I think it's fair to say that the Nov 2006 election victory for Democrats was essentially a "no-confidence" vote against Bush.
We can argue about whether the driving force for that no-confidence vote was lack of progress in the Iraq War (pre-Surge), a vote for pulling out of Iraq, a vote for staying in Iraq but changing strategy, the New Orleans/hurricane Katrina debacle, the Mark Foley scandal, Enron, offshoring jobs, amnesty for illegals, or whatever.
But I would concede that regardless, yes, it was a protest to the direction of Bush's policies as president.
Similarly with Chavez in the Venezuelan election. Chavez, till now, was riding enough approval to push things his way.
But the current election manifests that he alienated a percentage of his base, and was rebuffed. From what I understand, it has to do with his donating money to Cuba and other rogue/communist governments that had previously been spent on feeding his own impoverished, and some cases starving, people.
This election doesn't mean Chavez is on the way down from power. He can still regain the support he's lost. I hate the guy, but I can acknowledge he's a skilled politician, and he can certainly recover from this setback. He's likely to do a Clintonesque "triangulation", pander to his base, and move forward unscathed.
