The media will assess this similar to the way you have, as the great repub divide, because they always do, but it is nothing compared to the dems, who have shown in conn that they are going down in flames. It was 52-48 as I remember, and the spin was that the whole country is against the war, and the media bought into it hook, line and sinker. All it really showed is that the dem party is split right down the middle, not the whole country. Dems will get fried in 08, who cares about mid-terms.
Voters are the ones who face the choice. People didn't predict Kerry running, Clinton came out of nowhere in 2000. So much may change in a couple of years.
That's what makes it interesting. A year is a long time in politics, and we can't predict how voters will feel as the primary season unfolds. Clearly the Democrat Party has an anti-war, pacificist base that has a lot of sway in primaries. It has been there for nearly 40 years, so I don't think it is going to disappear in a year. But that base has not produced many national triumphs. In fact, the Democrats' few national wins, other than LBJ, were produced by candidates(Clinton and Carter) who ran as southern moderates, even though they were extremely liberal once safely in office. I see it as a risky gamble for a candidate to adopt a Lamont-like, cut and run platform. A marginal candidate like a Feingold or a fallen star like a Gore could use it to get back in contention, but the frontrunner, Hillary, clearly sees only danger to the left.
So much depends on what economy and Iraq are in a couple of years are, what is price of gasoline, etc. Terrorist events, etc. Waaay to early to make proclamations either way.
Yes, Lieberman votes 90% liberal (about the same as Hillary). McCain is about 60% conservative. Whether you call that difference large depends on what "large" means. Both are pretty liberal.
Once again bsmeter shows his complete stupidity on an ET Forum. Bsmeter, the elections are not rigged and you are not clever or funny.