From NBC's Doug Adams
It could be a late night in Washington state tonight -- or more likely, a long week. That's because Washington is one of two states (Oregon is the other) that conducts its elections via a mail-in ballot.

Ballots arrived in mailboxes about two weeks ago, and voters have until 8:00 pm local time tonight to postmark their ballots or turn them in at "drop off" centers around the state. According to Washington's Secretary of State's office, more than 40% of voters will have voted before the 8:00 pm deadline tonight. But that still leaves the majority of ballots that won't be counted until AFTER Election Day.

Sen. Patty Murray (D) and her challenger, former state Sen. Dino Rossi (R), are preparing for a prolonged count. Both campaigns tell NBC they don't expect know the winner until at least Thursday, so don't expect any concession speeches tonight from either candidate unless it's a complete blowout. But that seems unlikely -- the latest polls have Murray ahead by just a handful of points, well within the margin of error.

The reality is that hundreds of thousands of ballots won't even arrive in counting centers until midweek. The biggest county, King County (Seattle area), says it takes 48 hours to process ballots before they can even be tallied. And both state parties are gearing up for a fight -- they've retained attorneys who specialize in recounts, including the seven-month dispute in 2004 of Rossi's razor-thin gubernatorial loss, and the nine-month recount of Sen. Al Franken's win in Minnesota.

The only county that is not exclusively vote by mail is Pierce County, the state's second largest, which encompasses Tacoma and its southern suburbs. Pierce is Washington's second largest county, and its full of swing independent voters who will decide this election. Voters in Pierce county can vote at the polls on Election Day, so both parties will be watching election results there closely. If Republicans are winning Pierce County late tonight, the Rossi team will be celebrating.

On the campaign trail last week, Rossi was calling his race the "51st seat" -- meaning that if things break the Republicans way, the nation might be watching the results in Washington to determine who controls the Senate. If that's the case, we could be watching for quite a few days before we know the answer.

From NBC's John Yang
LAS VEGAS -- Today may be Election Day, but most of the ballots in the dead-heat race between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) and Tea Party-backed Republican Sharron Angle (R) had already been cast by the end of last week.

Nearly 380,000 Nevadans voted during in-person early voting, which ended Friday night --about 65% of the expected turnout, according to Nevada Secretary of State.

Those ballots -- and the mail-in absentee ballots -- will be counted as soon as polls close at 7:00 pm PST. Because they're all collected and ready to go, and because the vast majority of them are counted and reported electronically, telling numbers could be available about an hour after poll closings.

But given the tightness of the pre-election public polls, it could still be a while before a winner is known. Angle and Reid have three recount elections between them; Angle lost hers, and Reid won one and lost one.

Recount lawyers from both parties who worked in the 2008 Minnesota recount between Democrat Al Franken and Republican Norm Coleman are already on the ground here -- just in case. *** CORRECTION *** Democrats tell us that Franken's lawyer is NOT in Nevada.

From NBC's Shawna Thomas
WEST CHESTER, OH -- The media, the country, and the man who could be the House's next speaker think it’s going to be a “big day” for Republicans. Voting at his polling location here this morning, John Boehner said, “We’ve been at this election for the better part of nine months, and if you look at the races around the country, I think we have a real opportunity to win the majority, and hopefully my colleagues will elect me speaker.”

As for his large family (11 other brothers and sisters), he wasn’t sure if they were going to watch election returns together. When asked what his parents would say if they were still alive, Boehner responded, “They’d be happy.”

And when asked what he would do for the constituents of Ohio’s 8th District, Boehner said, “Listen to the American people. Listen to my constituents and obey the Constitution.”

Right before he got into his black SUV, a woman supporting Boehner’s competition (yup, there is someone running against him) asked, “What’s the biggest thing you’ve done for West Chester and the district?” Boehner’s short response: “Represent them honestly.” He then got into his truck and drove away.

It's Election Day… How we got to the point where everyone is expecting a big GOP night: Unemployment is near 10%... Dems won health care but lost the middle in the process… The Tea Party gave the GOP the enthusiasm edge (and a way to re-brand the party after Bush)… And Democrats were unable to fundamentally change how Washington works… Despite it all, the White House and the Dem-controlled Congress accomplished A LOT… The new kids on the block… Dems desperately in search of a silver lining… A primer on tonight's battle for control… Why 2012 might not look like 2010… And other fingertip facts.

From NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** How we got here: We've come a long way since that Grant Park celebration in Chicago two years ago. The inauguration. Passage of the stimulus. Specter's switch and Franken's swearing-in (giving Dems 60 votes in the Senate). The summer town halls of '09. Sotomayor. "You lie." GOP victories in New Jersey and Virginia. Health care clears the House and Senate. Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts. Obama signing the health bills into law. The BP spill. The Greece riots and the Dow's nearly 1,000-point plunge (before partially recovering). The Tea Party's defeat of Bob Bennett in Utah. Kagan. Lisa Murkowski's loss in Alaska (and then her write-in bid). And Christine O'Donnell's upset of Mike Castle in Delaware. After all of this, Republicans today are on the verge of retaking at least one chamber of Congress and picking up numerous governorships across the country. So how did we get to this point where we're on the cusp of a third-straight change election?

