There are limits on the effectiveness of that strategy. The quality of the candidates is still more important than the race's national implications. But helping voters view the election as an opportunity to support the president and maintain control of the U.S. House can be good for a few points, enough to win the election.

Pignanelli: Regardless of what happens in the GOP primary, Republicans owe John Swallow hearty thanks for an astute political maneuver in 2003 that is causing problems for Democrats in 2004. Last November, Swallow distributed a press release proclaiming his support of a Constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman. He signed a pledge in support of the change and urged Jim Matheson to demonstrate the same commitment.

Matheson has always opposed the redefinition of marriage and supported the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996. But Swallow shrewdly ignored this fact and challenged Matheson to supply his position to the public, thereby implying he was avoiding the issue.

Swallow's dare was printed in Duchesne and Emery County papers but not the larger dailies. Despite this limited readership, Matheson felt compelled (due to the potential volatility of the issue) to send letters to various constituents proclaiming his strong support of federal action preserving the traditional definition of marriage.

The content of these letters created a buzz in Democratic circles. Liberal activists, unaware of Swallow's taunts (printed only in rural areas), assumed Matheson's statements were shameless pandering to conservatives. By year end, the energy level surrounding the controversy propelled many Democrats to believe Matheson was a co-sponsor of the amendment legislation (he is not). In February, local media suggested that although Matheson's Republican colleagues, Congressman Rob Bishop and Sen. Bob Bennett, were opposed to same-sex marriage, they were hesitant to rush a modification to the Constitution. Left-wingers were beside themselves.

A number of stalwart Democratic donors are so peeved at Matheson for his vocal support of the constitutional amendment they are refusing further contributions to his re-election bid. While these activists acknowledge political reality may compel a "Yes" on the final vote, they are not sympathetic to early aggressive actions they perceive on Matheson's part.

The intense anger has spilled over to the governor's race — traditional supporters are withholding funds from Scott Matheson Jr. because he shares similar DNA with the congressman. Statements to the effect of "I will never donate to a Matheson again" are heard by both campaigns. Democrats seeking other offices are not immune from similar hostility when soliciting help from liberal friends.