Campaign 2002: One Week Out

Real Audio of Briefing

       MR. COOK: Thank you very much. This is probably the -- maybe the third or fourth election I've done this, and it's always been a lot of fun and I like to help out.

       This is really one of the -- this is a fascinating time in American politics. It's a time when the country really couldn't be more evenly split between the two parties. I mean, when you think back to that election two years ago, the idea of a presidential election settled by 537 votes in one state, I don't think any of us ever lived long enough -- or thought we'd live long enough to see something like that happen. And out of the same election, for the Senate to come out 50-50, for the House to come out 51 percent Republican to 49 percent Democrat.

       How about state legislative chambers? We have 99 state legislative chambers, state senate, state house -- two for each state, except for Nebraska that just has one; 49 are controlled by Democrats, 47 by Republicans. You know, you would have a very, very hard time splitting this country down the middle any more evenly than it is right now. And so it really is an amazing time to have a mid-term election.

       When we look at this election we see -- I'll maybe divide it up, talk about the House of Representatives, then talk about the Senate, and talk about the governors. But first, just as an overview for a minute, we see the playing field right now as very, very level; not tilted towards either party.

       There was a speaker of the U.S. House, a Democratic speaker of the House, many years ago named Tip O'Neill, and he used to say that all politics is local.

       And by that, what he meant was, it's the candidates; it's what's that jurisdiction, that area, that state or the district that that election is held; the local issues, local circumstances that drive elections, not national waves or moods or things like that. And I think two- thirds of the time he was absolutely right; that, you know, what that state or district is like, the candidates, the local issues, local circumstances is what drives the outcome.

       But in about one out of every three of our elections, all politics isn't local, and it's where there is a tide one direction or the other. And it's almost as if there's a pair of invisible hands that are pushing the candidates of one party forward or pulling the candidates of the other party backward. And certainly the most notable in modern times was 1994, when you had that Republican tidal wave election, with Republicans capturing 52 seats in the House of Representatives and control of the House the Democrats had controlled for 40 years; they gained eight Senate seats and controlled the Senate that Democrats had controlled for 34 out of 40 years; what -- about a dozen or so governorships and a majority of the governorships for the first time since 1970. I mean, that was truly a tidal wave election.

       But other times it's been more subtle than that but where there was a unmistakable tide one direction or another.

       Right now the playing field looks very, very level. We don't see any kind of trend towards either party in terms of the national mood. And there are probably two ways you could look at this.

       One is that the economy and concerns about the U.S. economy and jobs is pulling one way, like -- we have a game -- I guess most countries -- where -- it's called tug of war, where you have a long rope, and one group of kids is on end of the rope and the other group of kids on the other end of the rope, and they pull in opposite directions and try to pull the other side over a line in the middle.

       You've got the economy pulling this election towards Democrats, and then you have foreign policy concerns, terrorism, potential war with Iraq pulling the opposite direction; and they're two very, very powerful forces, and right now they're pulling in opposite directions, and at least for now, it's a draw, it's even. Both sides -- both are powerful forces, and each one has the potential to really pull things their way, but right now it's even.

       The second way to look at it is that if people are focused on the economy, then this will probably be a pretty good election for Democrats. But if they're thinking about anything else, if their focus, if their concern is on almost anything else in the world other than the economy, than it's probably not going to be that great election for Democrats. And even to the extent that the American people are somewhat conflicted about what to do with Iraq, even to the extent that they're just thinking about or focused on that, basically keeps the attention away from the economy and keeps the focus.

       Now, I do not believe -- I sincerely do not believe that that is President Bush's intent with Iraq, but I think it's the effect. And I certainly think that a lot of Republican strategists are very grateful for it. But again, I don't think that's the intent, but I think that's certainly a side effect, is that it's keeping public attention from crystallizing on the economy. But, be that as it may, the playing field seems very, very level at this point.

       Now, what I'm going to do is look at the House of Representatives real quickly, and then the Senate, and then the governors' races, and then we can open it up.

       In the House of Representatives, one would think that this would be a very, very, very hotly contested -- well, actually, let me take that back. One would think that this would be a "too close to call" situation for the House of Representatives, given that Democrats only need a six-seat gain out of 435 seats, the Democrats only need a gain of six seats to get control of the House of Representatives. Having said that -- and again, we're looking at every single one of the races, 435 districts -- we think that there is an 80 -- eight zero -- percent or better chance that Republicans will hold on to the House of Representatives. In fact, it's probably a lot higher than that, but I just don't see any point in going any higher than 80 percent.

       And the reason -- and in fact, one of the things that we do is go through each of the 435 races and we put each one in a category: "Solid Democrat," which means there's just not a chance in the world of that seat going Republican; "Likely," which means that there's a, you know, 95-percent chance that it stays Democratic; "Lean Democrat," which means it's a competitive race but Democrats probably win; "Toss- up"; and then "Lean," "Likely, "Solid" Republicans. So, seven categories.

