Do you realize that, historically speaking, the 2006 mid-term election is probably the least important national election we've had in some time, or will have in some time to come? It's a non-Presidential election, so it's automatically less pivotal than '08, '04, '00, '96, '92, etc. Mid-term elections in years ending with zero or eight are always important, since they determine who gets to redraw districts at the state level, and thus shape who controls the House for the next ten years. Compared with this November, the mid-term election four years from now will be infinitely more important, falling as it does in 2010, the midway point of President Hillary (or President McCain)'s first term.

Next in importance are mid-term elections in a President's first term, such as '34, '46, '62, '66, '74, '82, '94 and '02, since they impact the scope of the domestic agenda of the party in power, at a time when the power of a President is at its zenith. Then come mid-terms falling on a year when a disproportionate number of Senate seats are held by one party ( '42 and '86), where a strong performance by one party can shape control of the Senate for some time to come.

This mid-term has none of those factors. Reapportionment won't be decided until after 2010, so no one elected this time around will necessarily be involved in the future reshaping of the political map. Bush is already a lame duck, even with his party firmly in control of Congress, and any investigations a Democratic Congress might initiate will have dubious long-term impact, other than reaffirming that he has been an awful Chief Executive. And the Democrats are actually defending more Senate seats this time around, thanks to their strong performance in the 2000 election, so even a good performance this time around will probably not net much in the way of gains, or have much long-term impact.

So don't let anybody fool you when they say that "this is the most important election in our lifetime". It's not. In the context of history, it will barely even register.