The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. I'm Robert MacNeil in New York.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. On this election eve we hear from David Gergen and Mark Shields, pollsters Peter Hart and Richard Wirthlin, and our regular group of six regional editor commentators, and we close with a report on a health insurance vote in California. FINAL SPRINT - '92

MR. MacNeil: The presidential candidates were crisscrossing the country today in a final sprint before election day. President Bush's day began with an early morning speech in Madison, New Jersey. Then he was off to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Akron, Ohio, Louisville, Kentucky, and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He'll have a final rally in his adopted home town, Houston, Texas, later tonight. Here are excerpts from the stops in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky.

PRESIDENT BUSH: You know, Gov. Clinton has got a little premature. He's talking about his inaugural parade. My advice to him is, put the parade on hold, Bill, you're not going to win this election. And the reason we're going to win is this, because the choice between -- the American people have is about a difference in experience, a difference in philosophy, and yes, a difference in character. Character matters. [applause] And if you make a mistake, tell the truth about it, but you cannot be on all sides of every issue. You can't do that. You cannot lie to the American people. Here's a man, Gov. Clinton, whose own hometown newspaper says he's a politician utterly without principle, a guy whose supporters gave him the name "Slick." We didn't invent that. It came out of the Democratic primary out of Arkansas. And that's -- I say, slippery when wet -- a little difference, but the same thing. But here's what Gov. Clinton -- just so we call -- tell it straight before people go to the polls -- talking about investment -- here's what Gov. Clinton said in 1988 in Newsweek. He said, "There's a lot of evidence you can sell people on tax increases if they think it's an investment." That was what he said four years ago. And now we hear that cry, investment. What he means is, America, watch your wallets, he's coming after you in taxes. [applause and cheers] And we are not going to let -- we are not going to let the middle class pay for that scam. It is a scam. [applause] Change, change, change, change, says Clinton and the Ozone Man, change, change, change. [applause] Change, change, change, that's all you're going to have left in your pocket if you go in there with more taxes and more government spending. And so what we do, what we do will cast its shadow forward into history. And your vote -- look at it this way -- it's an act of power, a statement of principle, and a harbinger of possibility. So like all the candidates, I ask only that you think deeply about our nation and its needs, because tomorrow, the polls don't matter, the pundits don't count on election day; only conscience should be your guide. And never, never let anyone tell you that the United States is a nation in decline. We've got problems, but together we can solve them and lift America up. May God bless you, and may God bless our great country. Thank you so much. Let's go win it.

MR. MacNeil: Bill Clinton spent his final hours of campaigning in a non-stop, around-the-clock trip to eight states. His itinerary included Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Kentucky, Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado. He winds up the trip in Little Rock, Arkansas, tomorrow morning. Gov. Clinton's hoarse voice forced him to shorten his speeches, but through the day he continued to hit themes developed throughout the campaign.

GOV. CLINTON: Never forget, never forget in this last day what this last year has been about, a fight between hope and fear, a fight between vision and unity, a fight between blame and taking responsibility for ourselves, and our future, a fight between the comfort of the status quo, and the courage to embrace new ideas, a fight between those of us who are determined not to see our children grow up to be the first generation of Americans to do worse than their parents and those who say, well, things could be worse. I believe things can be better. I have fought to make things better. I have fought for jobs, for health care, for education, to empower people to take control over their own lives and to bring this country together. And tomorrow is our chance to do it. Press on, and we will win a victory tomorrow! [applause] You can see that I have nearly lost my voice trying to give you a voice in Washington on Tuesday. [applause] Teddy Roosevelt once said that we should walk softly and carry a big stick. Today I want to talk softly and carry Ohio. [applause] This is an election which will tell us whether we cannot have bigger government but better government, one that is effective, one that empowers people to seize control over their own future. I do not find anywhere, from the smallest town to the biggest city, people wanting Washington to run their lives. I do find everywhere people wanting a partner. They want a president who says we don't have a person to waste. We're all in this together. We're going up or down together. And I am going to work as hard as I can to challenge you to assume responsibility to build a new future, and then to empower you to seize control over your own destiny. That's what this election is all about. We've had enough neglect. Let me say to you, you know as well as I do that for many, many years, Michigan was a beacon of hope to people all over the country. It is literally true. Thousands of people who couldn't make a living on the farm anymore in my part of the country poured out of there, coming here, looking for hope. And I ask you to think about this. Tomorrow when the great mystery of democracy sweeps across the country, when wave after wave after wave of Americans go into those voting booths and in total silence confront the awesome power that each of you will have tomorrow, you have just as much power as the President of the United States. You count that much. I ask you to do this. Be once again a beacon of hope. Be faithful to the ideas of Jefferson and Washington, to the sacrifice of Lincoln, to the optimism of Roosevelt, to the undying commitment and conviction that the future can be better than the present, that John Kennedy brought to this country, and that we have been without for too long. Be faithful to that.

