Ah election day.

There are few days like it and on especially important ones like last Tuesday, the entire time from around 9:00 PM to 1 AM is one spent watching and waiting. People that care sit waiting, wondering what could be and how it will all turn out. Who will win? Who will lose? What color will that state end up, red or blue? All questions that draw people in.

So by now you’ve got to be asking; what the hell are you doing writing about election night on a sports blog?

Well that’s because mid term and presidential election coverage is always are run and treated like an actual sporting event. It’s akin seeing who’s going emerge victorious in a championship game.

I’m serious. Think about it; the winning and losing, all the numbers to show you who’s ahead and behind. There are analysts telling you what each party has to do meet their respective goals as triumph and adversity swing there way. It’s game night; where all the weeks and months of trash talking has come to a head. Within a four to six hour period, we know who’s gotten all the marbles.

And it translates into the coverage. You’ve got your play by play guy in the lead anchor person. They’re the guy (or in CBS’s case lady) who gives you the standard running picture on the action. They let you know who’s up, who’s behind and what it all means in the context of the game. If Hillary Clinton is destroying her opponent in the NY Senate race, Charles Gibson on ABC is going to tell you “Senator Clinton has coasted to a re-election bid, capturing 70% percent of the vote”. That’s akin to giving you the score; Clinton 70- Spencer 29. Pretty nasty rout there.

They’re also there to tell you how it matters in the larger context of the game. If the Democrats are making serious run at the Senate, Katie Couric will let you know how close they are to making that dream a reality: “With six seats left, the Democrats will need to capture all six to win control of the Senate.”

But it extends beyond that; you’ve even got your color commentators, AKA political analysts. These are supposedly “Washington Inside Men”, who have seen campaigns in both victory and defeat. (Or they know many who have.) They’ve got access to all the major players by virtue of their longtime association with Capitol Hill, and as a result provide the insight that we the viewers at home, who only have a vague understanding of the political machine, sorely lack. For the common person watching, they seem insightful and intelligent.

But for people who follow politics, study history and consider themselves fairly immune to political double talk, they’ll seem like jackasses who speak the obvious. (You don’t know how many times I repeated “I said that an hour ago!” whenever an analyst uttered something obvious)

Next up, you’ll get the reporters in the field, usually stationed at various headquarters. These are like the sideline reporters. In fact much like sideline reporters, this position is often (but not always) staffed by a woman. Their job is pretty simple actually; to say exactly what they see and ask about what they don’t. If the mood is good (and that is always asked) they have to tell you. If it’s bad, they won’t say it so succinctly, but will find a delicate way of saying it.

For example, a candidate is down by 40 points with 60% of the precincts reporting. It’s over. Everyone is pissed they wasted millions of dollars and countless hours of their lives on this losing effort. The correspondent says:

“Well Brian, the mood is down a little, but the people here remain optimistic. They know that no one outside of their candidate’s neighborhood knows his name, but they’re still believing an act of god (or computer hacker) will change things.”

You could go to a bar in Kansas City in July and hear the same thing. If a reporter went to a group of Royals fans, they’d all admit that no one outside of their region knows who John Buck is (what, he’s not Joe Buck’s half brother?) but they’re still hoping baseball disqualifies everyone else for steroid use, giving the Royals the World Series by default. (And since the Royals are too cheap to buy ‘Roids for their players they’d never have to worry about getting caught with everyone else)

On Presidential Election night, since the broadcast runs forever, you’ll get studio guests, who are often former politicians themselves. This is equivalent to when Philadelphia Phillies’ shortstop Jimmy Rollins shows up sitting between Jeanne Zelasko and Kevin Kennedy for no apparent reason during the baseball postseason.

But that’s just the coverage similarities with the media. The actual breakdown of the night is also very sports-esque.

Let’s forget the whole fact that elections are usually called races, because even that jackass of a political analyst could figure that out. Instead let’s break down the way it’s portrayed.

You have candidate’s pictures place by their name and party with their score, AKA their percentage of the vote and actual vote total. In fact in a close race you’ll hear the anchor often say “the candidate is trailing by just 3,000 votes with just over 75% of the precincts reporting in.” That’s basically saying “okay, the candidate is down seven with three minutes to go in the game. Can he make a late rally and seize victory from the jaws of defeat?” (As what happened in the Missouri Senate Race.)

