Actually, it's just a word to the wise that if you don't want Ricky to lose, you'll pay more attention to his votes and work to make sure that he doesn't alienate more voters. Why would you want to ignore that?
Apart from wanting to be sure that the Dems don't have any gains in the Senate, I don't have much stake in PA politics. I was simply pointing out that the tactic that CG was using was a rhetorical trick: making good the enemy of the perfect. It is a logical fallacy, regardless of the pros and cons of the argument it is employed to support.
Sloppy arguments do not advance any causes. If CG wants to argue to withhold votes from Santorum, she needs a better supporting reason than that he isn't ideologically pure enough. That is arguing for demolishing a building because you don't like the carpet. Meanwhile, your opponent wants to build a landfill on the building site.