MR. MacNeil: For Ross Perot, the end of the campaign came in Dallas at a boisterous mid-day rally of hometown supporters. The crowd of 4,000 was smaller than those he drew at rallies over the weekend, and it filled only part of the arena. Perot told the crowd he will win all 50 states in tomorrow's election if everyone in America votes their conscience. And he struck back at critics who have said his recent allegations of Republican dirty tricks were crazy.

ROSS PEROT: You understand two or three weeks ago you were wonderful, I was wonderful. They were praising my leadership capability. Remember, in the paper when they said I agree with Ross and I agree with Ross? Okay. [applause and cheers] Well, that was the good news. The bad news is we're all crazy again now, right? [applause and cheers] Now then, there are millions of crazy people in this country. I don't know what we're going to do about it. [cheers] And I'll say tomorrow I'll bet it's going to be a crazy day at the polls, right? [applause and cheers] Now, you understand the whole political system is aimed to assume you're just totally stupid. I call you an unprogrammed robot. And all these little old twenty-eight-year-old boys are sitting up there in computer terminals figuring out little simple messages to program your brain so that on November the 3rd, you go in pull the ballot, go home, and then keep sending tax money while it gets wasted. Now, I'll tell you one thing. That's the way the system works. But I'll tell you one thing. There's some dude up there today that came up with a crazy thing that's in deep voodoo right at this point because it's backfired on him, right? Okay. Now, while we're on the crazy theme, see, I've got a theme song for our campaign, and here it comes. Just listen to it. [SONG - "We're Crazy"] ELECTION COUNTDOWN - '92

MR. LEHRER: Now, where the conventional horse race wisdom and other matters appear to stand on this Monday night before the election as seen by David Gergen, editor at large of U.S. News & World Report, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, Republican pollster Richard Wirthlin, and Democratic pollster Peter Hart. First to you, Peter and Dick, the national polls, most of the tracking polls I saw today show Clinton with either somewhere between a five and a twelve-point lead. Anything you want to add or subtract to that, Peter?

MR. HART: I think that's right. We finished our NBC/Wall Street Journal poll last -- yesterday, and it shows a 44/36 lead for Bill Clinton, with about 15 percent for Ross Perot. And I think that's probably a pretty good judgment, with all voters, where things are at.

MR. LEHRER: All voters, registered voters, likely voters?

MR. HART: All --

MR. LEHRER: No likely --

MR. HART: There are many calculations. Turnout's going to make a difference, but I would tell you somewhere in the five to eight- point range is a good range.

MR. LEHRER: Richard.

MR. WIRTHLIN: I wish I could have a different read on this, but I also believe we're looking about a five to twelve. My guess is it could be as low as five. I tend to say it's going to be more in that range. The other thing I feel primarily because of some of the things that we've found in terms of Ross Perot, that if there is a protest vote, Ross Perot will likely pick it up, it will move late, and he will likely, in my view, end up more than with the sixteen to seventeen points that have been projected to date.

MR. LEHRER: Because most of the polls are showing that he's losing. You're saying that he may actually be higher.

MR. WIRTHLIN: I think if there's any last minute switch, Jim, it will likely be toward Perot.

MR. HART: Can I just underline that?

MR. LEHRER: Sure.

MR. HART: I would agree. We saw Ross Perot swing down in the middle of the week, and in this last poll we saw him back at 15 percent. I said all the way along, I think he'll go one, two, maybe three points higher than whatever the final polls show. Why? Because I think that he can't measure all of this money that he's putting in today.

MR. LEHRER: And he's got huge things tonight. He has three -- on all three networks.

MR. HART: And drive time radio, everywhere.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Mark Shields, from your perspective, you are in Boston tonight, but from your perspective, your own wisdom, plus the wisdom of others you have picked up, plus the polls, et cetera, what's it look like to you, sir?

MR. SHIELDS: I think Bill Clinton is going to win big tomorrow, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Define big.

MR. SHIELDS: Define big, well over 30 states, will carry states where Democrats have not been competitive since Lyndon Johnson's time, will sweep New England, will carry states in the Rocky Mountains, I'd say carry Colorado and Montana both, sweep the West Coast, and I just, and I think he'll do well in the industrial heartland. I do want to say this. I think the Perot vote will be bigger than either Dick or Peter thinks. And I agree with both of them in their assessment. And I'll tell you why, because the revolt in this country and the revulsion against politics as usual is not against, as it was in 1974, against the Republicans during Watergate, as it was in 1988 against Jimmy Carter and the Democrats. This time it's against politicians in both parties. And if you really want to express your revulsion to politics as usual, whether it's the House banks, S&Ls, big interest money, whatever, he's the way to do it.

MR. LEHRER: So --

MR. SHIELDS: I think he's going to do better than his polls.

MR. LEHRER: So if somebody's sitting out there now undecided and can't, doesn't really go for Bush or for Clinton, he is -- Ross Perot remains a viable option?

MR. SHIELDS: I think he does, and I don't think it's just the money, although the money is important. The message of his money is to, to vote as you are in the predicament you just decided or in that situation, is quite simply this: He's saying, don't vote for politics as usual. Politics as usual is Clinton and Bush. And that's been his -- that's been his message. So I think Perot will do surprisingly well tomorrow.

