Election

A little reading before voting:

Tomgram: Schwartz, A One-Stop Guide to Election Night 2006

This post can be found at http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=136516

If, in these last hours before the midterm elections, you want to

quickly brush up on key races as well as the latest opinion polls,

predictions, fraud reports, and scandals before you settle onto that

couch, popcorn bowl beside you, for a long night of viewing and

punditry, there's probably no better place to start than the

election-resource page of Cursor.org

. (Elsewhere, election or not,

Cursor offers its inspired Media Patrol daily

round-up of articles you shouldn't miss.) For a good, quick rundown of

opinion polls in close races, check out the right-leaning Real Clear

Politics website

with its extensive, easy-to-read polls on the 14 Senate races and good

sets of polls on 40 of the 60 close congressional races. For a useful

catalogue of the (very confusing) 60 House races now considered in the

mix for election night, take a look at the careful forecast page of

NPR's Ken Rudin

.

But if you want tips on what to watch for once that TV goes on in your

house -- as well as some canny reflections on where we all may find

ourselves on Wednesday morning -- just settle back and consider the

thoughts of Tomdispatch regular and former pollster, Michael Schwartz.

/Tom/

The Couch Potato's Guide to Election Night

By Michael Schwartz

If you have a political bone in your body -- even if you're usually

a cynic about elections -- you're undoubtedly holding your breath

right now. With the 2006 midterm elections upon us, the question is:

Will the Democrats recapture at least the House of Representatives

and maybe even take the Senate by the narrowest of margins?

There is very little agreement about what might happen if a change

in Congressional control takes place. The Bush administration, of

course, has trumpeted the direst of warnings, predicting (in

sometimes veiled ways) nothing less than the demise of the country.

Less apocalyptic predictions include an expectation among 70% of

potential voters (as reported in the latest New York Times poll

)

that "American troops would be taken out of Iraq more swiftly under

a Democratic Congress." The more cynical among us hope for at least

a few challenging congressional investigations of administration

activities at home and abroad.

So we will go into Tuesday looking for that tell-tale count that

will indicate a Democratic gain of 15 or more seats in the House;

and -- a much bigger if -- six seats in the Senate. We probably face

a long night sorting out so many disparate races -- and our

traditional counters, the TV networks, won't even begin their task

until the polls close on the East coast. So we could face a long

day's journey into night, if we don't have some other "benchmarks"

-- to use a newly favored administration word -- and issues to ponder.

*Before the Polls Close*

/Voter turnout is crucial:/ The networks have grown skilled at

predicting elections using exit polls and they begin collecting

their numbers first thing in the morning. Even for close races, they

often have a very good idea what will happen by early afternoon.

They are, however, sworn to secrecy until those polls close, because

early forecasts of results have, in the past, affected voter turnout

later in the day.

But they are willing to reveal one very important fact during

daytime newscasts: voter turnout, which is generally /the/

determining factor in close races. Here's why.

By the time Election Day arrives, just about every voter has made up

his or her mind about whom to vote for. Even for that vaunted

category, independent voters (who, so many experts are convinced,

will determine this election), less than 15%

were undecided a week before the election. True enough, those who

hadn't by then made up their minds are expected to be splitting

two-to-one for the Democrats even as you read this, thereby making

some previously secure Republican seats competitive. But by Election

Day itself, the handful of independent "undecideds" that remain will

not be enough to tip the close races one way or the other, no matter

what they do.

The determining factor in winning those "too close to call" seats

is: How many already committed voters actually go to the polls.

Traditionally, in a midterm election as many as two-thirds of a

candidate's supporters may stay home

, so whoever moves

the most people from the couch to the polling booth will win.

And this year there is real intrigue about which party can get its

supporters to the polls. Since the 1990s, the GOP has been

hands-down better at this. Leaving aside the question of fraud for

the moment, most observers believe this "get out the vote" effort

was critical in the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004. But this year

may be different.

GOP superiority has been based on two factors -- a much better

on-the-ground organization and far greater enthusiasm among the rank

and file. Such enthusiasm means potential voters are more likely to

brave cold weather or long lines to vote; and it also means more

volunteers to encourage people to get out and, in some cases, to

transport them to the polls.

The Democrats have been working since 2004 to build up their

on-the-ground organizations in key states like Ohio and

Pennsylvania. Because Bush is so unpopular and the GOP obviously so

vulnerable, opinion polls tell us that there is tremendous electoral

enthusiasm among Democratic rank and file -- and concomitant gloom

and disillusionment on the Republican side.

