DOWN TO THE WIRE Careful readers of these commentaries might well have noticed something of a contradiction in the themes I have put forth. On the one hand, I have been decrying the lack of competition in U.S. House races. On the other hand, I have been talking about how close this race is, in terms of which party will control the two houses of Congress. Both themes will be evident in this piece. First, the lack of competition. Congressional Quarterly, the publication that covers Washington politics like no other, constantly updates its charts on what is happening in each House and Senate race. With less than a week to go, only thirteen of the 435 House races no clear favorite. Even if one adds the races thought to be leaning in one direction or the other, that would only add another 32 House races. (As is typical, Senate races are more closely contested; four of the 34 have no clear favorite, and another line merely lean toward one party or the other.) In 390 of the 435 House races, one party’s candidate or the other is clearly favored. And, if the past is a guide to the future, these predictions will be quite accurate. A vast majority of the winners will poll more than 55% of the vote, winning by comfortable margins. In the 2000 congressional election, only 57 winners polled less than 55% of the vote (and only 18 seats changed hands from one party to the other); in 1998, the last midterm election, only 47 winners polled less than 55% (and only 17 seats changed hands). Thus, we do not expect to see much competition in most of the seats next Tuesday. But, what about the competition in those few House races that are heavily contested? The fighting over this last weekend, and right up until the polls close on Tuesday, will be intense. At this stage, the fighting is not over issues, records, or over character. The fight now is to get your voters to the polls. We hear a great deal about negative advertising, about the extent to which the media dominates modern campaigns. We hear much less about on the ground campaign organization. But it is in these last crucial days, in the most hotly contested elections, that field organization becomes important. In these races, new politics gives way to old politics. If a race is to be won by just a few votes, often an advantage in field organization, in having done months of spadework to have an effective “get out the vote” effort in place, is decisive. Consider these numbers. The population of the United States as of the 2000 census was approximately 281 million people. The voting age population was about 206 million. Of those close to 160 million were registered to vote (c. 78%) ; approximately 105 million cast their votes for President in the 2000 election (c. 37% of the total population; c. 51% of the voting age population; c. 78% of the registered voters). Those numbers are all pretty familiar—and were often raised by commentators discussing the closeness of the Bush-Gore race. Now consider these numbers. In that same election 8 million people cast votes for President and then did not vote for a candidate for House of Representatives, a fall-off of approximately 7.6%. How many of those did not vote because the race in their district was not competitive? How many of the close races could have been reversed if the fall-off had been less? One cannot tell from aggregate statistics, and any conclusion even from district-level data would involve questionable inferences, but these questions are surely worth pursuing. More surprising to some, though not to careful analysts of congressional election, is that 32 million fewer people voted in the elections for the House of Representatives in 1998 than voted in 2000. If we can predict from the past—and the patterns have been quite clear—fewer than one-third of those of voting age and only about 40% of those registered to vote will cast their vote for House of Representatives next Tuesday. Thus, control of the House—and of the Senate, for the turnout figures will be about the same even though a higher percentage of the contests will be competitive—will be decided by a minority of the eligible electorate. To put it another way, those who do not vote, if they favored one party or the other, could have a decisive impact on the election. Party and campaign officials know this and seek every advantage in getting their supporters to the polls. In my view, they tend to do this too late in a campaign. They would be much more successful nationally if they worked to have better candidates all over the nation. House candidates would bring out voters who would vote in senatorial, gubernatorial, and state-level elections, and visa versa. That is why the party role in candidate emergence is so crucial. But that effort is long-term; this weekend is the short-term. Both parties have invested millions of dollars in what they refer to as the “72-hour” campaign. There is general recognition that the Democrats and their allies, like organized labor, did a better job in the 2000 election at getting our their core supporters than did the Republicans and their allies, like the NRA and the Christian Coalition. The Republicans have expanded their effort this year; the Democrats have not let up. If there is a wild card in this race, ironically it might well be the tragic death of Paul Wellstone. Campaigns are reporting increased energy from traditional liberals, motivated to go one more round in memory of the most liberal voice in the Senate. In Minnesota, Walter Mondale, nominated by the DFL (the name for the Democratic party in Minnesota) to replace Wellstone, is touring the state in Wellstone’s traditional green bus, clearly evoking his memory and trying to pull his supporters together. Democrats around the country are evoking Wellstone’s name at every campaign appearance. In close races, even Republican analysts fear that re-energized liberals, those who might have sat out because no candidate met their ideological criteria, might turn out and make the difference. But that is all speculation. What we know is that the few close races will be decided by who turns out to vote and who stays home. When you look at election returns, not just on Wednesday morning, but over the next weeks, look at turnout. Did more voters vote in the close Senate races? In the close House races? Was there fall-off from gubernatorial or senatorial races to House races? Might those voters have made the difference? The answers to these questions will tell you a great deal about whether campaign organization still matters.