MR. LEHRER: David Gergen.

MR. GERGEN: Well, you know, Jim, four or five days ago we were talking about a tightening race, and we were looking at polls of one or two points.

MR. LEHRER: I wasn't going to remind everybody.

MR. GERGEN: Well, there was a lot of evidence out there that, in fact, there was tightening.

MR. LEHRER: Sure.

MR. GERGEN: And what appears --

MR. LEHRER: For instance, it's interesting though, David, we were talking about it before we went on the air, the poll that caused all that tightening, most of that tightening, was a CNN/USA Today daily tracking poll that showed 2 percent and then 1 percent, and then almost a dead heat. That one today now shows almost 12 percent when you figure in what they call the undecided.

MR. GERGEN: Well, that's right. I guess it's going to raise some questions about methodology and whether their methodologies were changed in mid-stream or toward the end of the race. But even so, there was definitely some tightening, whatever the number came down to. And what appears to have happened is that late last week the President stalled out. The surge, the resurgence of George Bush, somehow he made his run and it fell short. And he appears to be falling back now so that --

MR. LEHRER: How do you -- what do you attribute that to, David?

MR. GERGEN: My sense of it is -- and going out on the campaign trail talking to voters -- is that there was a curious time prior to just last week when people were focusing on Bill Clinton's presidency and looking at the idea of four years of Clinton. And they thought Clinton was going to win. Some doubts started creeping up. Also, some people thought, if Clinton's going to win, I've now got a free vote, and I go vote for Perot or somebody else. The protest vote started going up. Then as Bush pulled out, I think people began, and I think the Clinton campaign very shrewdly changed the focus away from Clinton and Bush to say, do you really want four years of Bush, and I think that stalled. I think the President stalled on that, on that idea. And along came Iran-contra at the week end, and my sense is that while it didn't get a lot of play in the print press, it got a major play in the electronic press. A couple of the networks led with it Friday night. And I think that blocked out the President's message for the weekend. He's never been able to get it back on track, and the negativity I think is also cutting against him. So my sense is the President is gliding down some. Clinton's pulled up. I am skeptical about Perot pulling this big vote, but if everybody goes tonight thinking Clinton can win this thing and win it big, then people may go back to voting the protest again with Perot.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Mark, you were holding your hand up.

MR. SHIELDS: I just wanted to add one thing to it, Jim. I think what happened last week, I think there was a lot of premature speculation about the Clinton cabinet, the Clinton first 100 days that even speculation about what Tipper Gore and Hillary Clinton would wear to the Inaugural Ball, and Peter Hart has made the point several times that voters have said this is our election, you know, we're not interested in what you folks -- we want to talk about this. And I think they almost said whoa to all the pundits and the wise guys who are speculating about whether Bill Clinton would have a successful first term.

MR. LEHRER: Dick Wirthlin, how do you explain the fact that the President was surging and then seemed to have flatten out and now lose ground just all in the matter of three or four days?

MR. WIRTHLIN: Jim, I believe a good deal of it was return of the native, that is, a lot of people who flirted with Clinton, soft Republicans came back to the President. Secondly, Bush did have a pretty good run for about 10 days when he did focus on the points of differences between himself and Clinton effectively. And I think that that's a critical thing for a candidate to do. I think that focus was lost for a variety of reasons over the last three or four days. And people were in the margin of deciding need to have a pretty crystal clear reason to vote for or not to vote for one or the other of the candidates.

MR. LEHRER: And he seemed to turn up the volume, the criticism of Clinton, when everybody was paying attention.

MR. WIRTHLIN: That's right, but he probably went one step too far, became shrill, lost the aura of being the President, being the incumbent, which in point of fact has been his great asset. To me, it's quite surprising that he's as close as he is at this juncture when you consider that still 76 percent of Americans say the country's seriously off on the wrong track, and we have an incumbent President who only gets a 36 percent job rating nationally. He will likely come within five or six points of being elected for a second term.

MR. LEHRER: But shows strong negative feeling's still out there for Bill Clinton.

MR. WIRTHLIN: Absolutely.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Peter?

MR. HART: Well, let's give Bill Clinton some credit --

MR. LEHRER: Okay.

MR. HART: -- around this table. And it's no accident that he's leading. I mean, he's run a good campaign. And I think the interesting thing is that as he's lost his voice, he's regained his rhythm. I mean, we got out of the Punch and Judy campaign where we answer every jab on the other side, and you listen to him tonight. He boiled it down. This is what the choice is. And the final thing that we have to wonder is: Are those Perot people going to vote the presidency or the protest? And that's the one drama that we don't know. And that's going to change the dynamics of how we analyze it tomorrow night.

MR. LEHRER: Sure. Let's go --

MR. GERGEN: Bill Clinton ran the best Democratic campaign and the Republicans ran one of the worst I've ever seen up until the third debate. They got better after the third debate, but up until that time.

MR. LEHRER: Let's just quickly go through some of the battleground -- how do you define a battleground state, Mr. Hart?

