For a lot of people, there is probably an element of relief where for that engaged minority there is a sense of anticipation. Both sentiments are understandable.
The idea of no more hate-filled and misleading political ads, no more fake outrage (well, good luck getting rid of that, but maybe it will diminish to a low throb as opposed to a shrill scream), no more experts passing guesses off as fact (ok, so maybe ditto that one) has to be a welcome one for even the most devoted political observer.
But for many of us, the day will build slowly and almost torturously. The first exit polls won't be available for another hour or two, and as we've seen in the past, exit polls are at best tea leaves. They are not worthless, but it is probably best not to look to them as infallible guides to what goes on in the voting booth, where people tend to defy certitude and expectation. By about the time that the major evening news anchors start powdering and primping things will slowly start shaping up on the east coast. But keep in mind that we already know the outcome of the overwhelming majority of today's races. Those that hold out mystery are also likely to keep their secrets deep into the night. In some cases possibly longer. Imagine the composition of the House hinging on a contested vote count in New Hampshire or the Senate vote coming down to un-recountable Diebold machines in Virginia or Rhode Island. Oh the things we'll see . . .
Recent polls indicate that the aggregate race, once perceived to be a blowout for the Democrats, has tightened. This will inevitably lead to arguments that the Democrats peaked too soon. I do not believe it. My guess is that a lot more voters than we believe already knew what they were going to do upon entering the voting booth and that polls, while useful, are simply overwhelmed by the complexity of the real numbers that appear on any given election day. Had the election occurred two weeks ago the results would have looked a lot like what they will look like at midnight tonight. That is to say, most people who go in undecided or make the decision to vote today would have made that decision when they had to and would have voted as they will today.
I was always suspicious of the talk of an epochal landslide win for the Democrats. Which is not to say that the Dems are not going to win -- they are. The question is, will they win by a healthy enough majority in enough different races to allow them to take back the House and Senate? If my own reading of things is any indication, the Democrats taking both chambers will require a lot of things to go right. The Senate seems less likely than the House to fall if only because Senate races are so much bigger and in most cases incorporate so many more voters that the party inertia tends to take control -- Americans tend to be pretty divided politically, and pretty evenly at that. A Senate race is far less likely to come down to a "throw the bums out" reaction than a much smaller House race.
If forced to predict I would say that we can anticipate a Senate that is pretty much like what it was prior to January 2005 -- very closely divided. If that is the case, someone like Lincoln Chafee (see the post below) might find himself a very popular figure. Wishful thinking leads me to hope for a 51-49 divide for the Democrats, sparing folks such as myself the noxious prospect of Vice Preident Cheney marching in to the Senate chambers with that perpetual sneer on his face as he prepares to cast a tiebreaking ballot.
The House, on the other hand, tends to stand as America's political mood ring. Where gaining six seats in the Senate seems like a Sisyphean task in most election seasons, a 15-20 seat swing in the House, if not common, at least happens frequently enough to keep its members on their toes if they are unlucky to be in one of those increasingly rare contested districts. One almost imagines House voters storming the polls with pitchforks each time there is an election such as this one, when recriminations are flying, the party in power has a tenuous hold on power, and when the perceptions of failed leadership create a frenzy like blood in shark-infested waters.
So for those of you who are not junkies, it's almost over (until December or January, when we can start looking at the 2008 Presidential race in earnest!). For the rest of you, enjoy the day. Parse the exit polls. Keep checking your favorite sources for the latest news from Virginia and Maryland, New Hampshire and Rhode Island, California and New Mexico, Georgia and Florida. In just twelve hours from now we can start speculating on what it all means, mere hours after finding ourselves hopelessly wrong on our speculations of what it all could mean. Have fun.
6 comments:
It's amazing that the first of the debates for the 2008 Presidential primaries are in this upcoming May. That election will heat up quickly.
Egads -- that puts things in perspective. Welcome to the perpetual campaign cycle. Thanks for writing.
dcat
We wake up this morning to the news of a dramatic political shift across the Atlantic. Yes, that's right, Daniel Ortega has won the Nicaraguan presidential elections. Give him a chance, says the Guardian. At least then all the money we spent on 'Solidarity with Nicaragua' coffee mugs in the early '80s won't have gone to waste.
But seriously, I grinned very broadly this morning at the thought of 'Madam Speaker'. This is not (of course) a new experience to us over here, for the Mother of Parliaments has already had a female speaker - the formidable Betty Boothroyd. Similarities don't even start though, for as you probably know, hers was a thoroughly symbolic and be-wigged position (the Speakers are officially elected MPs, but by 'gentlemanly agreement' no-one ever stands against them). Well nearly - the current speaker caused uproar in the Commons last week by (almost)shutting the Tory leader up during Prime Minister's Questions.
Sorry - was I supposed to me commenting on something that happened in the US? Let's be clear here - the fact that Man Utd were knocked out of the Carling Cup last night may be bigger news over here than the mid-terms, but there's been some coverage nevertheless. Here follows a summary of what we know:
1. Best event of last night - nothing really,as television coverage was limited to 20 minutes of the BBC's Newsnight, although that did provide the mildy amusing specatcle of Dick Morris interrupting a long anti-Bush speel from Terry MacAuliffe by gently pointing out that not a single US voter was watching.
2. The media "blogs" all provided minute-by-minute updates, which comprised mostly of variations along the "gosh it's close" theme. Oliver Burkeman in the Guardian summed up the result with reference to an utterly obscure D-grade celebrity whose pugilistic escapades grace the cover of today's Sun.
The BBC respondents, I think, are still asleep - but the latest is a complaint that Democrats seem to be rubbish at providing a good "clip". Shame on them - Democrats, not the BBC (which is, as the whole world knows, infallible, incorruptible and guardian of all that is good in the human soul).
3. The blogosphere - the best UK blogs are (WARNING British stereotype imminent) eccentric, and so it is unsurprising that Tom Reynolds, Rob Hinchcilffe and the Willesden Herald have teken absolutely no interest at all in US politics. Gosh.
However - I can say that the UK correspondent from Albia, 'a country just like Britain, but worse' reports the death of Republican control of the House -
'survived by Hillary Clinton's Campaign Warchest, a lame-duck President and The Race for the Senate'
That's all for now - I should be at work!
I'll be writing a great deal more when i get a chance today.
i knew that in a general election lieberman had more legs than Lamont, and I think this could and should provide an object lesson for those who appeal to their parties' bases at the expense of real inclusiveness. Yes, lieberman relied on a lot of republican votes, but he knew that the people of Connecticut wanted him more than they anted Lamont, which is the gist of representative democracy.
As for British Rob's words -- bloody brilliant. I knew there was a reason we keep you people around!
dcat
That's a pretty bold call, but not a bad one. he has disappeared a bit, which was inevitable after he gave up his senate seat, and I have to admit I've no idea what his fundraising has been like. But lost on the fact that Kerry was such a bad campaigner is the fact that edwards maintained a halo throughout the whole election that could stand him in good stead. We'll all remember this GoodLib, and will either laugh at you or hail you. Got to go big to win big, I guess.
dcat
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Post a Comment