       When we add up all the solid, likely, and lean-Democratic seats, Democrats have 202 seats, 202. You need 218 for majority, okay? When you add up the leaning, likely, solidly Republican districts, it's 219. And then there are 14 toss-up races in the middle. So what Democrats would need to do is to hold on to the 202 seats that are leaning, likely and solidly Democratic, and then add 14 more on top of that, and that would get them to 216, and they'd still have to take two more from the races that are leaning, you know, pretty much in favor of Republicans.

       Now, is that mathematically possible? Of course it's possible. Is it likely? No. In the absence of a real tidal wave, a serious tidal wave, that's just not going to happen. So, as much as I would love to say that the House is just teetering on the edge -- and what a great story that would be and it would be a lot of fun and I'd love to say it, but to be honest, in all candor I can't.

       And there are a variety of reasons for that involving redistricting, involving a wide number of factors that we can get into during the Q&A, if you'd like. But it's just not happening.

       In the U.S. Senate, though, this is going to be an absolute photo finish. And in fact, I would guess, for those of you -- and I guess all of you are working on deadlines -- I would say the chances of us having any good idea of who's going to control the Senate before midnight are very, very slim. And there's a good chance that you're going to be eating breakfast before we know who's going to control the Senate. And it's possible that you could go through a couple of pay periods, I mean, because this thing could go a month; I mean, very seriously, it could go one month to a runoff on December 7th in Louisiana, conceivably, before we know who controls the Senate.

       I don't know if we've ever seen this many races that we're calling toss-up. I need to go back and count up how many we had in 1986, for example, because we're just adding several more right now.

       Democrats have to be most concerned about -- not in any particular order -- or this is the top tier: Senator Jean Carnahan, who you'll remember was appointed to the Senate seat in Missouri two years ago after her husband, who was the governor and was running for the Senate against John Ashcroft, now the attorney general, after his plane crashed; her race is basically dead even.

       Tim Johnson, in South Dakota, is another Democratic incumbent -- all these are Democratic seats that I'm talking about right now -- his race is effectively dead even.

       The Minnesota situation was basically even. The public polls -- and let me give you a word of caution. Some of the worst polls taken in America are ones taken by news organizations, and the reason is -- and you'd be familiar with this, I suspect -- they are cheap, and they tend to hire the cheapest possible pollsters, as opposed to the best possible pollsters.

       And so, many times their numbers are very, very erratic, and just crappy, to be -- that's a political science term. (Laughter.)

       But in these closest Senate races, a lot of times you'll have nightly two -- as many as two separate nightly tracking polls for each party; where the candidates -- their own campaigns, sometimes they're doing polls every single night; and then the parties that are pumping so much money in, a lot of times, they don't even necessarily trust the campaign's pollster, so they want their own set of polls. And so, you know, we're watching a lot of numbers that are not public.

       Anyway, in Minnesota, that race, prior to the -- to Senator Wellstone's tragic death, was basically even. Actually, the private polling was actually showing Wellstone a couple points behind, while the newspaper polls were showing him a little bit ahead. But that race -- you know, my assumption, I think it's going to be -- still be a close race with former Vice President Mondale as the Democratic candidate. I would give Mondale the advantage, an advantage. But keep in mind that this is not -- this is not nearly as Democratic a state as it was the last time Mondale was on the ballot. In fact, Al Gore only carried the state by 20,000 votes in the last election. This is a pretty competitive state now. I think it will still be fairly close, but I would give Mondale a little bit of an edge, but just for now, we're going to keep it in the toss-up category.

       We're in the process of adding two more races to that toss-up category on the Democratic side. Max Cleland in Georgia, that race we had been calling lean-Democratic, but we've just now, as of this morning, moved it into the toss-up category. And then I think we're going to be moving Louisiana, Mary Landrieu's race. Now -- I tell you what, let me come back to Louisiana at the very end -- okay? -- because it sort of fits into the story line better. But anyway, so those are five Democratic seats in toss-up that we're carrying. And actually, later on I can have my office send over some handouts, if you'd like. I should have thought of that earlier.

       Then on the Republican side, Republicans are running even or slightly behind in two states, Arkansas and New Hampshire. Arkansas is Senator Tim Hutchinson and New Hampshire's an open seat. Then there are -- actually, let me go ahead and throw a third in there, Wayne Allard, a Republican incumbent in Colorado.

       And then after that, just kind of a notch -- well actually, maybe a notch back, there are two more. North Carolina, which we had been having as a lean-Republican, that's the Elizabeth Dole/Erskine Bowles race, we are now moving into the toss-up category today. And then finally is Texas, an open seat with Ron Kirk, who's an African- American former mayor of Dallas, and John Cornyn, state attorney general. Cornyn is ahead by a bit in most of the polls, but there are at least two sets of polls that are showing Kirk ahead, so it's a very close race. I mean, I think Cornyn's got a little bit of an advantage, but you're going to see an extraordinarily high minority turnout for various reasons, and which still keeps that race in doubt.

       So adding all that together, you've got 10 toss-up races, which is really extraordinary. You know, normally you'd probably have six or seven or eight at this point. So 10 is really very, very extraordinary. And so you could easily see either party popping out a -- you know, a two- or three-point majority in the Senate.