MR. HART: I guess a battleground state is any area where you say, this is up for grabs, it's a bellwether, it's a bellwether of where we're going to see the nation turn out.

MR. LEHRER: We've got a graphic up. There's Texas, Florida, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio. So let's -- New Jersey, where does New Jersey, how does New Jersey look to you all right now?

MR. WIRTHLIN: This has been a state that Republicans have typically won. If there's an Eastern, large Eastern seaboard state that Republicans win, generally we win New Jersey. Right now, I would say it's leaning Clinton.

MR. LEHRER: And if --

MR. HART: Can I make one point before we jump in?

MR. LEHRER: Sure.

MR. HART: And that is, I think when we start talking about the battleground states, it starts out with 200 electoral votes for Bill Clinton and about 100 for George Bush. So Bill Clinton has to do less well in the battleground states. George Bush has to sweep them.

MR. LEHRER: I'm not sure I understand that.

MR. HART: Well, in other words, if we take all the non- battleground states, Bill Clinton's going to have close to or over two hundred --

MR. LEHRER: Going into the battle --

MR. HART: That's right. So I think that's important.

MR. LEHRER: So it means he only needs to get 70 out of these, from these battleground states?

MR. HART: That's correct.

MR. LEHRER: New Jersey, you agree, is leaning toward Clinton now?

MR. HART: And I think it's pretty close though.

MR. LEHRER: But if somebody were watching the election tomorrow night, New Jersey's going to come because it's an East Coast state -- the polls close earlier. Is that a good sign that something is happening, something to judge the rest of the night by?

MR. HART: Well, I think if New Jersey goes Democratic, it just means the Democrats are going to do very well, because that's a hard one.

MR. LEHRER: Pennsylvania also hard?

MR. WIRTHLIN: Pennsylvanian I would put fortunately firmly in Clinton's -- Clinton's camp and not much chance to pull it out.

MR. LEHRER: What about Ohio and Michigan? These are the ones where the candidates these last several days have spent a lot of time. What's it look like to you, Peter?

MR. HART: Well, I think Michigan is solidly in Clinton territory. I think he's done extremely well there. Ohio I think leaning towards the Democrats, but awfully close. I think that and New Jersey are the two that are the toughest. I would agree Pennsylvania and Michigan are going to be Democratic.

MR. LEHRER: Illinois has been for Clinton at least in the polls heavily, double digit, for a long time. Anything change there, Dick?

MR. WIRTHLIN: Not really. And we saw that going back as early as 1984. Classically, Illinois was a fairly solid Republican state. But as time has gone on, it's become more and more Democratic in its propensities. I would say that Bush has a chance of winning in Ohio. I believe the momentum is slightly in his favor, and it's going to be close, but I would say it's clearly a toss-up or leaning Bush.

MR. LEHRER: Let's skip now to Florida and to Texas. What's it look like, Florida?

MR. HART: We've been following Florida pretty closely and if President Bush doesn't carry Florida, he's not going to carry an awful lot of states around the country.

MR. LEHRER: That's something to look for early tomorrow night.

MR. HART: I would watch that one. He should -- especially watch the Perot vote in the panhandle. That will be important up in the Northern part of the state.

MR. WIRTHLIN: Republicans have never won the presidency without California since 1888. We're not going to win California. To have any shot at winning, we have to hold those two big states, Florida and Texas. That simply puts us in the game. If we lose Florida, that is an early signal that things are not going to be very comfortable for Republicans as far as the presidential race is concerned all night long tomorrow.

MR. LEHRER: But Texas looks pretty good for the President, doesn't it?

MR. WIRTHLIN: I think the President's going to hold Texas. Clinton is not putting a lot of resources there, while Perot is strong in Dallas/Fort Worth. I believe the President will carry his home state.

MR. LEHRER: Peter.

MR. HART: I would have to say it depends on Ross Perot. The larger the vote for Ross Perot, the better the chance for Bill Clinton; the smaller the vote for Ross Perot --

MR. LEHRER: Because in Texas he's taking votes more from Bush than he is from Clinton?

MR. HART: He's going to definitely take from Mr. Bush, and you'll see that Bill Clinton will have the minority vote plus probably the more liberal areas.

MR. LEHRER: Mark Shields, based on your, your experience, et cetera, as you sit down, you're going to do it with us tomorrow night, but as you sit down to watch these various returns, what are you going to be watching for early tomorrow night to see how -- whether or not your prediction isabsolutely right on, the one you just gave us a few minutes ago?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I think first of all, Indiana comes in early. If Indiana, which is as Republican as you can get, is not solidly and by a pretty substantial margin Republican, then I'd say the Republicans are in for a very long time. Kentucky is one of those states that the Democrats are counting on this time, that again is where the President and Vice President have returned time and again in hopes of campaigning. I think the Democrats are going to carry Ohio, but I'd say New Jersey is as much of a bellwether as any because, in fact, New Jersey has been, Dick Wirthlin's absolutely right, the most reliably Republican state along that Eastern seaboard, a major metropolitan state, larger in population, larger Italian American population, and no Democrat has carried it since - - Jimmy Carter didn't carry it in either time when he won the presidency in 1976, Gerry Ford did -- Dick Nixon carried it twice. So we're going way back. And if, in fact, Bill Clinton can carry New Jersey, then, you know, it's going to be a very short night at Republican headquarters, and we can be getting an early concession speech.

