I think Matthew Yglesias overstates the case against political science in this post about the solidarity Minnesota Republicans have shown in standing behind Norm Coleman:

It’s worth remarking a bit on the incredible solidarity the Minnesota GOP is showing with their colleagues’ broader interest in obstructing the inevitable here. Representatives John Kline, Erik Paulsen, and Michele Bachmann, along with Governor Tim Pawlenty, are all seeing their quest to get Minnesota’s fair share of pork and other parochial interests undermined by the fact that their state only has one Senator. Normally, I would expect politicians in that kind of situation to put the interests of themselves and their state ahead of the interests of their political party. In general, the level of party discipline that the Republicans have been able to muster in 2009 (thus far) is really impressive and goes against a lot of conventional wisdom about how the American political system operates. I hope some smart political scientists are doing some thinking about this.

There are many legitimate reasons to criticize political science, but I don’t think this is one of them. It is well-established that party loyalty generally takes precedence over “pork and other parochial interests” in the contemporary political system, particularly when it comes to a zero-sum game like a closely contested Senate race. (See, for instance, my adviser John Aldrich’s book Why Parties?)

Think about the incentives for the four individuals in question. The three House members Yglesias names are all likely to consider running against Franken in six years. Any effort to undermine Coleman now would doom their chances in a GOP primary and might poison their current relationships with party activists. Similarly, any national ambitions that Pawlenty holds would be ended if he turned on Coleman. Given those stakes, the minor bits of shared credit that Minnesota Republicans might obtain for helping Franken bring in pork are an incredibly minor factor.