Pep Talk

With three days to go before the latest "most pivotal election in American history" (which I suppose it is, given what's at stake, though I do get tired of the hyperventilating sometimes), the center-right punditocracy runs from the Enemy Media kool-aid drinking ledge-sitters to the perveyor of irrational exuberance.

And no, I don't refer to Hugh Hewitt. See for yourself.

It is Dean Barnett, lord of "Soxblog Manor," who is "merrily skipping about," well, his pad, "whistling a happy tune." He thinks the GOP is going to have "an extremely successful day" on Tuesday.

And when he says "extremely," he's not just shuffling his knuckles...no, let's stretch this out some. I've got column space to fill, after all.

DB's fundamental premise is that the polls are full of more baloney than an Oscar Meyer plant. And that's more than just wishful thinking:

Liberals are bigmouths who can’t wait to [force] their opinions [on] strangers. Conservatives have lives.

Yes, there's more - I just admire that line so much I had to feature it.

[W]hat the polls measure right now are people passionate or bored enough to spend a half hour talking to a stranger or, worse still, punching buttons on their telephone when prompted to by a recording. Democrats are more likely to tolerate this exercise, just as they were more likely to tolerate the inquisition of an eager grad student as they left the polls on Election Day ’04.

The pollsters have also yet to devise a way of predicting who’s actually going to show up on Election Day. One poll I read talked to some 1200 registered voters and deemed 1000 of them “likely voters.” Since even a presidential year generates only 60% turnout max, the pollster’s conclusion that over 80% of the people he spoke with are “likely voters” is the professional equivalent of him throwing his hands in the air and saying, “How the hell should I know who’s actually going to vote?”

Because of these factors, DB argues, it is inevitable that even the most reputable pollsters are going to undersample Republicans and oversample Democrats.

Not to get all anecdotal on your asses, but I can testify to the above. My phone often rings off the hook in the evenings; since I always use my answering machine to screen incoming calls, I figure if somebody really wants to talk to me (family, friends) they'll at least leave a message. Those that hang up instead are, I reason, either telemarketers or pollsters. And I would estimate over half of my incoming calls hang up without leaving a message.

Even if I did pick up, if a pollster was at the other end and wanted twenty or thirty minutes of my time going down a list of queries of questionable slant, I'd hang up on them. Such anonymous phone calls are an intrusion to me; I figure there's enough of my time that belongs to other people - job, church, family. When I want to opine, I do it here.

As far as exit pollsters go, that's a matter of practicality. I go to vote first thing in the morning before I go to work. When I come out of the polling place, I simply don't have time to be acosted by anybody seeking to do in person what I already don't tolerate over the phone.

I'm a conservative. I have a life. And by the measuring devices of the "legacy media," I doubt if my "voice" has ever been counted - other, of course, than via my ballot on Election Day.

Which leads to the other thing that DB argues gets missed by the polls - the unparalleled GOP get-out-the-vote machine:

Republicans are going to turn out like it’s a presidential year. Independents and Democrats will turn out like it’s an important midterm. The Republican turnout will be worth between a few and several points in every race where there’s an effective Republican machine. And that includes every battleground state.

AJ Strata reports that this right-wing counter-wave is already manifesting itself in record levels of absentee ballot requests:

[F]rom a Democrat heavy Iowa county seeing an increase in Rep and Indie absentee voting and a decline in Dem returns (note, these are by affiliation, not the actual vote cast).

Next up is the huge increase in absentee ballots in MD. My guess is a lot of people are crossing party lines to vote in Steele and Ehrlich since the MD black Dems are now in open revolt with the Dem party.

VA is also seeing immense increases in absentee ballots, sometimes double or triple the previous records. In this decidedly red state, those levels cannot be from Dems alone. And some regions seeing the highest increase (Northern VA, Norfolk) are heavy military areas. My guess is Kerry motivated the military vote (and that includes their families) like never before.

Same in Missouri. It’s happening everywhere.

Simply Google “absentee” and you will stories from every state where absentee voting is way, way up and reaching levels comparable to the 2004 elections (they seem to have already passed the 2002 midterm marks).

Libs laugh this off, of course, just like they were popping champagne corks two years ago after the early exit polls showed a "Kerry landslide" in the making. Center-left columns the last few days bordered on ridicule of sentiments and observations from our side of the blogosphere. Just check out the comments to Double-H's aforelinked post pooh-poohing John Kerry's slander of the military this past Monday (but Mark Foley's IMs and emails should still be front-page news - riiiiiiight). It's the old "pre-empt the election by declaring it over already" ploy that was executed to perfection by the Clinton machine in 1996. The Enemy Media puts over the Democrats' triumph as so "inevitable" that all we "right-wingnut goose-stepping theonazis" don't need to even bother showing up or ordering absentee ballots. Give it up, throw in the towel, it's O-V-E-R.

Doesn't sound like we're taking that breed of hint anymore.

Not that I'm as...enthusiastic as Mr. Barnett, you understand:

So what’s it all mean? In the tied races, the Republican will win. In the close races, the Republican will win. It adds up to Republicans running the table in the Senate. That’s right – running the table. Montana, Virginia, Missouri, Tennessee, New Jersey, Rhode Island (whoopee), and Maryland will all send or re-send Republicans to the Senate. But wait, there’s more! Michigan will send Sheriff Michael Bouchard to the Senate. And in Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum is in striking distance.

In the House, the same holds true. Republican Joe Negron will take Foley’s seat. New Mexico’s Heather Wilson will return to Congress. So, too, will Connecticut’s Chris Shays. We’ll lose a handful of seats for the individual failures of certain Congressmen (hello, Curt Weldon), but we will retain control of the House.

I generally buy his basic premise - if it's within the margin of error, lean toward the Republican. I have that assumption built into my projection formula. That's why I have Virginia, Missouri, and Tennessee in the GOP column already. Montana, New Jersey, and Maryland are close and Republican wins in all three are certainly within reach.

But Rhode Island? Uh-uh. Not that losing Linc Chafee will be any great loss, but his numbers have collapsed in the past week or two. And Bouchard? Nothing would tickle me more than seeing that Principle Waxleplax clone Debbie Stabenow sent packing, but she's up by double-digits. The polls, they may be a-screwy, but they're not THAT screwy. Ditto Rick Santorum, God bless him for his courage and eloquence, not playing politics but saying what needs to be said, and who is going to absorb an electoral beating for it.

So, while the Bursting One sees a net GOP gain of one senate seat, the upper limit of my cheerfulness quotient is a net one-seat loss - which, given Chafee's departure, would be tantamount to breaking even.

As to holding the House, well, we'll see. Jim Geraghty's "Obi Wan Kenobi" mentor - the GOP sage whose been in the politics business longer than the TKS master has been alive - says that senate races will lead House races, so if Tuesday unfolds at my optimistic end (to say nothing of Barnett's) then the Republicans should have no problem holding on (Geraghty in a post this afternoon set his best case result as a net loss of eight seats). If the outcome is fair to middlin' (per my current projections of a four-seat loss on the senate side), the House losses are right on the razor's edge my projections currently show (fifteen seats to Geraghty's thirteen).

I don't do the pessimistic end because (1) there's too much of that on this side of the aisle as it is, and I get sick of putting up with it; and (2) the trend, as Double-H observes today, is moving in the GOP's direction.

So much emotional tug-o-war. Now you know why I do my projections. It isn't just because I'm an irredeemable dork; it's to have my own frame of reference, my own anchor in reality, never again to get carried off into the fabulous land of wishful-thinking.

But if Barnett turns out to be a prophet, I won't complain. Heck, I may just do some "bursting" - and manly skipping - myself.