I just drove through Connecticut. It's a state I dislike. Like Delaware, I'm only ever there trying to get someplace else. Plus, while at no point in 1-95's long concourse is it a pleasant drive. Kudos for folliage, and I've spent some pleasant hours in Mystic, but beyond that, I could live without Connecticut.
But really this is a political post. To answer John's question: where I live is a Dem machine, so I don't even think the congressional race is contested. Hillary Clinton gets my Senate vote -- New York republicans are on the verge of a collapse similar to that of the Tories under John Major. Their one hope is that they will win the state comptroller job because of a democratic scandal.
I'd been quite insulated from campaigning, until I drove through Connecticut. There, on the overpasses, stood earnest, hairy young activists with big Lamont signs, urging us to honk if we love their candidate.
Nobody was honking.
Despite some reacent poll blips, I think the Dems are going to take the House. If they don't, the Dems are well on their way to becoming the new Whigs, and the only hope for multiparty democracy will be a split in the Republican party. Senate will be Republican, and for Supreme Court purposes you, John, will have little to worry about even if it goes Democratic because I suspect the Senate will be much more pro-life than ever before.
Which brings up the question: will different electoral outcomes actually lead to different outcomes? I don't think Bush can do anything to get impeached. I don't think there's a good war strategy out there, as rob_said, it's a clusterfuck. The budget problems continue. Kaus wants to make immigration the issue, but I think all sides have been so chastened that they are not likely to move very quickly.
The one area that I think could make a difference: statehouses. And the ensuing gerrymandering.
It's all so depressing.