       Now I'd caution you. We -- a lot of time we'll use the term "control," that Republicans will, you know, regain control of the Senate, or will Democrats control the Senate. And we really shouldn't use that term in the Senate, because you really -- no -- neither party can control the Senate until you've got about 60 seats out of 100, because the Senate has some rather unusual and arcane rules, and where 40 senators -- 40 very determined senators can basically stop anything in the U.S. Senate and -- through the filibuster process. And also, a great deal in the Senate works on unanimous consent.

       And so we probably should use the term "majority" rather than "control" when we're talking about the Senate, because nobody's really going to have control. I mean, when you have 52 or 53 seats in the Senate, you're hardly in control of the body, and where you can control the agenda in terms of what comes on the floor when and you have, obviously, the chairmanships of the committees and you get to call hearings and control the witness lists and things like that -- so it's certainly a very good thing to have the majority, but to say that you control it to the extent where you can push through the Senate what you can, the Senate just doesn't work like the House at all. And so "control" really isn't the right term.

       Governors' races -- and in Washington, we tend to ignore the governorships -- but there are an extraordinary number of big governors' races up this year, and you're going to see an enormous amount of turnover.

       And there's a big difference. There is no anti-incumbent mood out there in the public for the U.S. House or Senate, but there really is an anti-incumbent mood with the governorships. And there's a good reason for that, because if the federal government -- if the U.S. government wants to just spend more money, it can, and it can just run up a deficit. But most states are constitutionally required to balance their budgets, which means that when their tax revenues go down, as they are now, during a recession, they have to either raise taxes or dramatically cut spending or usually both, which is very, very, very unpopular. And so these governors have had to do it, and they've had to make some very painful decisions and very politically unpopular decisions. And as a result you're going to see an enormous amount of turnover, with either incumbent governors losing or maybe they're not running for reelection, but their successors -- or would- be successors -- paying the political price.

       So a huge amount of turnover in the governorships, and we're expecting Republicans to lose some where between three and seven governorships on a net basis, so that we're expecting the number of governorships to be split roughly 25-25 after this is over with, give or take one -- one or two. And so you'll see the same kind of even division that you see in the Senate and the House. You'll see that in the governorships after this election, which simply reflects where the country is.

       So the bottom line is, we think that the House will stay Republican but that it will be 51, 52 percent Republican when this is all over with, and that the Senate is just way too close to call, with either party capable of coming out with 51, 52, 53 seats, and then, conceivably -- and then the governorships -- Republicans probably losing, say, three to seven governorships, but that's simply because they have a lot more governorships at risk.

       Why don't I stop at this point and let's just turn it open to questions or comments -- or accusations.

       MODERATOR: Again, I remind you to please use the microphone and identify yourself and your news organization. Right here?

       Q Michael Backfish, Handelsblatt, German business daily. You said we have the two major issues, the war against terrorism, possible war against Iraq, and the economy. Two-thirds of the likely voters have 401(k) plans and other programs. How likely do you think that finally the concern about the crisis in the stock market will reflect itself in the vote?

       MR. COOK: We're doing polling twice a month and we see little evidence that this is going to happen, little evidence that there's going to be some kind of investor backlash out there. First of all, the huge decline that you saw over the summer, you know, some of it's been recouped.

       But secondly, you know, obviously if you're in your sixties and are on the verge of retirement, you know, you're feeling very nervous; but, you know, for so many Americans that are -- you know, my youngest kid is nine years old. I can't -- you know, retirement is so far out on the horizon, I can't even see it, so, frankly, I don't really care what the stock market does today or this week or this month or this quarter. I don't really care what it does this year, because my retirement's a long way off. And I think most Americans are really -- are like that.

       The stock market goes up, it goes down. But we're seeing no evidence that it's starting to hurt. I think if you'd seen the kind of decline that we saw this summer continued, you know, if we were looking at the Dow Jones Industrial Average in the 6000s, you know, then that may very well have happened. But I think it's recouped enough that we're just not seeing a backlash there.

       And also I think a part of it is that Democrats have not articulated an effective economic message, for probably a variety of reasons, but I think they've not forcefully made their economic message, so they haven't really kind of connected the dots between what's going on in the economy, what's going on in the stock market, and President Bush and Republicans. So I don't see it as a major factor right now. It certainly could have been, and arguably it should have been, but it just doesn't seem to be.

       MODERATOR: (Off mike.)

       Q Yeah. I wanted to know if you could comment on the race of governorship for Maryland, and if the sniper case has had any impact, because I know that it's a very equal race. And second, I was interested also in what is happening in California at all the levels.

       MR. COOK: Okay, Maryland. First of all, you have to keep in mind that Maryland is a very, very, very Democratic state. Al Gore carried the state by 17 percentage points. So it is very, very unusual for a Republican to be running even close in Maryland. The fact that that race is basically dead-even between Congressman Bob Ehrlich and Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend suggests that either, A, Ehrlich is an absolutely superhuman candidate or that Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is a terrible candidate.

       I don't think Ehrlich is superhuman. I think he's pretty good. But draw whatever conclusions you want from the rest of that. (Scattered laughter.)