*** It's the economy, stupid: Well, we have to start with the economy. Although the country technically is no longer in a recession, and although no one is discussing a double dip right now, the unemployment rate stands at 9.6% (compared with 5.8% in Oct. '94 and 4.4% in Oct. '06). What's more, our new NBC/WSJ poll finds that a whopping 84% are either "somewhat" dissatisfied or "very" dissatisfied with the economy. Per most economists and studies, the stimulus Democrats passed DID work to prevent a possible depression and even more unemployment. But with unemployment hovering around 10% for nearly two years now, the American public hasn't judged it as a success (with 35% saying it was a good idea and 45% a bad idea in our mid-October NBC/WSJ poll).

*** Winning health care but losing the center: The debate over health-care also played an important role in shaping this midterm environment. While possibly the greatest legislative achievement since the Great Society, it hasn't been a political success -- at least in the short term -- with 36% believing it was a good idea and 46% saying it was a bad idea in our mid-October poll. The health law also mobilized the Tea Party and conservative Republicans. (As one Republican put it to us earlier this week, health care gave the Republicans a real-world "scope of government" debate talking point.) And the debate's biggest casualty for Obama and the Democrats: the middle of the country. Per our most recent poll, the president's approval among independents sits at just 32%. And indies prefer a GOP-controlled Congress by a 45%-21% margin.

*** The Tea Party flexes its muscles: You can't explain today's midterm elections without also mentioning the Tea Party and the jolt of energy and enthusiasm -- and the re-branding (away from Bush) -- it gave the Republican Party. According to our poll, 28% of all registered voters identify themselves as Tea Party supporters, but these folks make up 32% of likely voters and 35% of the most-interested voters -- which means they will make up a disproportionate share of today's electorate. However, the Tea Party also has been a double-edged sword for the GOP; if Sharron Angle and Joe Miller lose, or if Republicans pick up nine Senate seats (but not 10 because they lose in Delaware), the Tea Party will be to blame.

*** Same as it ever was? Our final how-we-got-here point is the Democrats' inability to change Washington, at least in the minds of the electorate. Yes, the Obama White House has been more transparent than its predecessors and has implemented rules to discourage the revolving door between public service and lobbying. And, yes, the Democratic-controlled Congress implemented unprecedented rules to police ethical violations. But the partisanship -- as well as all the deals Democrats cut to pass legislation over the last two years -- has made the public believe that Washington hasn't changed under Democratic rule. In our August NBC/WSJ poll, 65% said that Obama had fallen short of their expectations to change Washington.

*** The Do-Something Congress: Despite everything we wrote above, we'd be remiss to ignore how much Democrats (in control of the White House and Congress) actually achieved in the past two years. The stimulus. Health care. Financial reform. Two SCOTUS justices. You can't say this was a do-nothing Congress. As others have mentioned, political power comes and goes (as we've seen over the past few years). What matters is what you do with it…

*** New kids on the block: Get this: After tonight, we will see 17 to 21 new senators, meaning at least 40 out of the 100 members will be first-term senators after tonight. We're going to see as many as 30 new governors. And we'll probably get 80 to 100 new members of Congress. This is truly the big-picture story no one is talking about -- how we're set for the biggest year of political transition in recent memory.

*** Desperately seeking a silver lining: With Democrats on the verge of losing control of the House and possibly (though unlikely) the Senate, the party is desperately seeking a silver lining tonight. Psychologically, they need Gov. Ted Strickland (D) to pull off a minor upset in Ohio's gubernatorial contest. Or Alex Sink (D) to win Florida's competitive governors race. Or Harry Reid to win Nevada's Toss-Up Senate race. They need SOMETHING to hold on to.

*** The battle for control: A reminder: Republicans need to net at least 39 House seats to win control of that chamber (the Cook Political Report and the Rothenberg Political Report are estimating Republicans to gain between 50 and 65 seats). Republicans need to net at least 10 Senate seats to win control of that chamber (both Cook and Rothenberg predict they'll win between six and eight seats).

*** Why 2012 is unlikely to resemble 2010: And a final reminder: As MSNBC.com's Carrie Dann noted yesterday, what happens in a midterm election doesn't predict the presidential contest two years later. In 1982, we saw Republicans suffer House losses, but Ronald Reagan easily won re-election in '84. In 1994, Democrats lost control of the House and Senate, but Clinton was easily re-elected in '96. As much as has happened in the past two years, it's hard to believe that things won't change between now and 2012 -- unless, of course, the unemployment rate remains where it is now.

