If you've ever slept on an overnight flight, you may have woken up a little surprised that, hours later, the plane is still calmly flying on, with the pilots, presumably, still alert and busy.
It was a bit like that this morning. After switching off BBC1 yesterday evening, I came down to breakfast to find David, Jeremy, Jeremy, Emily and co still at their stations and as busy and purposeful as they'd been when I left them the night before.
The results overnight had had an effect on the politicians: instead of saying they couldn't comment on what was going to happen because they'd only seen the BBC's exit poll, now they were saying they couldn't comment on what was going to happen because not all the results had been announced.
Why do politicians agree to appear when there's nothing they want to say? Watching them not answering questions is a poor spectator sport.
The Today programme was extended to 9.45am, and in its closing seconds I felt I'd finally heard a couple of comments on the result that were worth having - not from politicians, of course:
Simon Schama: "There's only one solution, really, that's practical and will reassure the markets, and it has to happen by early next week ..."
John Humphrys: "And that is?"
Simon Schama: "That is a Conservative government with Liberal support, not as a coalition, but I rather imagine the Liberal party will say 'we'll support you piece of legislation by piece of legislation.'"
John Humphrys: "And politically, in a line, Tony, that is doable, is it?"
Anthony Howard: "I suppose that is doable, but I think, for the Liberal Democrats, they're never going to get an offer like it again, the one of saying 'OK, if you ally yourselves with us, we'll give you a referendum on electoral reform.' They're not going to get that out of Mr Cameron."
It was the kind of pithy exchange that could give pundits a good name.
