Most elections scale some level of dramatic heights, but career politicians and operatives don't like things to get totally out of hand. Privately, they would prefer the category ''unopposed.'' When facing competition, all profess to run ''scared'' or ''like my hair's on fire.'' Despite such declarations, incumbents are usually able to fall back on reliable issues (no new taxes, tough on crime, for example) and run in relatively safe districts where turnout and fund-raising are predictable.

This year feels very different. As the March 4 primary approaches in Ohio, a pervasive mood of uncertainty fills the air. Predictions are carefully hedged. ''It's a crazy year,'' one local Democratic Party chairman said last week.

The primary driver of the craziness is that the presidential primary in Ohio might actually matter this time. As part of a growing trend of states shifting their primaries to earlier dates in presidential election years, the Ohio legislature voted in 1999 to move the state's presidential primary from May to March.

There were muted protests from then-Secretary of State Ken Blackwell's office and others about how a front-loaded schedule would favor candidates with the most money, but the allure of more clout proved irresistible, even though Ohio is an extremely important battleground state in the general election.

Basically, the shift didn't work very well. In 2000, John McCain attracted enthusiastic crowds in the final weeks of the Republican primary, pulling in Democratic crossover voters in his effort to stop George W. Bush from getting the nomination. (In Ohio, party identity is established by voting in a primary, but voters can switch back and forth.)

McCain talked straight, but he didn't have enough time or money to have a realistic chance of winning. Crossover voters didn't stay in the Republican camp in any reliable way, although they briefly made Republicans in Summit County the majority party.

Four years later, Democratic U.S. Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards criss-crossed the state, Edwards hoping then (as he hopes now) to capitalize on economic issues, especially the pain of lost manufacturing jobs. Like McCain, Edwards struggled to make an impact.

This year, Democrats are warily eying the possibility that the Clinton-Obama race could remain undecided by March 4. Several factors weigh against the possibility. One is that the Clintons are very tough, skilled campaigners who stand a good chance of slowing, even reversing, movement toward Obama.

The other is that if such a race does materialize, Democratic leaders such as Ted Strickland and Stephanie Tubbs Jones stand ready to help Clinton, as the governor and congresswoman from Cleveland have done in Iowa and South Carolina. Bill Clinton carried Ohio twice on his way to the White House, so the Clinton team knows what it needs to do.

Republicans are more worried about a wide-open primary reaching Ohio. Presidential candidates, one congressional candidate said this week, would ''parachute in'' one after the other in the final weeks before the primary here, distracting voters from down-ticket races.

Candidates in both parties are already complaining about how difficult it is to raise money, Ohio living up to its reputation as a key fund-raising state in presidential campaigns.

Wide-open presidential primaries in Ohio would also create problems for candidates anxious to make an endorsement or to coordinate campaign appearances or messages. While Democrats might well find matters settled after the Feb. 5 ''Super Duper Tuesday'' voting, the Republican field is more muddled. Finding the right set of coattails to ride could be a real problem for local GOP candidates.

High turnout can also be unsettling. Politicians routinely urge citizens to register and vote. What they really mean is for their supporters to register and vote, not everybody else's.

Competitive presidential primaries would certainly drive up turnout, attracting voters who usually skip primaries, while at the same time sucking up campaign money and drowing out down-ticket campaigns in a surge of television ads. There could also be some crossover voting, as there was during McCain's campaign in 2000.

The problem is that such voters aren't typical and aren't predictable. They tend to make up their minds at the last minute, about whether or for whom to vote.

Even sophisticated polling has difficulty tracking last minute-shifts among such voters, as was shown in the New Hampshire primary. If the definition of a likely voter keeps changing, and competition among candidates is intense, a snapshot of opinion (all that a poll really is) won't represent reality for long.

Resistance to proposals for same-day voter registration are grounded in just such fears in the political establishments of both parties. With voter-registration deadlines, both parties know who to target in advance of Election Day. That, combined with voting history, is very valuable information.

A standard warning in politics is: Be careful what you ask for, because you might get it. That appears to be the case with shifting Ohio's primary to March. In seeking clout, the state may have instead invited electoral chaos.