*** Other fingertip facts: Fifty-one vulnerable House Democrats who voted for both health care and the energy bill (nicknamed by some "cap-n-trade") sit in districts carried by Obama in 2008… Democrats hold another 49 districts that McCain carried in '08… The last time the House majority changed this fast (four years) was in the '50s when Republican Joe Martin and Democrat Sam Rayburn traded the gavel back-n-forth twice between '46 and '56… The last time a party picked up 10 or more Senate seats in an election year was 1958 (Ike's 2nd term), and before that it was in '46 (Truman's first midterm)… The last time a political party netted more than 60 House seats (let alone 70) was in 1948, when Dems picked up 75 seats... The largest swing in the last 100 years was in 1932, when FDR swung 97 House seats… The best Republican gain in the House in the last 100 years was in 1938 (FDR's second term; post-Social Security, by the way). That year, the GOP netted 80 House seats.

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.

The Boston Globe: “President Obama will reduce the scope of his legislative ambitions if Republicans seize control of the House today as is widely predicted, jettisoning proposals to control greenhouse gases and overhaul immigration laws in favor of more modest efforts such as improving education and highways, according to lawmakers, former White House officials, and political analysts.” More: “Obama also is expected to engage in negotiations with Republicans on taxes and the federal deficit. As he develops his own 2012 reelection strategy, he will need to be seen as working credibly across the aisle, officials and analysts said.”

“Barack Obama has dipped his presidential toe into pop culture many times this election season, but the latest stop on his media tour reeks of a ratings stunt: the President will be sitting down with Ryan Seacrest,” the New York Daily News reports, adding, “According to the Facebook posting, Obama's interview with ‘On Air with Ryan Seacrest’ will air on Tuesday at 7:15am in Los Angeles, or 10:15am EST. It will also be posted online immediately following the broadcast.”

The president also will participate in radio interview on local Chicago, Las Vegas, and Jacksonville, FL.

“All Senate Democratic eyes will be on Nevada on Tuesday as Members anxiously wait to hear whether Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) ekes out a fifth term or falls to Republican Sharron Angle,” Roll Call writes. “But don’t expect his would-be successors to immediately launch campaigns to shore up support for his leadership job. Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Conference Vice Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.) have learned from history that it’s best to stand down until it is absolutely clear that there’s a race to be had.

"Democratic sources said neither Durbin nor Schumer -- believed to have been angling to succeed Reid for months -- will begin making calls to rank-and-file Democrats for support before a Reid defeat is officially called. And if the race is close enough for a recount, it’s a safe bet that both men will hold off scouring the caucus for votes until a final ruling is made or someone concedes, sources added.”

For the bustling industry comprised of political pundits, pollsters, strategists and scribes, the weeks before Election Day are a flurry of predictions about who will win the nation’s most competitive races.

When there’s plentiful public polling and stable national trends to base their assumptions upon, their prognostications are usually more or less close to the mark. But politics is unpredictable, and pollsters use different methods to determine who’s up and who’s down. Every once in a while, they get it wrong.

The famous erroneous 1948 “Dewey defeats Truman” banner headline in the first edition of the Chicago Tribune was the result of polls and conventional wisdom that turned out to be dramatically off base. After Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley’s unanticipated loss in the 1982 California governors’ race, many blamed racial bias undetected in public opinion polls. After Barack Obama’s dramatic win in the Iowa caucuses in 2008, the media’s overwhelming assumption that he would continue his march to victory days later in New Hampshire was due to polling. Those assumptions were shattered when Hillary Clinton wound up winning -- prompting weeks of media navel-gazing and questions of "how did we get it so wrong?"

In this midterm cycle, new poll results have hit political reporters’ e-mail inboxes at a fast and furious pace. But a quick look at the wide disparities between different polls of the same races indicates that they can’t all be right. Four recent public polls in the tight Nevada Senate race show Senate Majority leader Harry Reid everywhere from down four points to up three. Much-discussed “tightening” in the Pennsylvania Senate race two weeks ago gave way to another wide lead for Republican Pat Toomey days later.

Part of the reason for the disparity between the results, says Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, is because every polling company has its own method to determine which voters are “likely” to turn out.

“Some of the measures that people use to determine whether someone’s a likely voter sometimes have no relationship whatsoever to whether people actually do turn out or not,” Mellman said.

His example: Some pollsters use voters’ self-reported “enthusiasm” as an indicator of which voters are most likely to make it to the polls. But even though it seems like fired-up voters should be the most reliable ones, there isn’t always an exact correlation. Voters who are lukewarm at best about their candidates may still feel an obligation to cast a ballot; passionate citizens who are contacted by pollsters in mid-October may ultimately procrastinate when Election Day comes.

Another reason for variation is that some polls, especially those that use automated recordings rather than live questioners, cannot legally contact cell phone users. That means that many pollsters are limited to contacting landline users, who are likely to be older and less transient.

(The NBC News political unit, like many other major news organizations, does not use automated interactive voice response (IVR) polls in determining its race ratings. There are a plethora of such surveys, in part because IVR polls can cost as little as 10 percent of the cost of a live-interview poll.)