MR. LEHRER: David, what is your own private dope sheet tomorrow night?

MR. GERGEN: Well, I think we start with the proposition all of us agree on, and that is that Bill Clinton, unless things are reversed, Bill Clinton is poised on the verge of a major electoral landslide. The popular vote may be closer. Go back to Peter's point. I think that the President is in a situation where he has to take his base and he has to win all the close states, many of which, in most of which he's behind. So if you start those early states that come in, Kentucky, Georgia, you start looking at that and see who wins it and by what margin, they're going to tell you not only who's going to win the presidential probably pretty early, but it also can begin to give you some indication of how the Senate races may come out, what kind of coattails conceivably Bill Clinton may have. And that's going to make a big, big difference in what kind of presidency he may have if he wins tomorrow.

MR. LEHRER: There are some terrifically interesting and important Senate races tomorrow. And you think there's a direct connection there obviously.

MR. GERGEN: Bill Clinton is very clearly trying to go out. I talked to Lynn Yaekel yesterday in Pennsylvania. She's running on the Democratic side. He said, you can't tell how important it is for him to get to 60 in the Senate. They have 57 seats on the Democratic side. They want 60 because of course they can break a filibuster with 60. And he's out there now really pumping to try to get those extra seats.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. Well, gentlemen, thank you all four again for being with us. FOCUS - EDITORS' VIEWS

MR. MacNeil: Next, some regional perspectives on the end of the campaign '92. We get it from our panel of editors we assemble quite often. They are Cynthia Tucker from the Atlanta Constitution, Ed Baumeister, the Trenton, New Jersey Times, Gerry Warren, the San Diego Union-Tribune, Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune, Lee Cullum, Dallas Morning News, Erwin Knoll, The Progressive Magazine. Starting with you, Gerry Warren, I want to ask each of you, you've been listening to our pollsters and our Hour analysts, Gergen & Shields, does any of you have a hunch or a gut feeling, or sees a straw in the wind that says that this wisdom is wrong, and that we could see a replay of the total surprise that happened in Britain, a scenario the Republicans have looked at very closely? Gerry Warren, do you see anything that would suggest that this is all wrong, that Bush could still pull this out?

MR. WARREN: Robin, had you asked me that question Friday, I would have said I had a strong hunch that all of us pundits were wrong and that something was happening in the country, and even in California to a certain extent. But now I'm not so sure. I do think Mr. Bush was, was surging up until Friday, maybe Saturday, and then something happened, whether it was Iran-contra, that sneak attack by the special prosecutor or some other reason, he seemed to stop, and now I don't see any signs of my hunch being, being successful.

MR. MacNeil: Clarence Page, any gut feeling that this is all wrong and that he could still do it?

MR. PAGE: Well, it would be impossible now for Bush to duplicate John Majors' victory because Majors was never this far behind. In fact, Bush would actually be doing much better than Majors and much better than known history, he really comes -- comes from a really deep deficit such that I'm rather amazed by it all, that this campaign has done so badly. David Gergen was right. It was truly the worst Republican campaign in memory and best Democrat campaign.

MR. MacNeil: Erwin Knoll, any gut feelings about the conventional wisdom, what's now become the conventional wisdom?

MR. KNOLL: No. I don't really understand the polls or how to read them. I know that there's always a point near the end of every presidential campaign where the gap seems to narrow dramatically and then at the last minute it doesn't. It separates again, and this seems to have followed that pattern, but I would have to know more about abnormal psychology to understand why that works that way.

MR. MacNeil: Well, Lee Cullum, what about the Perot factor? You've just heard Richard Wirthlin and Mark particularly saying this could be larger than people expect. Do you have any sense that we could be wrong about this?

MS. CULLUM: I think that Perot will do well in Texas. I was talking to Mike Basalis, who is a pollster in Houston, today with the Lance Terrance Group on the Republican side of things. And he thinks Perot could do as well as 20 percent in Texas. He also believes that Bush will carry the state, and I think every indication is that that's true. He believes it's a four-point race now nationally between Clinton and Bush. So in his view, a Republican view to be sure, it's closer than the pundits in Washington gathered around your table are saying. I don't think it's over yet.

MR. MacNeil: Ed Baumeister, what's your gut feeling?

MR. BAUMEISTER: Well, I have a rule. I don't -- in these situations I don't believe anything I hear or feel after October 15th. I think that so much is made in the last days of the horse races among the polls, too much is made of it. I think basically the people I talked to made up their minds about two or three weeks ago. And despite all the rollercoaster rides on the national polls, the people I talked to are pretty much the way they were the middle of October.

MR. MacNeil: Cynthia Tucker, what about you?