       But I mean, think of it this way. Let's say Ehrlich beat -- last poll I saw, Ehrlich was ahead by one point. That means he was beating George Bush by 18 points in the state -- Bush's performance -- that she's not a natural candidate. She doesn't -- actually, I think there are probably four different problems, and this more -- far more than you probably want.

       Number one, the incumbent Democratic governor, Parris Glendening, is very unpopular in the state. And so that just -- you know, you start off there.

       Secondly, Lieutenant Governor Townsend is -- she's not charismatic. She's not very smooth rhetorically. She tends to make a lot of mistakes when she's speaking. And she just really does not evoke a lot of confidence on the part of people listening to her. You just don't come out and say, "Wow! Boy, she's impressive." And that's a problem.

       I think in -- also in Maryland, if you look on the Eastern Shore of Maryland and out to the western part of the state, you have a lot of conservative Democrats that in any other state would be Republican. And I think the -- while the Kennedy name, I think, helps a great deal among the hard-core Democrats, when you get to conservative Democrats in the east and western part of the states (sic), I think it's probably a liability.

       And then the fourth thing is, this criminal justice program that she was responsible for has turned out to be something of a disaster, with federal investigations taking place. And you know, it's sort of the only real responsibility she had as lieutenant governor, and she kind of screwed it up. So for a variety of reasons, she's just in horrible shape.

       Having said that, it's still Maryland, and it's still a very, very close race.

       I believe, had the sniper attacks not occurred, I think Ehrlich was going to win, you know, maybe four, five, six points. I think, you know, Ehrlich was kind of going like -- up, like this; she was coming down, like this. I think Ehrlich was in the process of passing her up, and then the sniper attacks occurred. He is not -- does not have a 100 percent voting record with the National Rifle Association, but he certainly has supported the NRA many more times than he's opposed them.

       Interesting -- the NRA, they don't -- if you're not 100 percent, they really don't like you. Okay? But he's probably with them 70 or 80 percent of the time, you know, which is enough to get you in trouble in Maryland, particularly when there's a sniper running around loose.

       And so I think what's happened is, his -- (indicating direction of rising or falling poll numbers) -- he was going like this, she's going like this, it was going to -- this was going to happen, and instead it sort of went like this and flattened it out, so that it's made it a very, very close race. I mean, if Ehrlich does not win, I think you could say that he was, you know, the 13th -- how many -- the 13th or 14th -- whatever; you insert the number -- you know, casualty of the sniper. But it -- if he doesn't win it, it will be -- I think it will be because of that.

       And also, he cast a few -- back in '95, '96, his first two years in Congress, it was when Gingrich came in and that Gingrich revolution -- and Republicans, I think, by their own admission today, went a little bit too far in the House of Representatives those two years. And he probably cast some votes that he probably wished he hadn't cast now. He'd probably wish he'd voted with Connie Morella a few more times. And so there's a little bit of that as well.

       But it's a great race to watch; it really is. I mean, this is a great race for you to watch, I mean, where you don't have to go far at all and see as competitive a major race as there is in this country.

       What was the other? California?

       Q (Off mike.)

       MR. COOK: There's really not much else going on other than the governor's race. And what you have is a very controversial and unpopular incumbent Democratic governor and a horrible opponent who's running a terrible campaign. And the only difference is, the underperforming Democratic incumbent has a lot more money and will probably win -- I'm guessing eight-, nine-point margin, something like that -- Gray Davis will beat Bill Simon.

       But, I mean, keep in mind that in the Republican primary there were two candidates, and Davis basically looked at the two candidates, former Los Angeles mayor Dick Riordan and Bill Simon, and he looked at the two and he said, "Hmm. Well, let's see two candidates." He said, "I think I would rather run against you than you." And so he drops $9 million worth of television ads -- $9 million -- on his head, and this guy thinks he won. (Laughs.) (Laughter.) You didn't win, you were chosen. You know -- (laughs) -- I mean, you know --

       And interestingly, Jeb Bush tried to do that, put poorly, in Florida where he had Bill McBride over here, and he had Janet Reno over here. And he really wanted to run against Janet Reno, because he knew that he could beat her. And so he started running ads in the last week before the Democratic primary against McBride, but he didn't run nearly enough -- you know, it was too little, too late. And while McBride was coming up like this and kind of knocked him down, so McBride only won the primary by 3,000 votes or so, but had Bush hit him just a little bit harder, or a little bit earlier, he'd be facing Janet Reno right now, and all but reelected. So, anyway, it shows that you can -- I mean, that works if you do it right, and if you put enough money behind it, but Bush didn't do that.

       MODERATOR: Gentleman over here, followed by the lady in the back.

       MR. COOK: I should add that there's almost nothing else happening in California. There's -- out of 54 congressional districts, there's one House race in the entire state. So, it's -- there's just not much going on there.

       Q Nickolay Zimin (sp), Russian Weekly Itogi. Mr. Cook, you just said that country politically is split almost even. Your prediction -- what does it mean for the future of the United States? Thank you.

