The traditional media loves to create sweeping narratives about elections, and they worship the winners and detest the losers. The winners are geniuses whose every plan played out to perfection, while the losers are insufferable idiots who were terrible campaigners with worse campaign teams (this is true, by the way, even when the "loser" wins the popular vote, as Gore did in 2000). Well before elections are over they start their sweeping analysis of why the expected winner created a cresting wave that could not be held back.
Here's the dirty little secret, though: little things like who actually controls Congress are decided by narrower margins than the sweeping-narrative writers like to admit. While there are of course tides that go for and against both parties, the fact is that even in tide years, who actually controls Congress will be settled by a few votes in a modest number of races.
Take 1994, for example. It certainly felt like a tidal wave to those of us sitting in the White House that year. The Republicans picked up a devastating 52 House seats, 12 more than needed to win control. But they also won 16 races by four percentage points or less, meaning a stronger field operation in those 16 races might have saved us control of the House. The losses still would have been devastating, but Newt Gingrich would not have been Speaker. In 1996, Republicans won even more close races, 21, as we fell 10 seats short of retaking the House.
Over the next four elections, the number of closely contested races dropped, as the Republicans averaged only five close victories a cycle in years where not too much changed in the House in general. But 2006 was another wave year, and the number of close elections jumped again. Democrats won enough, 14, to make sure we won back control of Congress, but the Republicans won enough not to be slaughtered even worse (17). In 2008, part of the reason Democrats were able to pick up another 21 seats on top of the wave in 2006 is because the Obama GOTV organization helped carry Democrats to victory in 13 of 20 (65 percent) of the closest House races.
What does all this mean? Regardless of all the mathematical formulas on likelihood of Republicans winning the House, ultimately this will all come down to GOTV operations in probably 30-35 races (since wave elections produce more close elections). Going into the last weekend before the election, if you and ten of your friends join with other Democratic and labor and netroots and other progressives in turning out the vote, we can still win this thing. The kind of races I have been talking about generally come down to one, two, three votes a precinct, and that can be made up by knocking on extra doors, making extra calls, bringing in those last straggling absentee ballots this weekend, working people outside of polling places one more time as they come to vote on Tuesday. What you do matters, so keep fighting until the last poll is closed.
"If November's election for Congress were held today, which party's candidate are you more likely to vote for in your district?
Democratic: 46 percent
Republican: 46 percent
These numbers aren't among registered voters, a group within which Democrats have continued to poll relatively well -- they represent interviews with likely voters. In fact, the Democrats actually lead 47 percent to 41 percent among registered voters in this survey, a net 8-point swing in their favor within this population since last month's McClatchy-Marist poll"
http://www.polising.com/2010/10/mcclatchy-shocker-dems-and-gopers-tied.html
Get out the vote!
.
The HuffPo banner tracking the political races is cracking me up. Since I've been watching it, the part about the House of Representatives has shown no losses from the "GOP" side, a number of changes from "DEM" to "TOSSUP" and yet the percentage of "Probability of GOP Takeover" has gone down significantly. Numbers don't add up.
.
Just another example of the desperate wishful reporting and opining going on in leftyland as Tuesday approaches.
.
Pass the popcorn.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/30/explaining-the-pollsterda_1_n_776441.html
That's not typical. In contested races, both sides usually run at least a minimally competent campaign, and there are a couple percentage points' worth of non-voters who would have voted if someone had knocked on their door and asked them to, or voters who mark the box for senator or governor at the top of the ballot but would have filled in the rest of the ballot if someone had been standing there outside with a sign asking them to vote for the House candidate. Not all contested races are close, and that couple of percentage points won't make the difference unless it's a close one. But we don't know which those are going to be until the votes are counted.
Not just any voters, but the critical ones, those who are likely borderline about voting (based on past history). Targeted phone calls are one of the most efficient, effective ways you can translate your passion into victory.
It's not necessarily easy: Phone numbers have been disconnected, people are not home, and some are nonresponsive. That comes with the territory. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to make the difference that you as an individual can make. You can't do everything, but you don't have to, and that's the point: Working with others to Get Out The Vote wins elections.
(By the way, referenda and amendment questions might be the triggers you use to inspire turnout, and the races that matter then ride those coattails.)
When Lux says "When the polls have closed" remember that the Alaska Senate seat could still be in play, so keep calling beyond when your polls closed
See
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/suppose-your-actions-swun_b_772871.html
So the house will stand or fall based on whether or not nine seats go Republican instead of Democrat. 9 out of 109 seats in play, a narrow margin indeed. Don't let the pundits convince you to stay home. With margins as slim as these, your one vote is much more influential than you think.