MS. TUCKER: I have to agree with Ed. I don't pay much attention to the polls in the final days, though there was clearly something going on with the President toward the end of last week. I think now, however, that I'm going to go back and reassess a decision that I made earlier in the day. Earlier in the day I decided that there was no way that we here in Atlanta, at the Atlanta Constitution, could know early enough in the evening who would win in order to write an editorial forWednesday. I'm now thinking that I will do something that the people in Washington were talking about earlier. I'll keep an eye out on what Florida and Georgia and New Jersey are looking like early in the evening and if they go overwhelmingly for Clinton, then I'd say that we could expect the evening to end fairly early.

MR. MacNeil: Okay. I'd like to ask each of you -- why don't I start with you Cynthia -- what do you think of the campaign we've just been through, its quality as a democratic process?

MS. TUCKER: Well, I think, like most Americans, I'm very tired of it now that President Bush and his opponents have started discussing his dog, Millie. I think it's past time for this campaign to be over. I think this campaign has clearly had high points and low ones. I think the issues have been very thoroughly aired. They were aired more thoroughly, I believe, in 1992 than they were in 1988, but I do think it has been far -- there has been far too much negative campaigning. There was a lot of that early on in the primaries. It was a very negative campaign. It moderated a bit toward the middle, particularly during the debates. Most of the candidates tried to look presidential and discuss the issues, but as we've gotten toward the end of the campaign, it's deteriorated into mud slinging again.

MR. MacNeil: Erwin Knoll, what do you think of this campaign and how well the issues have been covered?

MR. KNOLL: Well, our long national nightmare is almost over. Of course, unfortunately, another one begins the day after election day. But I like what Ed Baumeister said a minute ago about, about not paying attention to anything that happens after October 15th. And I think if we don't pay too much attention to what happens before October 15th, that's a good idea too, because I think this campaign has been terribly frustrating and unsatisfying from the point of view of a serious citizen hoping that he will hear substantive discussion of issues confronting this, this country. The next President, whoever it's going to be, is going to have to make serious decisions about what's happening in the former Soviet Union. That's hardly been mentioned in the campaign. What's happened in the former Yugoslavia, that's hardly been mentioned in the campaign. What's happening in the Middle East, that's hardly been mentioned in the campaign. What's happening in our inner- cities? What's happening to poor people in America? Where is the comment or the discussion of rising racial tensions? All of these are critical issues that have barely been touched on by these people claiming the right to head the government of the United States. So whatever the winner does after he's inaugurated is not going to be guided by input from the American people because they haven't been part of the discussion for these many months.

MR. MacNeil: How do you feel about that, Ed Baumeister?

MR. BAUMEISTER: I don't know. What's the opposite of a nay sayer? A yay sayer. I think it was a pretty good campaign. I don't think any of us grew up in ancient Greece where elections were conducted in such high-minded fashion in the original democracies. I think Erwin's point is really very good, that we haven't heard much discussion of crucial issues like racial tension. But I think what that says is that the American campaign simply cannot address these issues and others that are more complicated. But I think what we got this time, as opposed to 1988, the one I guess we most recently remember, is a somewhat higher level of discourse, a somewhat more detailed revelation of where people stood. I think Ross Perot had an awful lot to do with this. He forced the other two to do numbers. But I'm not -- I'm not -- I don't feel the way I did at the end of 1988, and part of it is because I haven't been Willy Hortoned, I suppose, but I think all in all it's been a much better campaign. I do regret that these issues that Erwin talks about weren't, weren't discussed, but I think people will make up their minds based on how they think these people will act, and I think they've given pretty good signals.

MR. MacNeil: Clarence Page, do you think in a higher-minded campaign in 1988 -- how do you feel about the way the issues have been discussed and addressed?

MR. PAGE: Well, it's not much of a compliment this election year to say it was more high-minded than '88, but it was. And thank goodness it was. One thing that I liked about this campaign was while it did not hit upon a lot of those issues Erwin Knoll talks about, unfortunately those issues like racial tension, poverty, are so deeply embedded in our culture now, partly as a result of the skewed dialogue of recent elections, that it's become virtually impossible for us to candidly talk about them anymore. We break that cycle.

MR. MacNeil: Or may I interrupt -- or was it because Bill Clinton was so determined to be "a new Democrat" who wasn't going to be tarred by the Republicans with being the one sympathetic to welfare, and poor people and all the sort of old image Democrats that he was going so determinedly for the middle class.

MR. PAGE: Frankly, Robin, you're forcing me to be candid. You're absolutely right. Candidly, the Democrats have been stigmatized by the Republicans in recent elections. This one back in 1960 has been a party of minorities and the poor, not been the party of the middle class. Bill Clinton had to work hard to reverse that, while still keeping the poor and minorities in his corner. He's done that. That's why his numbers are so high right now. But more important, the public drove this campaign, Robin. That's what was really encouraging this time. In '88, the public was largely led by, with all due respect, Richard Wirthlin, who was here earlier tonight, and various other consultants, all of whom are very intelligent people. They do their job very well. But unfortunately, they did it too well that year in terms of the TV commercials and the polls driving the campaign. This year the public kept saying, no, I'll take care of my own family values, thank you. Get me a job. That kept happening repeatedly. It played well to Bill Clinton because the economy was his main issue. It did not play well for George Bush. He kept trying to divert the debate away from the economy, and the public kept swaying it back. So I find that to be very encouraging.