       MR. COOK: I think -- I think we are just now locked into a point that until some either huge event occurs or either party comes up with just some incredibly charismatic, inspiring, hugely successful leader, which we don't see on the horizon on either side, I think we're just sort of locked into a period where, you know, the House is going to be pretty close, the Senate's going to be pretty close, and more often than not, very close presidential elections. I mean, we're just sort of -- and a lot of this, and this would go on way too long, but we've seen a new alignment in the parties in this country.

       And so now what you see is rural and small town America and Southern suburbs on this side, and then on this side you have medium- sized big cities and suburbs outside of the South on this side, and obviously this is the Democratic side -- I didn't phrase this right -- you know, where you have a new Democratic coalition it's medium-sized, big cities and suburbs outside of the South, and you have a Republican coalition that's rural, small town America and suburbs in the South, and they're both equally -- basically the same size. And it's created incredible balance.

       And what's happened is a lot of suburban voters outside the South that used to vote Republican have moved over to the Democratic side. And while there's certainly more suburban voters outside of the South than in the South, Republicans win the Southern suburban voters by a bigger margin, so that sort of equalizes it.

       So I think we're just going to go through a period of time in this country where we're just going to have a lot of really close elections because of this sort of new alignment. A lot of these suburban voters outside of the South, most of them are women, but not entirely, and a lot of them are not voting on economic grounds, they're voting on social and cultural reasons -- abortion, gun control, to a certain extent environmental issues. So you've seen, I think, a real realignment in American voting patterns, and so we're just kind of locked in to a real close period now.

       MODERATOR: The lady in the back?

       Q Hi, I'm Deborah Tate with Voice of America. We're seeing a number of --

       MR. COOK: They let a ringer in here! No, I'm teasing. (Chuckles.)

       Q We're seeing a number of conservatives leaving Congress this year -- Thurmond, Helms, Armey, Smith. I'm wondering, perhaps it's unclear whether a new generation of conservatives will replace them. Can we say that the conservative influence in Congress is on the wane, or is it too soon to say? And could you also talk about Louisiana?

       MR. COOK: Sure. Oh, thank you. Thank you.

       Well, I hesitate to say anything until the State Department appropriations is done. But the thing is, a lot of the people that are leaving -- take Senator Helms and Senator Thurmond -- you know, there's no doubt that in their heyday they were extremely influential. But the last few years, they both have been slowing down and I don't think have been -- while certainly Senator Helms, when he decided to, he could be very, very, very influential. But, you know, he's been sort of picking his shots, you know, more carefully. And I think it's been some time since Senator Helms was a huge force in the Senate. And it's been a long time since Senator Thurmond was a huge force in the Senate. And, arguably, Bob Smith was never a force in the Senate. (Laughter.)

       You know, I would throw in Phil Gramm. You know, I think on many issues he really was, but, you know, it was clear that he was never going to be Republican leader in the Senate, that sort of thing.

       But the thing is -- so, I mean, I think you're losing a lot of very visible conservative symbols in the Senate but, you know, you've had a lot of really conservative people come in in the last, you know, few years that -- I mean, you know, Jim Inhofe -- you know, hey, he's certainly no more liberal than Jesse Helms. But, you know -- but he's not a symbol.

       But, you know, you've got a newer crew coming in that are every bit as conservative as the old ones; they're just not terribly well known or as well defined. So, you know, I don't think the Senate's getting any more -- any less conservative.

       Now, what I would argue is that it's important not to equate Republican with conservative and Democratic with liberal because, you know, when you look at the Senate ideologically, you only have one conservative Democrat, I mean true conservative; that would be Zell Miller from Georgia. But you've got, arguably -- what? -- four pretty liberal Republicans: Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island, and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine and, you know, Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania is pretty liberal.

       You know, you have some other moderates out there on a lot of issues. George Voinovich is pretty moderate. You know, you've got some others out there -- John McCain is pretty unpredictable -- so that I would say that there's not -- neither party has an ideological majority now, nor are likely to after this election; that it's pretty evenly split between the two sides as well.

       But you know, to think that there's a conservative -- even if -- let's say, hypothetically, Republicans went up to 53. You certainly couldn't say that there was a conservative majority in the Senate, I mean, not as long as they have to keep Lincoln Chafee and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe happy. No, there isn't.

       Was there a second part of the -- oh, Louisiana. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Here is the nightmare -- well, nightmare or maybe ecstatic scenario for some people:

       Let's say on Election Day in the Senate there's no net change; you know, each party knocks off one seat from the other side, or each party knocks off two seats from the other side, or no seats or three seats from each side, or whatever. If that happens -- and under Louisiana law, if you -- we have what we call a jungle primary, where everybody runs together, regardless of party, and if anyone gets 50 percent of the vote or 50 plus one, 50 percent plus one vote, then you're elected senator. But if nobody gets 50 percent, then there's a runoff on December 7th.

       And Mary Landrieu has three different credible Republican opponents, and then there's some other, you know, idiots that are running. But -- and the last few polls we've seen have shown her 44, 45, 46 percent, something like that. And now if she was at 49 percent in the polls, I think she'd probably get enough out of the "undecided" column that she'd probably fall over the finish line first, you know, and get a majority. But at 44, 45, that's kind of dicey. So I would say there's a 50-50 chance that she will have a runoff.

