly.

[Orser67]

I get the distinct impression that Reid isn't very interested in the issue or is in some ways hostile to it himself and thus wasn't willing to twist the arms to get the job done.

To me it was a mix of a)gun control being a really tough issue for red state D's, b)the bill being watered down in the eyes of many Democrats, c)the Democrats needing one more Republican vote even if they kept all their own, and d)the fact that the bill probably wouldn't pass the House anyway.

I do think that part of the reason it sometimes feels like Democratic Senators are always there for Reid is that Reid (as would any competent party leader) picks his battles so that he doesn't try to bring up votes that conservative Democrats wouldn't vote for anyway.