It's "bellwether", not "bellweather". A "wether" is an old castrated ram, chosen for his docility and experience to wear a bell to lead a flock of sheep. In elementary school, we were taught this phrase to differentiate among the three "w(h)e(a)ther"s:

"It depends on the 'weather' 'whether' we shall go see the old 'wether'".

Spelling was never my one of my strengths. I think it is corrected now.

Lorie,

I think you're equating heavily Republican with voting for Bush in 2004. Those are not necessarily the same thing in a state like California where Republicans, on some issues, may be more liberal than Democrat voters in more conservative states.

IOW, just because you're a California Republican doesn't mean you were a Bush supporter in 2004. In addition, heavily Republican usually means an advantage in registered voters against Democrats, not necessarily a majority in the jurisdiction.

I only point this out because it's another example of how sloppy the MSM is when "analyzing" political races. I'm not sure what's going to happen in November, but I seriously doubt a special election to fill the seat of a member who's presently in jail is indicative of too much either way.

Lorie,

millico88 is on the mark. If there was any exit polling done, it would be very interesting to see the results. I am sure the Dims have done some. If they didn't then they deserve to lose in '08. If they are hanging their hat on 'veil of corruption' they might want to see if it is swaying the voter. And as I come to think of it, it might be even more important to the Reps for if the exits tell them that immigration trumps corruption they have to change their tune and let Polesi swing from her vine on the corruption angle.

Anyone got exit poll data??

The proper comparison is apples to apples, NOT Presidents to Congressmen. In 2004, the CONGRESSIONAL election in this district went 58-37 to the Republican. And in that race, the same Busby was actually the Dem candidate getting 37%. She gained a lot from 2004, 8 percentage points.

Wow, after millions of national Dem dollars flowed into the race, after the incumbent resigned in one of the biggest bribery cases involving a Congressman in decades, in a special election coinciding with a statewide Democratic gubernatorial primary, Busby gets up to . . . Kerry's losing 2004 total.

Yup, that's progress, all right. Nice spin!

Will the Democrats also attempt to claim they have "won" this fall if they gain a few seats but FAIL to retake the majority?

"Moral victories" are for losers . . .

:-)

Adjoran,

It doesn't quite make sense to talk about "millions of national Dem dollars" without also mentioning the $4.5 million the national GOP poured into the race (over twice what the national Dems contributed). Given that statistic, I'd say an 8 percentage point gain since '04 resulting in a 49-45 loss in a district where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats 3-to-2 is a pretty good showing.

Moreover, if the Democrats gain seats, whether or not it gives them a majority, it will and should be called a victory. Every seat the democrats gain is just that, a gain and therefore a victory. The same is true if Republicans gain seats. That is the way representative politics works -- when the number of people choosing one party to represent them increases, it is a victory for that party.

A win is a win and Bilbray won, but belittling the victory (especially the future victories!) or progress of others as a replacement for or supplement to victory of one's own is for losers and the insecure.

McCain,

You're making an assumption that the same people vote in Presidential and Congressional races. Turnout obviously shows that not to be the case, so you have to assume that the breakdown and intensity are similar. I'm not sure that's the applicable test.

Plus this was a special election, not a normally scheduled one, and there was more reason for traditional Dem voters to come to the polls (contested primary for governor). I haven't looked at the turnout figures by party, but I'm not sure how applicable that would be anyway since I think California has an open primary, but I could be wrong.

I just think WAY too much is being made of this race by both sides.

It would have been a bigger story had Busby won. A Bilbray win was expected, so it's no big deal.

McCain: The proper comparison is apples to apples, NOT Presidents to Congressmen. In 2004, the CONGRESSIONAL election in this district went 58-37 to the Republican. And in that race, the same Busby was actually the Dem candidate getting 37%. She gained a lot from 2004, 8 percentage points.

Not quite. Candidates aren't generic. This is why parties lose seats primarily when their incumbent officeholders retire. Randy Cunningham was a big time war hero. Bilbray is probably a nice guy. But he's no Randy Cunningham. And Randy Cunningham pled guilty to (as opposed to being merely indicted for) fraud, which specifically tarnishes the image of Republicans in his former district. Busby's defeat is a major blow to the Democrats - between Bilbray not being Cunningham* (in his salad days) and the corruption scandal, she should have won in a landslide.

* Cunningham's wartime exploits are legendary - as opposed to being Kerryesque - he was the first of only two aces during the Vietnam War.

Jim Miller pointed out another important factor - Bilbray is a carpetbagger, having moved in from another district just to run for the seat, whereas Busby is native to the area.

AFHall ~ It doesn't quite make sense to talk about "millions of national Dem dollars" without also mentioning the $4.5 million the national GOP poured into the race (over twice what the national Dems contributed). Given that statistic, I'd say an 8 percentage point gain since '04 resulting in a 49-45 loss in a district where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats 3-to-2 is a pretty good showing.

Then you are EXACTLY the kind of opponent I want. If you can be satisfied with losing respectably, I can be satisfied with winning narrowly.

And if, as you later stated, that any gain of seats for Democrats is a "win" even if they do not retake the House, ditto the above. The AVERAGE loss for the President's party in his 2nd midterm since WWII has been 53 seats. The Democrats need only 15 to take control.

If they can't do 28% of the long-term AVERAGE, and still consider whatever they might gain as a "win," more power to them, and to you!

I love having opponents who are good losers, and you guys are some of the best!

Hey - that frothing at the mouth stuff about "stolen elections" is a real hoot, too!

:p