       So you say 50-50 chances of runoff in Louisiana, and let's say there's a, you know, 30 percent chance, maybe 40 percent chance that there's no net change on Election Day, you know. And maybe that's high; I don't know. I mean, what that means is, there's, you know, maybe a 15, 20 percent chance that we will not know control of the Senate until December 7th.

       And the other thing is, coming out of that Florida disaster last time, both parties, I think, are a lot more litigious, a lot more likely to sue over election challenges, particularly with the stakes so high, so that I would be surprised if there's not at least one Senate race in the country that's not challenged -- the results challenged for at least a few days. I'd be surprised if there's not at least one. So this thing may be -- it maybe a while before this thing's over.

       MODERATOR: Gentleman in the back left -- (off mike).

       Q Tom Ritchie (sp) from Associated Press Television. I'm wondering if you could give a sense -- if there's no sense of urgency among the voters, what's your feeling about voter turnout? And also, what should we look for over this last, final weekend in the campaign that might swing one way or another?

       MR. COOK: You know, one of the problems in politics is, a lot of times we come up with theories. And the theories make a lot of sense, you know, and we convince ourselves that these theories are right, and then they don't happen.

       And so right after 9/11 there was this theory that people would be so -- I mean, when we saw American flags on, you know, almost every doorstep and on the backs of cars, and, you know, more patriotism than I've seen in my whole life -- I mean, there was not -- it was about a hundred times more patriotism than we saw on July 4th, 1976, our country's bicentennial.

       So there were a lot of people that were thinking, "Gosh, well maybe voter turnout will go up." And so we had gubernatorial and state legislative races in New Jersey and Virginia just -- what? -- a month after 9/11, or two months after 9/11, and turnout didn't go up. You know, so it was one of these wonderful theories that sort of just didn't pan out.

       In our elections, roughly half the voting-age population vote in presidential elections, roughly a third vote in mid-term elections. And my guess is that it will probably be about normal; probably about a third, give or take a percentage point or two. I don't think it will be unusually high or unusually low.

       Now, let me defend the United States for a half second, even though I was not asked to. But I know a lot of you always write articles where you make fun of Americans voting so -- such low proportions and -- which is fine. I mean, it's -- but there sort of is a little bit of another side.

       Think back in your home countries; over a four-year period of time, how often, how many chances would you have to vote on the municipal, you know, provincial, state, you know, federal level, all elections combined? How many times might you get a chance to vote? Now, most countries, the answer I get is two or three. Okay. Does that sound fair -- two or three? Yes, no? Okay. Anybody profoundly disagree?

       Q You're talking about four years?

       MR. COOK: Yeah, over four years.

       Okay, how many would you say in your country?

       Q (Off mike.)

       MR. COOK: Really? I've never heard someone from another country say that before, but okay. But it's, let's say three, okay? Three times -- well, okay, you say four. I'll say three times.

       In this country, municipal, county, state, federal, primaries, generals, occasionally run-offs, special elections, bond issues, other things, I would say that between 14 and 15 times, on the average in this country. If you lived in, you know, Virginia, it would probably be more than that -- Virginia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey -- states with odd-year elections, more than that.

       And so you look at that and say, "Gosh, every time we turn around, there's some silly election." And then when you go in -- and I hope some of you -- I know some of you are going to Florida -- look at a ballot, an American ballot, and look at all the offices we vote on. And I consider myself fairly sophisticated politically. I go into Montgomery County, Maryland, and I look at the ballot and I'm looking at offices that I don't have the faintest idea what these offices do.

       For example, the Maryland Special Court of Appeals. Why are they special? What do they do? What kind of cases do they -- who are these people? I mean, it's offices that I have no idea what they do, and people that I have never heard of. (Laughter.) And it's like that in every country -- I mean every state.

       And, you know, my home state of Louisiana, each of the -- we don't have counties, we have parishes. Each of the 64 parishes elects, among all these other offices, the coroner -- the coroner, the person who does autopsies of bodies.

       Why the hell is that an elected position?

       Or my other favorite, in South Carolina, the adjutant general, the head of the state National Guard, is a statewide -- I mean, where you can be voting for eight, nine, 10, 15, I mean -- in California, their ballots can go on for pages and pages and pages.

       So I really think that if we consolidated our elections, and if we pruned the ballot down to just things that we'd have some idea what the offices were and who the people are, frankly, I think our voting percentages would be pretty -- you know, pretty close to -- you know, well, maybe not quite as high, but some closer or the other.

       The other thing is keep in mind, these percentages that we always look at, percentage of the voting age population -- keep in mind that that's of the voting age population. It does not take into account -- well, in 1972, when the real decline in voting age and voter turnout went down, something like -- it was either 2 or 3 percent of the voting age population were either not U.S. citizens or they were convicted felons ineligible to vote. That's now 12 or 13 percent. And so much of the so-called decline in voter turnout isn't actually a decline at all.

       I mean, for example, a lot of you would appear in the census, and you're part of the voting age population. But a lot of you -- it would be illegal for you to vote here, and yet you're part of the non- voting bloc. And so it's -- those numbers are somewhat misleading as well.