Additionally, survey information that is collected in the course of a single night tends to be biased towards what Mellman calls “the easy-to-reach” – voters who are more likely to be home in the evenings to answer the phone. “People that are harder to reach are much more likely to vote for Democratic candidates,” Mellman argues. “If you just look at the people you get on the first dial, you have a sample that looks much more favorable towards Republican candidates.”

While there are many different public polls of statewide gubernatorial and Senate races, there are far fewer widely-released surveys of House contests. Campaigns conduct internal polls that often offer fairly accurate snapshots of races, but they generally only release them to the media if the numbers are good for their candidate.

“You’ve got a lot of House polls that are selectively cherry-picked for the press,” says David Wasserman, who tracks House races for the Cook Political Report. That makes the states of individual races much more difficult for voters to wrap their heads around, he said.

He added that midterm elections, because they don’t have the reliably high turnout of election years with a presidential race at the top of the ticket, can be more prone to surprises.

“Smaller electorates are more difficult to predict,” said Wasserman, whose latest rankings show a whopping 100 competitive House races, including 50 tossups.

Still, although individual races may be difficult to gauge, most pundits agree that Republicans are poised to take control of the House but that the 10 seats they would need to take the Senate are likely out of reach.

And there’s one thing that’s for sure.

“Democrats will have a tough night,” said NBC’s Chuck Todd. “It's how tough that is the unknown.”

From NBC's Carrie Dann and Domenico Montanaro
There could be a new record for turnout in a midterm election set Tuesday night.

Dr. Michael McDonald, who tracks election turnout at George Mason University, projects that a record-breaking 90 million people will cast ballots for 2010 candidates, the largest number of voters to date in a midterm election.

The current midterm record was set in 2006, when 86 million voters went to the polls.

McDonald, who bases his projections on early voting data as well as trends in individual states, calculates that turnout will be about 41.3 percent of the eligible voting population.

That's comparable to the population that turned out in 1994 (41.1 percent of the eligible population) and the highest share since at least 1982.

Those numbers still pale in comparson to turnout in a typical presidential election. Average turnout in presidential years is 55 percent, compared to about 40 percent for off-year contests.

About 30 percent fewer people turn out to vote in midterms than preidential elections. In 2008, the all-time turnout record was set, when 133 million people showed up to vote.

McDonald projects turnout of more than 50 percent in 12 states -- including Alaska, Wisconsin, Colorado -- where some of the closest statewide races in the country are taking place.

From NBC's John Yang
NORTH LAS VEGAS, NV -- The Secret Service requires people attending events with a president or first lady to be in place hours before the main attraction arrives. So organizers are forced to cope with the question of keeping people engaged for that time.

Senate Majority Harry Reid's campaign came up a solution today for the large crowd that jammed a high school gymnasium here to wait nearly two hours for First Lady Michelle Obama -- they turned it into a campaign phone bank.

Speakers, including Congresswoman Dina Titus (D), who faces an uphill battle for re-election, and Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (D), who doesn't, asked people to pull out their cell phones and call friends, neighbors, and co-workers to remind them to vote. To show them how it's done, Titus and Berkley made calls themselves, even holding their phones up so the recipients of the calls could hear the crowd, and holding the earpiece to the microphone so the crowd could hear them.

When Michelle Obama -- whom Reid introduced as "the closer" -- spoke, she received the most enthusiastic and energetic responses of the three speeches I've seen her give this fall. And Mrs. Obama seemed energized by the crown. Using a prompter to deliver essentially the same speech she's given since for more than two weeks now, she spoke with more feeling and emotion than those earlier stops.

A big reason why Nevada -- where one-quarter of the population is Hispanic -- is on her Election Eve itinerary can be found in the results of the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll: While only 45% of registered voters say they have a favorable opinion of President Obama, his approval rating among Hispanics is 55%.

From NBC's Alexandra Moe
With the midterm election just hours away, watch Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro discuss what they think may happen tomorrow night.

PLUS - what will Mark and Domenico DO if Alvin Greene and Jim Rogers win? You’ll have to watch to find out!

Don't forget to submit questions for the next Boiler Room segment. Write questions below, post them on our Facebook page, or tweet it, to @NBCFirstRead or @mmurraypolitics or @DomenicoNBC.

Thanks to KFOR in Oklahoma for the photo of Jim Rogers.

Video was shot and edited by Alexandra Moe.

From the NBC News political team
By all indications, the president's party is heading for midterm losses tomorrow night that could be comparable to Democrats' defeat during the Republican Revolution of 1994. Some projections show a change of power in the House more powerful than any since the late 1940s.

According to the latest NBC/WSJ poll, the president's approval rating with likely voters is just 44 percent, and even worse among white voters, who make up the vast majority of voters in the districts up for grabs.

But -- as we've pointed out in this space before, and it bears repeating on the eve of the election -- even if Democrats suffer enormous midterm losses, people should be very careful about assuming that President Obama's presidential re-election chances will be imperiled.

