Political Junkie, Part 4

It's 2:56 pm. I have just returned from voting and a haircut. (G0t to do some ordinary chores even if it is election day.) I was #570 at my polling place. I have no idea if that is high or low for after 2 pm in this precinct. It did remind me that one of the most dangerous things to do is predict turnout based on reports during election day. You'll frequently hear of high turnout in place or another and virtually no one showing up someplace else. It can all depend on where you are and when you check. Turnout is likely to be highest in those places with the most intense elections like Connecticut, Virginia, Minnesota and Missouri. Montana turnout could be interesting to watch as well.

Midterm elections don't do well in turnout. Below 50% and well below 50% is common if look at nationwide turnout. There will be a lot more voters in 2008 so any results tonight will not translate to anything 2 years from now for either party. In 1994, I tried to explain to a classroom of Republican leaning students that the 1994 victories for the Republicans did not mean Clinton was already dead for 1996. More and different voters show up for presidential elections and 2 years in politics is virtually a lifetime in real people years.

Be careful when you hear the early spin on expected results this afternoon. I am already seeing/hearing spin from Republicans trying to set up the standard as any results below +30 in the House and taking the Senate as a Democratic loss. If Democrats take the House by one vote, they win. If they take the Senate, even by one vote they have pulled an inside straight with weak cards to start. This is not 1994 where there were a significant number of open seats due to retirements. Democrats have to beat incumbents to take either chamber, this is very, very hard. Remember it is now routine for 95% of incumbents to win re-election in the House and it is about 80% in the Senate. Incumbency does still rule.