       Q (Off mike) -- more news?

       MR. COOK: Oh, I don't see -- I mean, we had a little track. Our last poll was this past weekend. We saw a little bit of a -- it looked like it might be a little bit of a wind towards Democrats. We've got a new poll coming that would be getting numbers Friday morning. It'll be interesting to see whether that's -- you know, whether those numbers are backed up. But you know, I don't think it'd be enough -- it certainly wouldn't -- I don't think it would be enough to affect the House. And you know, with this many close races, you know, it wouldn't take much to give somebody a two- or three-seat pickup. But I don't see any trends yet.

       MODERATOR: Okay. The gentleman in the back, in the center. The lady up front here.

       MR. COOK: I apologize for the long answers.

       Q Jerodai (sp), with Helsingin Sanomat, Finland. Just a simple housekeeping type of question. What point in time can we expect some kind of results on the 5th?

       MR. COOK: On the Senate?

       Q No, in all the races on the 5th.

       MR. COOK: I would say we'll have a pretty good guess on the House of Representatives by maybe 11 p.m. Eastern time. There's a -- first of all, just a word of caution. Because of what happened in Florida in 2000, the whole system that we use to -- that the networks and wire services use for calling races has been completely overhauled. And to be perfectly honest, it's not ready yet, okay? And during the rehearsals this weekend, apparently, some of it really didn't work well. And so it's all new computer programs, very sophisticated programs, and there's some bugs in the program. And so there could be some real problems on Election Night, I mean, to be honest, I mean, because this is pretty complicated stuff.

       Anyway, I would say by 11:00 to midnight we ought to know control of the House. Senate -- I'd be very surprised if we knew before 3:00 a.m. And then some of the key governorships -- oh, more of them on the East Coast, so you could get those maybe the same time as the Senate; 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning we should know. I mean, you'll probably have Florida -- well, I don't know. I don't -- I'm not going to say that. (Soft laughter.) It's going to be a much slower night than in the past, in other words.

       And also, just one other word of defense. Keep in mind that when you go vote, when someone goes to the polls and vote(s), the people that you see working there are temporary part-time workers who do this once or twice a year.

       Now considering how hard it is for McDonald's to keep workers, to keep -- to have people that -- and particularly now that we're getting some fairly sophisticated machinery put into some of these polling places, you know, a lot of times you're dealing with retirees, and they're, you know, well into their 70s, who -- the most sophisticated machine they've ever operated in their lives is an ATM machine, and they're running the system, you know, in the precincts and stuff?

       So, I mean, we spend in this country minimal on elections, on the administration of elections, and you get what you pay for. And they're administered on a county level, and most of the times running elections is a priority somewhere below maybe food in the county jail. And so, you know, it's really based -- you know, any kind of system that has as little money spent on it as we spend on administering on our own elections, and then using part-time temporary employees is just -- it's a wonder that the system didn't crash before last time. So, you know, bear with us; it may be a long night.

       MODERATOR: Okay. The lady up front, and then the gentleman there.

       Q Marian Wilkinson, Sydney Morning Herald. I wonder if you could say a little bit about the race in Florida and the recent newspaper polls that say that Governor Bush is pulling ahead and that the Democrat candidate has stalled.

       And the second thing is -- you may have seen it -- there was a piece in New Republic querying the motivation of voters over Iraq and that maybe Iraq might bring solid liberal Democrats more into the polling process, because of Iraq. I wonder what you thought of that.

       MR. COOK: Yeah. I -- well, Florida -- I think McBride was closing fast.

       I think he pulled to within one, two, three points. He was being out- spent, for a time, by 3 to 1 on television. The last couple of weeks, it's been more like 2 to 1. I think he has slid back a little bit to maybe not the eight points that you saw in one poll, but maybe more like four, five, six. That's still a very close race.

       And while, yeah, I mean, would I give Governor Bush a 53 or 54 percent chance of winning? Yeah. Maybe even a 55 percent chance of winning. But heck, that's still a 45 percent chance that he loses. I mean, that's still a very close race.

       And keep in mind that you're looking at polls that in some cases -- I mean that none of the polls, the public polls that you're seeing cost as much as a good used car in this country. And so, you know, keep in mind the quality you're looking at isn't that great either. So it's closed up, it slid back a little bit, and whatever.

       The New Republic piece -- to be honest, I stopped reading the New Republic a long time ago. I mean, but just addressing Iraq war, what you have is basically a third of the American people are absolutely for attacking Iraq, and then there are -- no questions asked; just do it. And there's about a third that's against it, period -- no questions asked. And then you've got basically a third that's in the middle, and these are folks that well, you know, if we do it with a legitimate multilateral coalition, if we do it through the United Nations, if we do it -- you know, I mean, there are a lot of conditions for their support. And that's really where the American people are.

       And so -- and if anything, pollsters that I've talked to recently have suggested that there's slightly more intensity on the anti side than the pro side. But there really isn't a consensus on Iraq in this country at all. And I think that's one reason why it's not had a more profound effect on this election than it has, although, arguably, if it's -- you know, if it's basically nullified the impact of a recession then, you know -- or severe economic conditions, then obviously it has had an effect. But it could have had a more -- a greater effect had there been some clear consensus on the part of the American people for or against something.