MR. MacNeil: Lee Cullum, how do you characterize the campaign we've all been through?

MS. CULLUM: Robin, I agree with Ed Baumeister. I think it's been a better campaign than it gets credit for having been. I think the economic programs have been discussed in remarkable detail. And I would agree with Ed that Ross Perot gets some credit for that. he started the economic conversation. And I think it's been carried forward with extraordinary specificity. You know, we had an amazing non-presidential debate in Dallas a couple of weeks ago between former New York Mayor Ed Koch and former Secretary of Education and drug czar Bill Bennett. And they were astonishingly substantive. They were willing to discuss problems of race, choice in the schools, enterprise zones, the teaching of ethics in the schools, and they spoke before an audience of 2,000 people who responded deliriously. People are hungry for substantive conversation, and I also think they're hungry for civility in their campaigns. And I hope that will be the next step. I think we got specificity this time. I hope four years from now we get some civility.

MR. MacNeil: Cynthia Tucker, Peter Hart said what happens tomorrow, and what happens tomorrow, turnout will make a big difference. And obviously turnout depends on enthusiasm and people feeling that this election is very important, and are excited about it. How do you feel about that? Is this the kind of excitement and interest that will cause a big turnout?

MS. TUCKER: I think that there will be a bigger turnout than there was in 1988. I think that there is a distinction to be made here between voters' enthusiasm for the candidates and voters understanding that somehow this is a watershed election year. I'm not sure that people are that enthusiastic about any of the candidates that they're faced with. I think that's the reason why we've had fairly high numbers of undecideds for so long. And I also think that that's why Ross Perot continually shows up at 15 to 20 percent in the polls, because people are -- many people are not that thrilled with either President Bush or Gov. Bill Clinton. However, I think that voters, by contrast, understand that this is a watershed year. Not only is the economy very important to people, but the Cold War is over. An era is ending. People can now look forward to what America should concentrate on its future. And I think that that alone will bring large numbers of voters out to the polls.

MR. MacNeil: Gerry Warren, do you think voters sense this is a watershed year, and a lot of them will come out because of that?

MR. WARREN: I think they sense it's a very important year, Robin. I'm still not clear that this is going to be a large turnout in California at least. It will certainly be larger than 1988, but whether it meets the 75 percent prediction of the Secretary of State is in question. It is an important year. I think Mr. Perot is still as high as he -- and it's not as high as has been mentioned here in California -- is because he continually comes back to the original issues of 1992, which were the deficit and that the government, including Congress, isn't working. So if you want to grade this campaign versus '88, I think '88 was much better. I think it's getting a bad rap. The fact that government has not performed for the American people is the -- was the overriding initial issue of this campaign, and it's been forgotten because all of the blame has been put on either the President or somebody else. But the Congress has been left out of this.

MR. MacNeil: Erwin Knoll, do you see this as a historic election, a turning point, and do you think voters sense that in Wisconsin?

MR. KNOLL: Well, it conceivably could be. I do think that the decade's long trend to lower and lower turnout may well be halted, even reversed, this year. I think the credit for that goes to Ross Perot, because a great many people who have stayed home because they believed that the two major parties offered them no significant choice are going to turn out and vote for Perot not because of what he said, not because of his program, but because he has the shining virtue of running as neither a Democrat nor a Republican. And I think that may make it a historic year, because I think many people will conclude from the Perot turnout, the Perot vote, whatever it is, that the two-party system is not invulnerable, that it can be challenged, and I see a serious possibility that four years from now we will have some other interesting choices in terms of points of views, in terms of candidates, that we haven't had for many decades now.

MR. MacNeil: Clarence Page, is this the sort of excitement in the voters, do you feel, that will cause a big turnout tomorrow?

MR. PAGE: I expect we'll have a big turnout partly because young people who have been dwindling in their turnout in recent years are getting excited. I've been to a number of college campuses across this great nation of ours in the past couple of months, and I'm hearing young people talking politics. Interestingly enough, a number of them tell me it's not chic on campus for the first time in 12 years to say you're a Republican. That's more true of some campuses than others. The important thing is that they care, especially these pocket book issues. The second thing is Ross Perot. He has energized a lot of people who say they haven't voted in years, or they haven't voted at all. They feel like he's given them something to vote for, or else he's peaked their interest. That's healthy.

MR. MacNeil: We have to leave it there. Clarence, thank you, Ed, Erwin, Lee, Gerry, and Cynthia, thank you. FOCUS - HEALING PROCESS

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight another kind of election story. It's about an initiative in California that would require mandatory health insurance. Doctors are supporting it. Insurance companies and some consumer activists are against it. Correspondent Spencer Michels of public station KQED-San Francisco reports.

