Boy am I embarrassed. I’m wrong, and I picked the wrong day to come in late to the office. I’ve had one call and a couple of e-mails to remind me that I was off by a long shot in this post. In 1994 especially the state House did make a dramatic shift from Democrat to Republican control, similar to what happened in D.C. One caller assumed that I read state Legislature information incorrectly, reading 1994 instead of 1995, when the actual members of the Legislature would have changed. He’s probably right, but I compiled this information about a week ago, so I don’t remember for sure. I got it wrong. Below is a corrected version of what I wrote.

That Republicans will pick up seats in Congress and that their counterparts in the state House will benefit has almost been discussed as a done deal. If you look at the last six times a president had his first mid-term election, though, you’ll see that the national trends don’t necessarily mean the makeup in Olympia changes at all. In fact, in the last three instances there was no change in the Washington House of Representatives. In the 1994 election the shift in state numbers was proportionately larger than what happened nationally. In 2002 and 1990, though, there was no link between what happened nationally and what took place here in state.

If you look at each House individually, though, the data from the last six elections does suggest Democrats are likely to lose seats in each. In each case since 1970 there was one exception to that rule, but you know what they say about exceptions.

One of the questions I tried to ask legislators last week was what kind of impact will the 2010 legislative session have in November when the most obvious evidence of what legislators did will be a rise in taxes on things you buy at 7-Eleven. State Rep. Sherry Appleton, D-Poulsbo, said Democrats could pay a price. “People have to make up their minds whether we did the right thing or not,” she said. Appleton said many more people would have noticed had programs such as adult day health care would have remained cut. “I went down there not to raise to taxes. I went down there to do what was right,” she said. “I think I did that.”

With the other four legislators I spoke with we didn’t seem to get into that question as directly.

Jerry Cornfield at the Herald in Everett wrote about Republican hopes that the GOP will have more power after the 2010 elections. In 2006 and 2008 a lot of people figured that Democrats did so well locally because Democrats did so well in the national races.

But I checked the numbers from the last six times a president was in his first term and in only two four mid-term elections did the state House numbers go in the same direction the Congress’ numbers did. I didn’t include Senate numbers. Those might tell a different story.

George W. Bush’s first mid-term was an exception. It was the only one of the last six in which the president actually picked up seats in the House. In Washington there was no change in the House in Olympia Democrats picked up two seats.

In 1994 Bill Clinton saw 52 House seats lost, but in Olympia there was again no change and in Olympia 29 seats switch from Democrat to Republican.

In 1990 George H.W. Bush lost eight seats, and there was no change in Olympia, but Republicans in this state gained five seats.

In 1982 Ronald Reagan lost 26 seats in the House and the Republicans Democrats picked up seven nine seats in Olympia.

In 1978 Jimmy Carter lost 15 seats and in Washington Democrats lost 13.

In 1970 Richard Nixon lost 12 House positions and Washington Republicans lost nine.

When I had the wrong information up I was quite surprised by it. I took it as logical that the national mood certainly influenced more Democrats to vote in 2006 and 2008 and more Republican leaners to leave their ballots unchecked. I wondered if the shift depended completely on Democrats. Growing up I was told that Republicans vote in more elections than Democrats. I don’t have the data to back that up, but it got me wondering if election results depend on how excited the Democrats are. The surprise I felt should have spurred me to take a second and third look at the numbers.

On the Secretary of State’s election site, which includes an online version of the voter pamphlet leading up to the Aug. 19 Primary, is included a PDF file entitled, How is the United States President Elected?

You grammar cops never mind for a moment that “is” should be capitalized. There are bigger violations here. Thanks to Jeff Duffy of Port Orchard, this egregious error has been called to my attention.

The page is a nice handy explanation that, no, dummy, you already had a chance to vote for president and being the stinking, self-righteous, so-called journalist you gave up that right and sat it out. Well, that’s what it would say if it were directed at me, to which I would respond that I do not often stink.

The bigger problem appears at the right. The eagle is lovely, but appears angry. And well he or she should be. The oath above said eagle is indeed an oath, but it’s not presidential, else John McCain and Barack Obama might already be presidents. The oath shown is the one members of Congress take after picking out desks at Ikea, but before opening accounts at the Senate or House credit unions.

I didn’t give Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed an opportunity to respond to the goof. Instead I’m going to engage in the activity enjoyed by so many anonymous story commenters — ignorant blame-throwing and random speculation. I say it’s the fault of the secretary’s newest hire, David Ammons. I have all kinds of respect for Ammons, who ruled the Capitol building as an Associated Press reporter starting sometime after the Gutenberg Bible but before Pong. He left this year to work for Reed, making Ammons the most likely suspect.

Here’s where I pulled my conclusion.