In fact, I don't think America will elect an anti-war candidate.
Yeah because the war is sooooooooooo popular, right? That's why pro-war candidates did so well in 2006.
Yes. Joe Lieberman was pro-war and re-elected.Do you really think he won BECAUSE of his pro-war position rather than in spite of it?
Areas in Florida and the South didn't trend democrat.
The Democrats picked up 3 seats in Florida, one of which was stolen. There wasn't so many gains in the rest of the south, but so what? We're talking about the whole country.
Almost all the races were atleast within a few points
See, this is what happens when incumbents lose. Landslides happen when incumbents face weak opponents. Any competitive race, which of course includes pick-ups, is obviously going to be fairly close. Despite that there was several notable landslides, including where a 20+ year moderate Republican was beaten by a hardcore liberal in a district Kerry only won by half a point. That sort of stuff doesn't happen every election.
and most new democrats elected were moderates...not liberals.
A few notable examples != majority.
Let's look at the new Senators:
Brown = ultra-liberal
Klobuchar = liberal
Tester = liberal
McCaskill = somewhat moderate
Casey = socially moderate, economically ultra-liberal
Cardin = liberal
Webb = a former Republican, but so far he's been nothing but liberal
Whitehouse = liberal
So you have two semi-moderates and the rest liberal. The ratio in the House is quite similar, and even the moderates there are not moderate on the war. So far every one voted against the troop surge and for the troop withdrawl timetable. You don't have an ounce of evidence to back up your claim most newly elected Democrats were pro-war and still no evidence that opposing a very unpopular war makes one unelectable.
Also take a look at what my newly elected Congressman Tim Walz has said:
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1117721.html
Poll