First, it's the historical norm for a president's party to lose seats -- an average of 26 seats. Except for President George W. Bush, whose GOP saw modest gains in the cycle after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, every president since Harry Truman has seen his party lose seats in the middle of his first term.

That's a trend the president and his surrogates have obliquely acknowledged, even as they furiously stump nationwide to turn out their base.

"If everyone who fought for change in 2008 shows up to vote in 2010, we will win this election," Obama said yesterday in Ohio.

Data in the NBC/WSJ poll shows that he's probably correct.

Although Democrats are on the wrong end of an enthusiasm gap during this midterm election -- meaning that the voters who are most likely to go to the polls favor a Republican-led Congress by six percentage points -- when all registered voters are surveyed, that advantage drops to just two percent.

Just two weeks ago, registered voters actually favored a Democratic-held Congress by two points.

Another reason that Obama's 2012 re-election chances remain relatively high: His approval rating with key constituencies remains robust. Just shy of 90 percent of African-American voters approve of his job performance; Hispanics back him by 55 percent to 31 percent; he still has a net positive rating among voters under 35.

Those groups help in boosting the president's overall approval rating with all registered voters close to 50 percent, still making him a formidable opponent for any GOP challenger -- who will have to win the nomination by rising to the top of a crowded primary field.

Plus, remember some recent history: In 1982, when unemployment was above 10% for 13-straight months, Republicans lost 26 seats; in January 1983, Ronald Reagan's Gallup approval rating was just 35%, but Reagan went on to a landslide victory two years later.

In 1994, Democrats lost 54 House seats, second only -- since World War II -- to Harry Truman, who lost 55 House seats in 1946. Clinton also went on to a decisive re-election win in 1996.

Much of this, of course, depends -- on the economy, on the agenda, on who the Republican presidential nominee is. But it's important context when talking about what the results mean tomorrow night.

In the second half of October, Democrats saw a slight improvement in voter confidence, but not likely enough to avoid big losses in the House, according to the latest numbers in NBC's Voter Confidence Index.

With the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, the October monthly VCI average is now -36, down from -35. But the numbers also show a split between the first half of October and the second half. Democrats have touted recent upticks in polling in various states, and the VCI bares that out.

In the first two weeks of October, the VCI was -41, an all-time low in Obama's presidency. But the last two weeks showed a -32 average.

That should be little solace, however, to Democrats.

Historically, numbers like that are bad for the party in power. In 1982, when Ronald Reagan was president and unemployment was at 10%, the VCI was -35 -- and the GOP lost 26 seats.

In 1994, when Bill Clinton was president, the VCI was -30, and Democrats lost 54 seats.

For more, check out http://VCI.msnbc.com.

From NBC's Mike Viqueira
Madame Speaker, we hardly knew ye.

The gains that House Democrats made in the last two cycles -- winning the majority in 2006 that began Nancy Pelosi's historic tenure in the speaker's suite, then enhancing their margins in 2008 -- are likely to be swept away Tuesday in a tsunami that makes those two elections look like ripples on the Capitol Reflecting Pool.

If it happens, the effect on President Obama's agenda will be immediate and profound -- and the much maligned "broken" system of Washington politics and policy is likely to get more contentious and invidious before it gets better, if it is to get better at all.

The president's party would be in the minority. And as both Pelosi and her apparent successor, John Boehner, know from years of bitter experience, to be in the House minority is to be virtually powerless to influence and shape legislation. When you're talking about holding the majority in the House, you're talking about controlling everything -- from committee investigations and the recycling regimen in House offices, to which bills will even be considered for debate on the floor and what is served for lunch in the cafeteria.

There is no give and take, no horse trading with the minority over much of anything. Democrats would be utterly impotent, unable to advance the president's agenda.

"The best system is to have one party govern and the other party watch." That was the philosophy of running the House set forth by 19th Century Speaker Thomas Reed that is still adhered to today, much as it has been through most of the history of Congress, regardless of which party is running things.

What the minority can do
Virtually the only way for the minority to make an impact is to maintain party discipline, to present a united front and draw a party line on big votes. After all, within the parameters of conventional political practice, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing so. The object is to trip up the opposition and regain power, because we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. No in-betweens.

The majority does not have that luxury, and is therefore forced to twist arms and break some china within its own camp in order to demonstrate that they can function. That forces compromise -- a dirty word to doctrinaire supporters -- and it results in internal fissures and factions.

In keeping with this, any individual piece of major legislation, regardless of its particular merits, must be opposed by the minority. Look at the infamous late-night, three-hour Medicare prescription-drug vote as an example. The bill, pushed by President Bush and Republican majority leadership, established an entire new (and also unpaid-for) benefit under Medicare. Let's be honest: The legislation was something that Democrats had long sought, and -- donut hole or no donut hole -- has turned out to be popular among seniors.