Of course you’ve got those political analysts jumping in to recite the obvious; i.e. what exit polls found. They’ll say what apparently helped and hurt a candidate. Tuesday I found out from George Stephanopoulos that the Iraq war actually hurt the Republicans. That was almost as brilliant as when I heard Gary Danielson in the Utah-Pittsburgh Fiesta Bowl a few years back say “Pittsburgh has to score touchdowns to win this game.”

You will also get shots of supporters, either at headquarters or elsewhere (they’re the fans). If it’s a presidential election, you’ll even get “focus” groups who are asked why they support a candidate despite the fact he’s a closet racist who attempted to win his seat by using the old time fear of miscegenation. These are the die hards, they support him through thick and thin, no matter how many times he’s reneged on promises to them and their fellow constituents.

Finally when the election has been decided, you get the post game press conference, AKA the victory or concession speech. You’ll even those sideline reporters talking about what they asked the candidate.

“Well James, coach Parcells was disappointed by the fact his team lost thanks to a botched field goal attempt, the ensuing return, face mask penalty and a 47 yard field goal. He said he was impressed with how his team fought today and was upset they didn’t get the outcome they desired.”

“Well Charles, Senator A was disappointed he lost his reelection bid thanks to an unpopular war, allegations of infidelity, spousal abuse and association with child molesters and political criminals. He added he was impressed with the hard work his campaign staff did throughout and was saddened they didn’t get the outcome they all worked so hard for.”

Anyone who’s watched a political event knows that’s the basic thing that correspondent is going to say whenever it becomes official that the guy they’re covering lost. And you can reverse those two quotes for a victory by changing “disappointed” to “happy”, “lost to won” and the second half of the last sentence to “pleased with the result in this game/election.” Oh and if it’s political, there is a mandatory “The people have spoken!”

Well 51% percent of 52% of the population I suppose…

So don’t hate on election night. In fact people should start throwing election night parties just like they do Super Bowl ones. You could even have jerseys of the candidates; for example, how about "McCain-08" versus "Obama-08". And of course you’d have people wearing the throwbacks, such as the "Regan 80", "Kennedy 60" and the ever popular but extremely controversial "Bush 00". (Double zero’s usually are). And I guarantee you the conversation would never go dull; someone’s always got an opinion on how much they have to pay to the government every year.

And if you’ve got political observant folks, you could even get into conversations about the moves the party did or did not make. For example: “Man, I wonder if Bush should have pulled Rumsfeld earlier. His presence is killing the Republican squad tonight. The Democrats are turning him into their own personal b*$%#.”

Granted the commercials aren’t as good, but the action most nights is better. I mean, most Super Bowls are over by the third quarter. And besides there is one compelling reason an election party is a bit more practical than a Super Bowl one;

Unlike the Super Bowl, it actually will affect your life.

Finally, and unfortunately sadly, I guarantee if you ask a group of ten people what was the big news Tuesday, three would say “Oh my god, I cannot believe Britney and Kevin are getting a divorce!” There would probably be a random fourth (likely a middle aged woman) who would say: “I could not believe Kirstie Alley wore a bikini on Oprah.”

These were two of the stories in the first three pages of Wednesday’s New York Newsday. Granted the election had a section onto itself, but it could have been a nothing day and that would still have been a travesty. It should go without saying that those two nuggets should be in the entertainment section, if anywhere at all. I guarantee internationally, nationally or locally, there were bigger and far more important stories.

Some people may not like me for saying this, but screw it: if people actually believe that who Britney is banging or how a 55 year old former star from the 1980’s looks in essentially her bra and panties is important news, then Donald Rumsfeld really did get a bum rap. America deserves leaders who reflect the population; in other words, who are oblivious to real life as they are. If Britney and Kirstie are more important than the hundreds of people (and tens of Americans) dying each day, then why should the secretary of Defense (or the President for that matter) actually respect them enough to give them the truth?

Kind of like those Yankee fans who aren’t smart enough to realize they’re watching an all time great at third base and would rather eat up all that local columnist tells them they should about choking and not being clutch. If they really think anyone is better than A-Rod, then they should trade him for anything and put Miguel Cairo out there every day. Then maybe, just maybe, they’ll finally wake up. Of course, then it will be too late.

Ah, sports and politics.

They’re more similar than you think.