Explain, please. If the fact that some places were affected and other weren't, wouldn't that lead to the conclusion that some of the changes are regional, as opposed to national.
I might be stepping too far into the big leagues here but I'll try to tackle that one. I think Alcon is saying that some of these races are being nationalized because of the issues and the unpopularity of the President nationwide. Usually, these places (some districts in Indiana, for example) wouldn't be hurt that badly but since it is seen as more of a nationalized midterm year, the traditionally safe members might fall. I'd say that it's not regional because races are being affected all over the country, regardless of the state, ideology, party breakdown, etc.
Where'd your weldon sign go? As to the point, I think that in a national wave sometimes it is more likely for unprepared imcumbents to go down. Thus, in places like Indiana, the unprepared gotta go (though Hostetler has always been in trouble)... while in Connecticut Simmons knows how to win and thus is doing it.....