So check the news early for turnout reports from key areas. Look for

whether turnout is higher this year in Democratic urban strongholds,

and lower in GOP suburban or rural ones. This will tell you a lot

about each party's congressional (and gubernatorial) possibilities.

/What about fraud?/ In 2000 in Florida and 2004 in Ohio, fraud made

a world of difference in close contests. As early as noon on

Tuesday, you should begin to get a sense of how much of a problem

fraud will be this time around.

Many people are terrified that the new electronic voting machines

will be the means to falsify vote totals (as was apparently done in

Ohio in 2004) and so steal elections -- especially with no paper

trails available for recounts. However, the biggest threat is

old-fashioned indeed: legal and illegal methods that block eligible

voters from voting.

Two examples will illustrate how this can be done. In the 2000

election, Republicans in Florida disenfranchised over 10,000 voters,

by purging names from the voting lists that happened to match the

names of convicted felons. When these voters showed up at the polls,

they were simply declared ineligible; and, by the time they took

their case to court, George W. Bush was already president. (The

excluded voters were largely African American and would have voted

overwhelmingly in the Democratic column.)

In Ohio in 2004, election officials simply did not provide enough

voting machines in predominantly Democratic areas, so many potential

voters waited all day in endless lines without ever getting the

chance to vote, while others grew discouraged and left. There seems

little doubt that the excluded voters would have tipped the state to

Kerry -- and this act of voter suppression wasn't even illegal.

This year, GOP state officials in as many as a dozen states have

already made good use of the legal system

to exclude otherwise eligible voters. They have, for instance,

passed laws that will disqualify people who think they are eligible

to vote. One common way to do this is by requiring a state-issued

picture ID (a driver's license), which many old and poor people

(guaranteed to fall heavily into the Democratic column) do not have.

These potential voters will simply be turned away and, by the time

anyone can register a meaningful complaint, the election will be a

/fait accompli/. Watch especially for complaints in the following

states that have passed such laws (or similar ones to the same end):

Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, South

Dakota, Texas, and Virginia.

But Ohio

will

probably be the worst, since Republican officials there have

developed an ingenious electoral "purging" system. State-appointed

officials are allowed (but not required) to eliminate people from

the voting rolls for a variety of minute irregularities -- without

notifying them. This year, only strongly Democratic districts had

their rolls purged, while strongly GOP districts, not surprisingly,

went untouched. On Election Day, many voters, possibly hundreds of

thousands statewide, are going to show up at the Ohio polls and be

told they are not eligible.

So start looking for news reports early in the day reflecting the

following symptomatic problems: (1) voting sites with tremendous

long lines because there aren't enough machines to accommodate all

the voters; (2) people in enough numbers to catch reportorial eyes

who claim that they have been declared ineligible on appearing at

the polls. Expect virtually all affected people to be Democratic.

*Election Night*

/Contested races:/ Of the 14 contested Senate seats, the Democrats

currently hold six (Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey,

Minnesota, and Washington State) and are favored in all of them

except Connecticut, where Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the defeated

Democrat, is leading as an independent. If Lieberman beats Ned

Lamont, but then caucuses with the Democrats (not exactly a given,

despite his promises), then in addition to holding those six, they

have to win six of the eight GOP races.

Right now the Democrats seem likely to win three of these --

Pennsylvania (ousting the odious Rick Santorum), Ohio (barring

massive disfranchisement and fraud) and Rhode Island (replacing the

most liberal Republican in the Senate, Lincoln Chafee). The latest

polls indicate that they are behind (but not out of it) in Tennessee

(see below) and Arizona (where incumbent Jon Kyl is leading

shopping-center magnate Jim Peterson). Their best chances to get

those crucial three more seats are Virginia (where incumbent George

Allen has given away the lead with verbal gaffs), Missouri (where

Michael J. Fox and a statewide referendum on stem-cell research may

put underdog challenger Claire McCaskill over the top), and -- most

surprising of all ---Montana (where the Abramoff scandal has given

challenger Jon Testor a slight lead).

Among the approximately 60 house seats now generally agreed to fall

into the category of "contested," all but six are currently held by

Republicans. The Democrats need just 33 of these, a little over

half, to claim the House. It's obvious why so many people are

predicting that the Democrats will win.

/Three states to watch:/ New York (at least 5 contested seats) may

be a real bellwether, since the results will come in early. All five

of them are upstate Republican, and if even three go to the

Democrats that could mean a genuine sweep to come (barring massive

fraud elsewhere) ? as well as being a signal of the emergence of a

"solid (Democratic) North" that might in the future help offset the

solid (Republican) South.