But for weeks, minority Democratic leaders worked tirelessly to keep their troops against it. When the vote finally came, one Democrat, Rep. David Wu of Oregon, spent almost two hours on the floor in what appeared to be a trance-like state, staring up at the tally board without slipping his voting card into the machine. At his side was a parade of Democratic colleagues beseeching him to vote "nay."

With so many Dems voting against the measure, and with the hardest of the hard-core conservative true-believers defying their president and leaders by refusing to support it, chaos ensued on the Republican side. In the end, only a 4:00 am phone call from the president himself resulted in the switch of two GOP votes from NAY TO YEA, and the unfunded entitlement passed as dawn broke. It was ugly and even scandalous, and to this day conservatives lament both the bill and the process that led to its adoption.

Last year, Boehner was making his way to the chamber as the House prepared to vote on the stimulus bill. Walking past a group of reporters, Boehner brought the tips of his forefinger and thumb together to form a zero, indicating with a measure of pride that not one Republican would cross party lines and vote "yea." Many of the Democrats who did, some vulnerable and under pressure from leadership and the White House, are now paying a political price.

Why rancor is the norm
So the incentive is toward partisanship. Party-line discipline is a viewed as a virtue in your U.S. House. Ask yourself: Why do you think they call the party vote-counters "whips"? Rancor is nothing new. Promises of procedural and systemic reform, put forward by Pelosi in 2006 and now by Boehner, have thus far have turned out to be unattainable at best and a canard at worst. And bipartisanship? A chimera that in the end only serves to raise expectations to unattainable levels and disappoint those who believed in the promise to begin with.

So what does any of this mean for 2011? The last time, when the House (and Senate) were infused with conservative firebrands and the White House occupied by a Democrat, was 1995. The immediate result was two government shutdowns, maneuvering and tantrums, a president compelled to remind the world that the Constitution made him relevant to the process, and to declare that the era of big government was over.

This time, a Republican-led House would try to significantly alter Obama's agenda on issues like immigration, energy, taxes, and education. Divided government could deepen partisan divisions over the next two years on those and other issues.

But some who have seen it before think that conditions might be ripe for compromise. "When you have Republicans in Congress and a Democrat in the White House running for reelection in two years, both of them have a need to show the public that they can get the job done. Not just in fighting and scoring political points," says Don Baer, who served as President Clinton's communication director at the height of the Republican Revolution.

Republicans took the blame for the shutdowns, especially after Newt Gingrich implied that it happened out of personal pique. He and other GOP leaders were asked to ride in the back of Air Force One as part of the American delegation to the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin, an arrangement Gingrich perceived as a presidential snub.

It can get better
But it did get better, eventually. With a seat at Gingrich's leadership table, Republicans take their share of credit for welfare reform -- a twice-vetoed measure that President Clinton eventually signed -- and a balanced budget. Both were the result of hard-fought compromise.

"I think the main thing that Republicans learned in 1995 is that governing is hard," says former GOP Rep. Bob Walker, a close Gingrich confidant. "It's one thing to stand on the outside and criticize; it's another thing to have to win every day in the Congress and to actually move legislation."

But actually moving legislation means compromise, and compromise is bound to anger the bases of each party. Liberal resentment toward Bill Clinton still lingers for his "triangulating" approach to governing -- casting Democrats as a hurdle to overcome, not an ally to fight alongside. For their part, conservatives are likely to fight any accommodation made with Obama.

And, of course, there's the Machiavellian notion, shared privately by many Hill Democrats, that the Obama White House wouldn't mind seeing them lose control of the House. Bill Clinton himself recently said that a GOP takeover would have a political upside for President Obama, giving him a foil going into 2012.

"I think it would increase his chances of being re-elected," Clinton said on CBS's "Face the Nation," adding, "Whether it would be good for the country or not, I don't know."

'Change' elections were always part of the Founders' plans
One last word: First Read counts more than 100 House seats in play, all about but 10 currently occupied by Democrats. That's a lot, historically speaking. But there are 435 seats in the House. Even if all 100-odd switch, it's still less than a quarter of the chamber.

"The House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people," the framers wrote Federalist papers, in support of biennial elections to the House proposed in the newly written Constitution.

"Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised."

Whether it is Democrats or Republicans surfing a wave, "change" elections were all part of the plan.

Not much change in the final NBC/WSJ poll before tomorrow’s elections… GOP headed for big House and Senate gains… One reason why: It’s overwhelmingly winning the folks who think the country is on the wrong track… Voters, including Dems, say they want more change from Obama… Poll also suggests that tomorrow is shaping up to be more of a referendum on Pelosi than Obama… The GOP’s brand, though, is still in tatters… The final day of campaigning… And Christine O’Donnell pulls an Obama and will air a 30-minute TV ad today.

From NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Unchanged: Our new NBC/WSJ poll underscores this irony: On the cusp of a third-straight change election, so little has actually changed in the past few months. In the poll, 49% of likely voters prefer a GOP-controlled Congress, versus 43% who prefer a Dem-held one, which is essentially unchanged from our last two polls; 60% think the country is on the wrong track, which is the same as in our past surveys going back to June; voters are still sour on the economy; Republicans maintain their enthusiasm advantage; and President Obama’s approval rating remains below 50% (at 45% among registered voters and 44% among likely voters). All of this adds up to BIG expected GOP gains in tomorrow’s elections; the six-point lead in the generic ballot projects to a gain of at least 50 to 55 House seats. “This is a devastating set of data for the incumbent party,” says NBC/WSJ co-pollster Bill McInturff (R). “It is a rebuke to the last two years.” Co-pollster Peter Hart (D) adds that on Election Day, “the Democrats are about to feel the force of hurricane winds.”

*** Why the GOP is headed for big gains: And why are Republicans headed for big gains? Check out these numbers: Among the 60% who believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, more than 70% of them prefer a GOP-controlled Congress; just 19% of them prefer a Dem-held Congress. Given these numbers, the assumption by many analysts and strategists from BOTH parties is that the undecided vote ends up breaking toward the Republicans, so the six-point advantage that translates to a gain of 50-55 seats could end up being a nine-point advantage tomorrow -- and that would put the GOP pick-ups over 60 seats. Then again, it would still mean the Republicans would have a smaller majority than the Democrats currently enjoy in the House. For Republicans to equal the current Democratic majority, Republicans would need a pickup of nearly 80 seats in the House.

*** But wanting more change from Obama: Here’s another irony: Regarding the man who promised change in the presidential election two years ago, well, voters want more change from him. Per the poll, a combined 63% -- including 47% of Democrats -- say they want to see “a great deal of change” or “quite a bit of change” in the way Obama has been leading the country. Hart attributes this desire of change, especially from the Dems, to the state of the economy. But it’s also clear that Obama is having trouble with the middle of the country. Just 32% of self-identified independents approve of his job, and his job-approval among moderates is at 49%, which is lower than in past NBC/WSJ polls.

*** More of a referendum on Pelosi? Yet tomorrow’s midterm elections are shaping up to be more about Speaker Nancy Pelosi and congressional Democrats than about Obama. In the poll, 15% who prefer a GOP-controlled Congress say their vote is a protest against the Obama administration’s performance; 20% say it’s a protest against the performance by Pelosi and congressional Democrats; and another 10% say it’s a protest against both. (But 48% who want Republicans in charge of Congress say their vote isn’t a protest vote -- but rather a positive one for Republicans.) What’s more, Pelosi’ fav/unfav among registered voters in the poll is 24%-50% (and 8%-61% among indies). That's compared with Obama’s 47%-42% and George W. Bush’s 32%-51%. Voters are saying: We want to fire Pelosi and send a message to Obama to make some changes.

*** The GOP’s short leash with the public: As Republicans are poised to take back control of at least one chamber of Congress, their brand is still in tatters: 34% have a favorable view of the GOP, versus 41% who have an unfavorable view. By comparison, the Dems’ fav/unfav stands at 39%-42%, and the Tea Party’s is at 32%-40%. Given the GOP’s low standing, McInturff says Republicans would have a very short leash with the public if they end up controlling Congress. Americans, he argues, will keep voting elected officials out of office “until somebody gets the message -- which is fix the economy and get things done in Washington.” The good news for Republicans: They have been able to distance themselves from Bush’s presidency. Only 34% believe the GOP would return to Bush’s economic policies if they regain Congress, while 58% say they would bring different ideas.

*** The Tea Party’s “fervor” and “intensity”: Hart makes a final point on the poll: The Tea Party, he says, has captured the “fervor” and “intensity” of this election season. Per the poll, 28% of registered voters identify themselves as Tea Party supporters. Among these supporters, 57% would replace every single member of Congress if they could (versus 45% of all voters who say they want to do this), and 30% say their vote is to send a message rather than elect the best person for the job (compared with 22% of the electorate who say this). Asked what kind of message they’d like to send with their vote, 50% of Tea Party supporters say that one of their top-two messages would be to return to the principles of the U.S. Constitution (versus 23% of all voters who say this). And Tea Party backers are overwhelmingly voting Republican: 85% prefer a GOP-controlled Congress, while only 10% want the Democrats in charge. The upcoming challenge for Boehner and McConnell: While independents in the poll say they want the parties to work together, the Tea Party doesn’t.

*** Today’s campaign activity: The day before Election Day, per NBC’s Rob Rivas, Bill Clinton stumps today for several Democrats (Reps. Scott Murphy and Bill Owens in NY, Senate candidate Joe Manchin in WV, Jack Conway in KY, and Kendrick Meek and Alex Sink in FL)… First Lady Michelle Obama campaigns for Harry Reid in NV and Joe Sestak in PA… Rudy Giuliani helps John Raese in WV… And John Boehner campaigns for John Kasich and Rob Portman in OH.

