Since World War II, the president's party has lost an average of 24 House seats in the midterm elections (Preciphs 2005). This trend has been bucked at times, but as a general political rule of thumb, the political party in control of the executive often feels the brunt of the public's unhappiness with policies during the midterm elections; that is to say, even if voters are not directly unhappy with their representatives, they are more likely to take their anger at the party in general out on the only elected official on the ballot-their Congressman.

             The midterm elections of 2006 have a significant opportunity to become this type of referendum on the policies and behavior of the Republican Party as a whole. The atmosphere is certainly ripe for such an event: public satisfaction with President Bush is at an all-time low, hovering around the 30% mark, and indictments continue of high-ranking Bush officials regarding leaks of classified information. Additionally, public disapproval of the financing scandals continues, primarily against Republican Congressmen, from the Abramoff scandal to the charges of bribery and kickback schemes against Randy Cunningham, among others (Morin and Balz 2005). The public opinion currently does not favor the Republicans on many issues aside from national security; however, many polls have found that this issue trumps all others in the minds of the voters (Langer 2002). .

             Based on the current public mood, which is definitely conflicted between their belief that Republicans can protect national security best, whereas civil liberties and other priorities would be better off in different hands, the midterm elections of 2006 are ripe for a major upheaval. The low approval of President Bush is likely to be reflected in voters' decisions regarding their local officials; the party which emerges victorious will have the opportunity-and obstacles to be faced-to present itself as the party which the public should trust for the presidential elections of 2008.