Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Couch Potato's Guide to Election Night

By Michael Schwartz, Tomdispatch.com. Posted November 7, 2006.


This election's success will be measured not only by the number of seats won. Here are some other issues to ponder.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Michael Schwartz

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

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 percent 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 percent 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.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: election06

Michael Schwartz is a professor of sociology and faculty director of the Undergraduate College of Global Studies at Stony Brook University.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Post-election realities
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 6, 2006 1:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporate donors have given quite a bit to Democrats, and they will move in the lobbying troops directly after the elections.

What every concernced citizen should do is phone and write their representatives (don't bother with email) and tell them to ignore the lobbyists. Demand that they pay attention to your concerns instead. If the Democrats don't manage to initially control either House or Senate, at least make them filibuster the Republican attempts at vote fraud - don't concede!

"With the possible implications foremost in the mind of company executives, business is expected to have spent a record $2bn on political donations by the time the polls close in what will prove to be one of the most expensive campaigns ever. While the Republicans, as usual, have been the main beneficiary of this largesse, businesses have not been blind to the way the wind is blowing and have increased their donations to the Democrats." -Telegraph.co.uk

Pharmaceutical drug peddlers, energy corporations and arms dealers all seem to be particularly alarmed about a Democratic Congress. I'm betting they'll do their utmost to steal the vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Cynical math Posted by: eddie torres
Don't Let Your Guard Down
Posted by: Tom Degan on Nov 6, 2006 1:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's what at issue: a democratic controlled House and Senate would mean that the machinations of the First Fool and the criminal cabal surrounding him in the White House would finally see the light of day. If and when that happens, it will mean that Bush, Cheney and more than a few of these hideous bastards will end up serving VERY LONG PRISON SENTENCES. As dumb as these people are, they at least have sence enough to figure this out - and they're going to do everything humanly possible to make sure that a democratic victory does not happen of tuesday.

Count on it: They're going to try to steal this election. Count on it: the final results - whatever they are - probably won't be available for days or even weeks. I know they will try to drag us through another debacle ala Florida 2000. The only thing that will make another stolen election virually impossible is a massive turnout of Democrats, Independents and disgruntled Republicans (There are more of them out there than you think).

The stakes are probably higher than we even realize. For all that we know, just consider for a minute all that we don't know! For all of the deception, corruption and good old all American incompetence, we've probably barely even scratched the ttip of the iceberg. Can you even imagine what else is yet to be revealed??? Oy vey!

See you at the polls!

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don't Let Your Guard Down Posted by: revcarln
» RE: Don't Let Your Guard Down..sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
steal
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 6, 2006 3:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the Republicans are able to steal the election again we may never know the details of how they stole it. But if the Democrats actually are able to take control of at least the House, then we have a chance of learning the total truth about Republican criminality. If we do learn the total truth then the Republican party is as doomed as doomed can be because their crimes are so extensive. So they have huge motivation to cover their many crimes up. But a huge coverup can easily unravel. Stay tuned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: steal Posted by: scottrr
» RE: steal Posted by: CyberChas
» RE: steal Posted by: scottrr
You have no hope. . .
Posted by: polyquat50 on Nov 6, 2006 3:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
while the fox is in charge of the hen-house.

It is incomprehensible from where I sit (in Australia) that you put up with a system where the politicians have control over the electorates, the electoral roles, the ballot, and the count.

I hope for the future of your democracy (or the democracy of your future) that the first thing the Democrats do if and when they get elected is change the electoral system. Totally change it, not tinker at the edges.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You have no hope. . . Posted by: mwildfire
That's a pretty good article.
Posted by: WhatNow? on Nov 6, 2006 3:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can consider me one of the undecided independents. I don't have any faith in the democrats but I do hope they prevail. Will I help them? Maybe? Maybe not? The only thing I know for sure is I will not vote for republicans. Chaffee is the only one I might consider but I do not live in his state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do us all a big favor, DONT VOTE! It only gives them confidence!
Posted by: hot_rad_man on Nov 6, 2006 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing will change with this election and mark my words! This country is run by the Federal Reserve bank and every fucking money changer alive. We need a trial to bring those bastards to justice and the noose on the White House steps. This election is a another example of a rigged lotto where the rich win and the poor go hungry. We are the joke of the world!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's Tester, not Testor
Posted by: zinnia on Nov 6, 2006 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You spelled Jon Tester's name wrong, btw. And you shouldn't be so surprised that he's doing well - Montana voters can be pretty independent. It's not just a plain old red state!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Send Me to Stony Brook
Posted by: edith on Nov 6, 2006 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Prof Schwartz gave us the infor that's important; not the regurgitated conventional wisdom that half-educated journalists who can't read statistics or scientific data correctly spew on a regular basis. Example: "Polls" that state that most voters will vote Democratic in the election. So What? Where do these voters live. Heavily populated places like New York City and Los Angeles vote Demcoratic heavily. But House and Senate seats are filled by electing folks from Districts that only have an indirect realtionship to national population figures.

Thanks Prof. Best darned lecture I've heard from an academic in years. You actually make the real world the basis of your discussion!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

George Bush and You
Posted by: danielgeery on Nov 6, 2006 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush clearly explains, at long last, in this short video why the Pubs deserve your vote!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's the best coverage
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Nov 6, 2006 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in your opinion? NPR, local news affilates, Drudgereport, Alternet, MSNBC, Fox, BBC, other internet sites, etc? I usually listen to NPR and the local newsstation for the local elections but there was so much crap and mis-readings of exit polls in the past I'm trying to figure what the best source of info is for that evening's returns and analysis. Any ideas?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What's the best coverage Posted by: CyberChas