*** O’Donnell pulls an Obama: Per NBC's Kelly O'Donnell, Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell's campaign has purchased TV time in 30-minute blocks (at 10:00 am ET and 3:00 pm ET) for a TV program intended to bypass traditional media and speak directly to Delaware voters.

*** Place your bets: Beginning today, “Meet the Press” is unveiling a three-part Web special with political pundits who will project which candidates are headed to victory tomorrow night, and which ones are headed to defeat. www.mtp.msnbc.com

*** More midterm news: In Ohio, the final Quinnipiac poll shows John Kasich (R) and Ted Strickland (D) deadlocked in the gubernatorial race, at 47%-46%, and Rob Portman up 19 points in the Senate race…

Countdown to Election Day 2010: 1 day

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.

The New York Times reports that American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS are laying the groundwork to be players after the midterms and also in 2012. Those groups “are planning to keep pushing their agenda in the lame-duck session of Congress that will begin in two weeks and are already laying the groundwork for a more aggressive campaign in the 2012 presidential race.”

“That development is causing Democrats to reassess their early financial plans for President Obama’s re-election campaign while forcing them to balance the administration’s demands for more transparency in campaign finance against the pressure for liberal groups to do more to counteract the strength of their conservative counterparts.”

New GOP goal: Stopping Palin? Politico: “Top Republicans in Washington and in the national GOP establishment say the 2010 campaign highlighted an urgent task that they will begin in earnest as soon as the elections are over: Stop Sarah Palin. Interviews with advisers to the main 2012 presidential contenders and with other veteran Republican operatives make clear they see themselves on a common, if uncoordinated, mission of halting the momentum and credibility Palin gained with conservative activists by plunging so aggressively into this year’s midterm campaigns.”

NBC’s Shawna Thomas reports that John Boehner, the man who would likely be the next Speaker if the GOP takes back the House, predicted, “We’re going to have a big win.”

A Harvard historian writes in a new book: “Tea Party’s Revolution...wasn’t just kooky history; it was antihistory.” The Boston Globe: Jill “Lepore admits that the Tea Party movement belongs to a long tradition of squabbling over the Revolution’s meaning, a tradition that began before the Revolution had even ended and continued through the Civil War, the Civil Rights debate, and up to today. But the Tea Party has outdone its predecessors on both the left and the right, Lepore suggests, in fashioning a nostalgic and inflexible version of that history. The Tea Party simplifies the Founding Fathers — it turns them into an orderly (and angelic) choir when, in fact, they were a confusing and contradictory group. And Lepore sees this as an error not just of historical fact, but also of historical method.”

In Cleveland, “President Obama made Ohio his final campaign stop yesterday in the tumultuous midterm elections, trying to help hard-pressed Democrats in a state that could prove crucial to his fortunes in two years. But Republicans said it was too little and too late,” the AP writes, adding: “Obama, bracing for perhaps one of the biggest midterm setbacks in recent times, made a four-state weekend sprint to help embattled Democrats as best he can. He said their chances are good if their supporters turn out heavily tomorrow.”

“President Obama is ready to flex some muscle by using the veto pen if Republicans win back a majority in the House,” The Hill writes. “Democrats and White House aides said that Obama is prepared to wield his veto pen and effectively stare down Republicans should they have a successful Election Day.”

The AP: “Generational differences appear to play a big role in how soldiers, Air Force personnel, Marines, and sailors feel about repealing the policy that has barred gays from serving openly since 1993 but faces a possible court-ordered end. Age may also influence how a change is implemented, if the courts or Congress ultimately lift the ban.”

And: “Theodore Chaikin Sorensen, whose prose mingled with the thoughts and words of his close friend John F. Kennedy to create some of the most memorable presidential speeches of the 20th century, died yesterday. Mr. Sorensen’s wife, Gillian, said he died in a New York City hospital of complications from an Oct. 22 stroke. He was 82,” the Boston Globe writes. “Despite a stroke nine years ago that left him nearly sightless, Mr. Sorensen had continued to be a vibrant link intellectually and philosophically to the Kennedy administration and the Camelot aura that defined the clan, launching the political careers of the president’s younger brothers, Robert and Edward.”

“Inertia by Congress on the Bush-era tax cuts could likely push action into January, setting up the first face-off on a major issue between Republicans and Democrats in the new year,” The Hill writes. “A day before the midterm elections and two weeks before lawmakers return to Washington for a lame-duck session, two leading theories have emerged on what will happen on tax cuts -- either all of them will be extended for at least a year or nothing will happen.”

“It may be up to President Obama whether Congress extends the Bush tax cuts into 2011 in the weeks after tomorrow’s election or lets the automatic increase start cutting into most people’s paychecks early next year,” the AP says. “Despite the punishment his fellow Democrats are expected to take from voters, Obama has shown no sign of retreating from his insistence that families and small businesses with incomes above $250,000 return to higher tax levels starting Jan. 1. But Obama also has dodged the question of whether he would veto a bill that extends the tax cuts for everyone.”