       Q Carreno with El Universal of Mexico. Two easy questions. One, can you give us your take on Texas on the different levels -- basically governor and Senate?

       And second, your opinion, your view on what is -- some people call the "Latino power," quote, unquote, and its emergence in this election, if there is anything of the sort.

       MR. COOK: Let me do the second question first. Sometimes I slip and use it, but I try very hard not to use the term "Hispanic vote" or "Latino vote" just because I don't think there is one. There is a Mexican-American vote, there's a Cuban vote, there's a Puerto Rican vote, there's a Dominican vote -- I mean, and all these people -- you know, the Cuban vote, you know, is very, very Republican. Although actually, if you wanted to get technical, you would split out the people that came before the revolution, who tend to be more conservative Democrats and live more towards Tampa, versus the people that came during and after the revolution, that tend to be a lot more conservative and towards Miami.

       You know, the Puerto Rican vote, which is probably the most hard- core Democratic vote of any constituency group out there, including African-Americans.

       You know, you have Mexican-Americans, which tend to be more Democratic, but there's considerable evidence that as Mexican-American incomes rise, their willingness to vote Republican also rises.

       You know, and all these other sort of gradations. And so there really isn't a monolithic Hispanic vote out there. I think you have to treat each group really on their own terms. And so -- and I think when the administration -- for example, when they got upset and worried about the bombing range in Vieques, you know, I, frankly, thought it was kind of silly because, you know, when my great- grandchildren start voting, you know, Puerto Ricans aren't going to be voting Republican in any significant numbers. And frankly, I don't think Mexican-Americans really care if the Navy is bombing the heck out of a beach in Puerto Rico, I mean, they could be bombing Greece, for all they care. I mean, so I don't -- you know, I mean, politically speaking, you know, it just didn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

       So I think it's not a monolithic bloc at all, and people have to treat each group separately on its own terms which, frankly, I think is good. I mean, who wants to be considered part of a -- you know, I mean, automatons who all march in unison.

       Having said that, the Texas race, for those of you who -- others who are less aware of this, you have a Mexican-American banker from Laredo, Texas, named Tony Sanchez, who is spending 70 -- seven-zero -- million dollars of his own money between the primary and the general election, running against Rick Perry, who had been Governor Bush's lieutenant governor and became governor after Bush moved -- became president.

       Perry is not very strong; he's fairly weak. And he's alienated, you know, some normally very Republican groups like, say, doctors and car dealers. And, you know, so he really is very, very vulnerable.

       Sanchez has spent an enormous amount of money. Polls differ whether he's five or six points behind or 10 or 12 points behind. But he's hired some of the best talent in the Democratic Party, and has made it a fairly competitive race. But again, polls differ on how close he really is. And let me come back to that in a second.

       Then in the Senate race, I already mentioned, you have Ron Kirk, an African-American, running against John Cornyn. And as a result -- and I should also -- I'll tie all this together in a minute.

       Governor Bush -- then-Governor Bush, George Bush has always done well with Mexican-Americans in Texas.

       He always did very well. But their other Republican by and large don't do nearly as well with the Mexican-American vote in Texas. They haven't tried, and they haven't succeeded in doing better. And so what you're going to see is an absolutely unbelievable increase in the Mexican-American vote in Texas and in the African-American vote in Texas because of these two candidates, how much they're spending and their pulls within there. And you also have some very strong Anglo candidates running for lieutenant governor and for attorney general. And at the same time on the Republican side, you have these perfectly competent people, but they're really fairly boring, fairly bland. And there's not a lot that's really exciting, energizing the Republican base in Texas. And so, what we're going to see is a huge increase in minority turnout, and they're going to be voting overwhelmingly Democratic.

       Now, if the voter turnout goes up by, you know, this much, then Cornyn wins by a little bit, and Perry wins by a lot. If the turnout goes up by THIS much, then the Senate race is very close and the governor's race is closer, but Perry's still ahead by a little bit. If it goes up by, you know, THIS! much, then, you know, then Sanchez and Kirk both win. And no -- the pollsters don't have the faintest idea how much the minority turnout's going to go up, just that it really is going to go up. And you could just take guesses. And so that's why we're seeing a wide variety of polls. I mean, I've seen polls in the last 10 days that have shown everything from Ron Kirk ahead by two or three points to him down by seven or eight. You know, who knows? And a considerable variation in the governor's race as well.

       So it all depends on just how big is the increase in minority voting. And it's impossible to tell at this point. But -- so it's going to be -- it'll be fascinating to watch. It really will. I mean, it's -- Sanchez has mounted a very, very, very good campaign. It has been ugly -- Hooo! -- both ways. And Sanchez is -- I mean, both sides have run some really ugly negative ads at each other, and it's been -- it's been actually a lot of fun to watch. (Laughter.)

       MODERATOR: Okay, thank you very much.

       MR. COOK: Thank you all very, very much.

END.