Ohio (5 contested seats) is at least as interesting, because polls

show at least three of the four contested races, all with Republican

incumbents, to be really close -- and so especially sensitive to

fraud. If all of them go GOP, this might be a strong signal of

success for the various Republican voter-suppression schemes in the

state -- and for fraud in the rest of the country. If the Dems win

at least two, it will probably be a long night for the GOP.

And then, keep an eye on Indiana. There are three GOP House seats up

for grabs in districts that were supposed to be Republican shoo-ins.

Miraculously, Democrats are leading in all three, and the lead is

approaching double digits in one of them (the 2nd district). If one

or two of these actually go Democratic, you're seeing a small

miracle, a tiny sign of tidal change in the electorate -- and the

good thing is, the polls close early in Indiana, so what happens

there could be a bellwether of change. But take note that Indiana

passed

"the strictest voter identification law" in the country; so watch

out as well for frustrated Democratic voters turned away at the

polls and a GOP sweep of these seats.

/Three elections to watch, for very different reasons:/ First, keep

a close eye on the Tennessee Senate race. African American

Congressman Harold Ford, the Democratic candidate, was essentially

written off early in a generally blood red state -- until, that is,

he caught up and even pushed ahead in some polls. Now, he is

slipping back a bit and probably won't win (in the 10 polls since

October 20, he is, on average, lagging by about 3%). But even if he

loses, the margin by which he goes down will be an interesting

indicator of the national mood. It seems that white southerners have

this habit of telling opinion pollsters and exit poll workers that

they favor a Black candidate, even though they vote for the white

opponent. This peculiar racial trait has resulted in Black

candidates losing big in "close" races. So if Harold Ford stays

within 5% of his opponent, businessman Bob Corker, it may indicate

that white electoral prejudice in the South is waning (or that anger

over the President and his war in Iraq simply trumps all this year).

Second, make sure to keep an eye out for the results of the

anti-abortion referendum in South Dakota. This is a draconian

measure making virtually all abortion illegal. It is meant as a

full-frontal challenge of /Roe v. Wade/, offering the new Bush

Supreme Court a future chance to weigh in on the subject. The latest

poll suggests that it is losing, 52% to 42%, with only 6% undecided.

Third, Connecticut is fascinating because Joe Lieberman, defeated by

anti-war Democrat challenger Ned Lamont in the primary election, is

leading as an independent. He says he will caucus with the

Democrats, but we should have our doubts. If the final tally in the

Senate, for instance, is 50 Democrats and 49 Republicans, think what

his vote would mean and what kind of horse-trading might then go on.

After all, the GOP could then retain the ability to organize the

Senate and appoint committee heads as long as he voted with them and

the Vice President cast the deciding vote to break any 50-50 ties.

The pressure would be incredible and so would the temptation for

honest Joe to take a GOP dive. Remember, he's already shown himself

more loyal to his own career than to the Democratic Party through

his refusal to accept defeat in the primary. If things are close,

this is a story that will eat up media time in the days to come.

*The Morning After*

/What do the Democrats stand for?/ But what if, as some pollsters,

pundits, and even Republican prognosticators are suggesting, those

New York seats go Democratic, along with moderate Republican ones in

Connecticut and previously red-meat Republican ones in states like

Indiana? What if the Democrats win by 20-35 seats

or more, as some are

suggesting, decisively gaining control in the House?

From the opinion polls, we already know that most Democratic voters

this time around will see the taking of the House, or all of

Congress, as a mandate to begin a draw-down of American troops in

Iraq and to bring the American part of that war to an end in some

undefined but rather speedy fashion. As it happens, however,

Democratic leaders do not see it this way. Their strategy has been

to "lay low" and let anger towards Bush sweep them into office.

An indicator that voters know the Democrats ran on a non-platform is

the fact that independent voters favor them in polling by two-to-one

margins mainly because they are incensed with the President and the

GOP. As the Washington Post

put it:

"Independent voters may strongly favor Democrats, but their vote

appears motivated more by dissatisfaction with Republicans than

by enthusiasm for the opposition party. About half of those

independents who said they plan to vote Democratic in their

district said they are doing so primarily to vote against the

Republican candidate rather than to affirmatively support the

Democratic candidate. Just 22 percent of independents voting for

Democrats are doing so ?very enthusiastically.'"

A Democratic victory, if it actually occurs, will be a statement by

independent (and other) voters that they disapprove of Bush

administration policy on a wide range of issues, not an ideological

tilt in support of the Democrats. But then how could it be? Today's

Democrats essentially stand for nothing. They are the not-GOP Party.

