It is a strange and different political season with the Tea Party movement, Americans’ general anger with all that is the federal government and the explosion of corporate cash in the final election days.

As result of all the “noise” in the political system even the most outspoken political pundits have resisted, so far, making predictions about the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections.

That excludes of course the predictions of Republicans, who have started their celebration before the votes are cast, and the Democrats who grimly assert that they will hold their majorities in both houses of Congress.

But there are indicators that may suggest some form to all the chaos that is Election 2010.

The first surprising indicator is that campaign cash alone, and there is certainly a lot of it in circulation, seems not to be enough to guarantee election. Several very wealthy big spenders, think Carly Florina here, have hardly nudged the polls upward in spite of their spending.

And while there will be a last minute spending binge by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that could ultimately change the influence of cash, the purchase of attack ads alone seem not to be having the effect it had in recent elections.

Second, one always predictable indicator, jobs, or more specifically a lack of jobs in 2010, is always an indicator that voters will “throw the bums out.”

There is little reason to think this election will respond any differently to a very difficult economy.

Third, the Tea Party movement, after all its sound and fury, may end up having very little influence in the election. Of the eight nationally known Tea Party supported candidates, only a couple are relatively assured of election.

In Alaska and Utah, winning the Republican primary is exactly equal to winning the November election, so the Tea Party supported candidates there will win their respective elections.

In West Virginia the voters will cast aside John Rease for a third time and elect Joe Manchin to fill the Byrd senate seat. In Kentucky also the voters will turn away from Rand Paul and elect Jack Conroy.

In Wisconsin voters will reject Sen. Russ Feingold and elect Republican Ron Johnson.

In Ohio, Democrat Lee Fisher will be defeated by ex-financial adviser to President Bush, Rob Portman.

Overall, Republicans will win 5 or 6 Senate seats and 40 to 45 House seats, enough to claim the majority in the House and to make the Senate 100 percent unmanageable.

After the election, the Tea Party folks will claim a historic victory as will Republicans in general. But the outcome will be more or less what midterm elections usually are for the party in power.

Unless the Democrats lose 50 plus House seats and a majority in the Senate the outcome is within the range of normal elections and past midterm outcomes.

If you are a Democrat, none of this is bad news. Let the Republicans have their time again in power and allow them to show what they can do given the trust of the voters.

If they are more effective in governing, then the country will benefit; if they cannot accomplish anything voters expect, that too will be their burden of leadership.

Midterm elections are rarely harbingers of presidential elections. 2012 remains a distant time — at least election-wise — and much will happen to change any predictions one could make now for that period.

Your heard it here first.

Jim Crawford is a contributing columnist for The Tribune and a former educator at Ohio University Southern.