My LaMont/Lieberman Analysis
In mid-term elections, local issues matter. And party faithful get angry, and get out the vote, and sometimes they do it enough to actually change the balance of power in, say, the House of Representatives. Those who say the lefty Democrats, the ones who are willing to point out that Bush's Iraq adventure is a disaster and was a bad idea originally, who are apparently "weak" on defense, i.e. unwilling to use unprovoked violence in third world countries -- those who say the lefty Democrats can't succeed are wrong. Party faithfulness matters in mid-term elections; issues are framed so much different than in Presidential elections. Oh, John Kerry's a traitor to his country for speaking out against Vietnam? That's the margin Karl Rove, Architect, Esq. needed to let Bush continue his insane policies for four more years. But how do you paint hundreds of Democrats in the same way? Can't be done; one party becomes upstart while the other falters. And with Americans worried about dwindling incomes for middle-income folks, lacking basic health insurance because it costs $200 a month for anything decent, and watching Iraq turn into a "babysit this civil war" war, the brushstrokes, once so strong, don't have the authority they once did. See, the reality community has something on the Bushies: uhh, well, reality.