It’s not only elections that have consequences. Shortsighted self-centered stupidity has consequences too:

Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold not only refused to support the financial-reform bill that President Obama signed into law yesterday; he also refused to support an up-or-down vote on the legislation, joining the Republican filibuster. At the time, I had some harsh words for his decision. Now, a group of scholars have done some data analysis and come to an interesting conclusion: Feingold “let principle get in the way of making the bill modestly more progressive. Ironically, by refusing to support a bill that he considered too modest, he ensured that the bill would be more conservative and favorable to banks.”
[...]
…the analysis offers a compelling case that Feingold weakened the bill through his procedural objections. In the knife-edge Senate, Harry Reid would have a much stronger negotiation position with Feingold’s support. Now, as then, it is a shame that by joining a filibuster to ostensibly protest weak reform, Feingold weakened it further.

And it’s not as if it was hard to foresee, either, that this would be the inevitable effect of Feingold’s conscientious objections to the bill. Because Feingold took the position he did, an extra Republican had to be brought on board. He was bound to demand his price, and get it.

Too bad Russ Feingold doesn’t get that.