Andrew, the reason I say Bevan snuffed out the new conventional wisdom on Bush costing the GOP the Senate is this: The argument is that Bush came to town and everybody decided to vote the other way because of him is belied by the exit poll data from Montana that Bevan cites. If it were possible to demonstrate across state lines in all sorts of places that a Bush visit translated into a voter revolt, then the argument would clearly have legs. But you can’t say Bush was the reason Republicans lost in Missouri and Montana, as Chuck Todd does, when you use one criterion for Missouri and an entirely different criterion for Montana. In that case, you’re just using whatever you can to make a point you want to make.