/Will a Democratic victory mean a "mandate" for change?/ Do the

Democrats need to avoid political positions? Those of us who are

actively hostile to the Bush administration tend to excuse the

absence of a Democratic program as a necessary ploy to win the

election. Laying low and not being too "left wing" are, the common

wisdom goes, the keys to winning independents -- and thus the

election. Many of us expect that the Democrats, once in control of

all or part of Congress, will see themselves as having a mandate

from the people to be much more liberal than their campaigns have

suggested. This, I suspect, is an illusion -- and this cynicism is,

unfortunately, supported by our recent political history.

Remember, as a start, that Bill Clinton's 1992 election was based on

a similar "anti-Republican" appeal. Yet, once in office he proved

himself to be a "modern Democrat" by, for instance, advancing the

GOP agenda in eliminating much of the welfare system, adopting a

"don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military, and

abandoning a national health plan. Then, of course, came the

Republican "revolution" of 1994, which really did drastically alter

policy. The GOP made an explicit and vociferous break with the

failing policies of the Democrats, began the most serious drive of

our times to rollback history to the days before Franklin Delano

Roosevelt's New Deal, and never flinched from taking strong stands.

Since that year, the Democrats have found themselves increasingly

locked out of power, while the GOP has finally inherited the mantle

of the established party with the failing policies. Instead of

riding back to power on a dramatic set of alternative policies as

the GOP did, however, the Democrats -- like Clinton -- are mimicking

parts of the GOP platform, while arguing that the Bush

administration administered it in an inept, extreme, and corrupt way.

This strategy may indeed get them elected if the Karl Rove system of

political governance finally comes apart at the seams, but it won't

work to generate the changes in policy that so many of us desire.

Instead, we can expect Democratic leaders, suddenly invested with

the power of the subpoena (but probably little else), to investigate

past Republican sins while attempting to prove that they can,

indeed, pursue a less overtly offensive Republican program more

honestly and efficiently than the Bush administration has. Just as

the Democratic leadership has promised, they will probably continue

to support fighting the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan more

"effectively." They are also likely to continue the essence of Bush

tax policy (more cuts, just not as favorable to the very rich), and

to serve money to the Pentagon more or less on demand, but not to

domestic "reconstruction" programs.

Could the Democrats win in 2008 on the basis of actual differences

in policy? Only if they tried to win over the American people

(including independents) to a genuinely different platform. On the

Iraq War alone, look at how close ex-Marine Paul Hackett came to

winning a 60% Republican congressional district in Ohio back in 2004

on a simple platform of withdrawal from Iraq.

Or look at the actual attitudes held by independents

.

According to a typical recent poll, only a third believe the war is

"worth fighting"; three quarters think the country is "headed in the

wrong direction"; only 37% approve of the job Bush is doing. Doesn't

this suggest that such voters might indeed be receptive to ideas

that dramatically challenge Bush administration policies?

But, let's face it, even if such a strategy could win, the

Democratic leadership will not follow the path laid out by the GOP

from the 1970s through the 1990s as they toppled an entrenched

Democratic establishment. They may want to win on Tuesday, but what

they don't want is a mandate to lead Americans in a new direction.

In the end, they prefer to hang in there as the not-GOP Party, pick

up old-hat and me-too policies, and hope for the best.

*What's at Stake in This Election*

As in 2004, there is no mystery about what the voters think when it

comes to this election: It is a referendum on Bush administration

policies in which unhappiness over the war comes first, second, and

third. And this is why, no matter what the Democrats do afterwards,

the 2006 midterm elections whose results we will all be anxiously

watching on Tuesday are so important. If the Democrats prevail,

however narrowly, against a world of massively gerrymandered seats,

Republican finances, blitzes of dirty ads, the presidential "bully

pulpit," and well-planned campaigns of voter suppression, American

-- as well as world public opinion -- will interpret it as a

repudiation of Bush administration war policy. And this will become

a mandate for those who oppose these policies to speak and act ever

more forcefully. With or without Democratic Party leadership, this

added momentum might even make a difference.

/Michael Schwartz is Professor of Sociology and Faculty Director of

the College of Global Studies at Stony Brook State University. For

years he was part of the polling world, measuring attitudes and

attempting to predict the political, economic, and social behavior

of Americans. His current work, which has appeared frequently on

Tomdispatch.com, is focused on the equally problematic goal of

understanding the war in Iraq. His email address is ms42@optonline.net./

Copyright 2006 Michael Schwartz

E-mail to a Friend

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

posted November 5, 2006 at 1:40 pm

-

Click here to read more Tom Dispatch