Contrasting views.

Jonathan Martin in National Review:

At stake? The free-trade consensus in the Senate that has ensured easy passage of every measure liberalizing trade put forth by the past two administrations… Should seats currently held by free-traders in Ohio, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Rhode Island, and Missouri go to “fair traders” — and should the sour environment for Republicans prevent them from gaining any seats from Democrats — the bipartisan commitment to free trade in the Senate would almost certainly end, torpedoing the prospects for any significant legislation in President Bush’s final two years and perhaps longer while fundamentally altering the character of the upper chamber.

Anatole Kaletsky in the Times:

What about global trade? The Democrats are ideologically more protectionist than the Republicans, but this is mitigated by the geographic concentration of the two parties’ support. The South and West of America, where Republicans attract most of their votes, is also the heartland of American protectionism. The Democrats tend to represent the East and West coasts, where voters are more liberal and cosmopolitan, so that a Democratic victory could actually increase the influence in Washington of the liberal economic establishment. In any case, President Bush’s “fast-track” authority to negotiate a global trade agreement expires next July and he has almost no chance of an extension. Thus, whatever happens next Tuesday, a global trade deal is not going to happen before the next president is in office in 2009.