Love him or leave him, Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report is one of the most well respected voices on electoral politics among the media masses. Thus, it is a good idea to know what the Cookster is thinking about this election season.

Recently, Cook gave an online interview to discuss his views of the 2004 election cycle and politics in general. Some points are well worth noting:

On Polling, Cell Phones and Land-Lines:

A far bigger problem is that as many as 18 percent of telephone subscribers today have no land lines, and since pollsters are not calling cell phones, almost one in five voters are not being included in poll samples.

What Charlie failed to mention is that those who rely solely on cell phones tend to fall into a younger demographic -- one that tends to heavily favor Democrats -- and one that typically has a tough time finding its way to the polls on election day. Let's hope Mr. Nader and Mr. Moore have remedied some of that apathy this cycle.

On what could assure Bush's demise in the last two weeks:

If I could know one thing, it would be what the news coverage, specifically from and about Iraq for the next few weeks is likely to be. President Bush cannot survive another week like the news and developments last week.

There's More...

On the possibility of Democrats taking over the Senate:

Republicans began this year with about a 90 percent chance of holding onto their majority (no one has control of the Senate!), it drifted down perhaps as low as 60 or 65 percent by late Spring or early Summer, now I think it is back up to 75 or 80 percent. With the Democratic open seat in Georgia definitely going Republican and the Republican open seat in Illinois definitely going Democrat, those two are a wash.

After that, Democrats have seven seats in play, open seats in Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina and South Carolina, all extremely close right now, plus another that is virtually even, Minority Leader Tom Daschle in South Dakota. Then Democrats have two more in jeopardy, Russ Feingold in Wisconsin and Patty Murray in Washington state. Both are ahead but in some difficulty.

Republicans have three seats that are in that toss up column, appointed incumbent Lisa Murkowski in Alaska and open seats in Colorado and Oklahoma.

All other incumbents look likely to get re-elected, in both parties.

For Democrats to win a majority in the Senate, they have to win eight out of those ten, and the White House so that the vice president could break the tie, or nine out of ten if President Bush is re-elected. That is not impossible, but it is not at all easy.

80% is nonsense. The fact of the matter is that if the Democrats effectively get out the vote Kerry will be president and we will take back the senate. If the Republicans are more successful at their GOTV, then they keep both. This year, the presidency and the senate come as a package.

On the 'Big Three':

A general rule of thumb that some people on both sides use is that whichever candidate wins two out of those three: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, will probably be the next president. While one can certainly construct other scenarios, it all probability, that will be true.

Pennsylvania will go to Kerry. He needs to capture Florida or Ohio to make things right with the world.

On Jim DeMint and the South Carolina Senate Race:

Fundamentally South Carolina is the most Republican and conservative state in the South and very, very difficult for a non-incumbent Democrat to win. Republican candidate Jim DeMint has stumbled on more than a few issues, for example proposing a National Sales Tax, the figure getting tossed around is 26 cents on the dollar, he's getting hammered pretty hard on this and other things. So far, it isn't quite enough to sink him but this race is pretty close. I would give DeMint an edge but he can't afford any more problems.

The latest nonpartisan poll shows Tenenbaum within 3 points of DeMint.

On State Polling and the Electoral count:

I don't have either candidate anywhere near 270 electoral votes. The only way you can do this is to take state level polling and push states with just one or two point leads into either the red or blue column. Given that a quarter of these polls are complete garbage and another quarter fairly suspect, I think that this exercise is very problematic. Unless someone happens to be privy to the much more sophisticated (and expensive) polling that is being conducted for the two parties, the chances of anyone accurately calling all of the 11 states that we are calling toss ups (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Wisconsin) are pretty slim. If the margin in this race is more than one percentage point, the Electoral College vote won't matter, if it is inside of one percent, then there are too many states that are too close and the state level polling, even the good ones, won't be of much use, much less these three-dollar state polls that are flying over the internet.

However, the polling done by the two parties tend to have an obvious skew toward their respective candidates so I'm not sure how that will give a more accurate picture. Lake Snell (D) and Strategic Vision (R) are almost always outliers in direct contrast to one another. Which one is correct?

On how people could possibly still be 'undecided' at this point in the campaign:

I think you can categorize undecided voters into two camps. First, there are people who don't read newspapers, news magazines, news websites and don't watch much television news, who really don't care much for news or politics, but see some obligation to vote anyway. They don't focus until very late, the old adage goes, until after the World Series is over.

The second group are people who are genuinely conflicted, that they are torn between voting the way they normally do, but there is some issue or thing that is holding them back. Let's say a Republican who is really against the war in Iraq, or a Democrat who doesn't like John Kerry personally or is anti-trial lawyer.

There are not many out there who are truly undecided but enough that given how close this race is, will probably decide it.

Conflicted voters... it's time to step up to the plate. Those of you who don't care to find some information regarding the next leader of the free world... pick up a paper and then vote for John Kerry -- trust me.

On which way, undecided voters tend to break on election day:

I cannot remember ever seeing a race where a well-known, well-defined incumbent won a half or more of the undecided vote. Generally it is at least two-thirds to three-quarters going to the challenger, somebody was throwing a figure around of 85 percent, don't know if that is right. But as a general rule, undecided voters overwhelmingly break toward challengers, unless the incumbent is relatively unknown, undefined, appointed or something. That's why it is a mistake for people to focus on the spread between the two candidates, the far more relevant figure is the actual vote percentage of the incumbent in a poll (or better, average of polls). If you assume that Nader/others get about two percent of the vote (down from combined 3.1 percent last time), if President Bush is at 46, 47 or maybe 48 percent of the vote going into election day, he probably loses, 49 percent, on the cusp, 50 percent wins.

On a Bush-Edwards Administration -- Yes, I said Bush-Edwards:

Question: Apparently there's the possibility that if neither presidential candidate garners 270 electoral votes, we could see a Bush-Edwards administration (Republican House re-electing the President and newly-Democratic Senate electing the Vice President).

Could you please comment on this possibility, and how such an "administration" would affect American politics and government?

Charles Cook: dysfunctional? I think the odds of this happening are very slim.

Yeah, I bet. Just like the odds of the popular vote LOSER taking the presidency. It's happened FOUR TIMES in the greatest 'Democracy' on the planet!! The bottom line is that ANYTHING can happen. That's why both parties have budgeted for armies of lawyers in the event of an Election 2000 repeat.

And Finally...

On the effect of 'ideologically loaded' referenda on voter turnout:

There are various referenda out there that could affect turnout in states, single-sex marriage ones, one in Florida that would increase the state's minimum wage that Democrats hope will bring out lower income voters. My hunch is that this will be the highest voter turnout of any presidential race in at least 30 years and that the referenda impact will be negligible.

Thanks Chuck.

Election 2004 | Link