MR. MICHELS: San Francisco's China Town is crowded with small businesses, restaurants, and sewing shops. Many of the workers here, like 4 million working Californians, have no health insurance. They would be among the beneficiaries of the health care insurance measure on the California ballot. Many Chinese without health insurance get their medical treatment from Dr. Rolland Lowe. He is campaigning actively for the health care measure, Proposition 166.

DR. ROLLAND LOWE: What it would do, at least in China Town where I practice, is to make sure many of our people here in China Town that work at low wages will have at least basic care, basic health care for themselves.

MR. MICHELS: Dr. Lowe is active in the California Medical Association, which is sponsoring Prop 166. Under that measure, all employers would be required to buy health coverage for employees who work 17 1/2 hours a week or more. It's hard to imagine that health care workers would reject such a plan, but many of them do. At San Francisco General Hospital, where a lot of poor, uninsured people come for care, a group of doctors, nurses, and others rally against the Medical Association plan. For them, it doesn't go far enough and isn't tough enough.

SPOKESMAN: You are uninsured. You are at risk of financial devastation. That is bad medicine.

MR. MICHELS: At a press conference, the state insurance commissioner, along with consumer health activists, chiropractors and representatives of small businesses like trucking speak out against Prop 166.

JOHN GARIMENDI, California Insurance Commissioner: It is not universal health coverage at all. And, in fact, there's no cost containments in this measure. In short, Proposition 166 is a fraud.

SPOKESPERSON: I'm concerned that everyone get affordable health care.

MR. MICHELS: The health coverage debate in California has become fierce. The insurance industry has joined forces with traditional enemies in the health field and is bankrolling the TV campaign against the doctors.

COMMERCIAL SPOKESPERSON: That's why the California Nurses Association and many doctors say vote no on Proposition 166.

MR. MICHELS: The Medical Association has responded with free footage distributed to TV stations, using citizens and officials to extol the benefits of its plan.

WOMAN: I think these big insurance companies are just ripping us off, and I think maybe this initiative will do something to change that.

SPOKESMAN: It's time that we got health insurers back into the business of insuring sick people, and not avoiding them.

MR. MICHELS: For all the talk in the country about health insurance, this is the first time it's been put to a vote of the people. So the results of this California initiative that mandates employer-paid health insurance could provide a clue to what might happen on the national scene come January.

DREW ALTMAN, Kaiser Family Foundation: At issue is whether this is a problem which will be on the plate in that first hundred days.

MR. MICHELS: Drew Altman is president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which has studied health care reform around the nation.

DREW ALTMAN: And if a big, important initiative passes in a place as important as California, it really ups the odds that the Congress will deal with this issue, will have the confidence to deal with this issue.

MR. MICHELS: The Medical Association wrote and gathered signatures to put the plan on the ballot, well aware of the pressure for health care reform.

DR. RICHARD CORLIN, President, California Medical Association: We have been trying for years through the legislature to get health care reform.

MR. MICHELS: Dr. Richard Corlin is president of the California Medical Association.

DR. RICHARD CORLIN: We haven't been able to get a bill through the legislature, and we can't wait anymore. There's 6 1/2 million people without insurance in this state. That's unconscionable. And the Medical Association is doing something to correct it. Our measure, Proposition 166, will reduce by 70 percent the number of people without health insurance in this state.

MR. MICHELS: Proposition 166 covers workers and their dependents, but not the unemployed. Minimum benefits include 45 days in a hospital, 20 doctor visits a year, and a lifetime cap of $1/2 million. The measure prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions. Employers will pay at least 75 percent of insurance premiums. The employee's share will be no more than 2 percent of their wages. Many small business owners object. At Dave's 24-hour coffee shop in Oakland, the 28 employees already are covered by health insurance. Owner Ted Scizcqua sees mandatory health insurance as a burdensome payroll tax.

TED SCIACQUA, Coffee Shop Owner: In this place it would raise my contribution $1901 a month. And I can't pass that cost on to my customers. We've been here 62 years, and I think if this plan goes through, we will be history.

MR. MICHELS: At a small family-run deli market in San Francisco, the owner is buying health insurance for some of his trusted longtime employees. But he says he can't afford it for every worker, as Proposition 166 would demand.

SMALL BUSINESS OWNER: It would be hard, because then we wouldn't be making a decision ourselves. If somebody told us we had to do, we have to do it. But it would be uncomfortable. We might have to stay open an hour longer, open a half hour earlier.

DR. ROLLAND LOWE: So the people who are in the service industry, many of them, can pass on that cost to the people who purchase that service. And if everyone in China Town has to raise their price up because of that, then everybody will still be competitive.

MR. MICHELS: Opponents say the biggest flaw in Prop 166 is that it does nothing to help California's 2 million unemployed, uninsured, people like those who wait hours for free medical care at San Francisco General Hospital, people like Charmaine Jordan.

CHARMAINE JORDAN: I've worked all -- then I was laid off. Then I was forced on welfare. Then I was forced on nothing.

MR. MICHELS: How did you lose your health insurance?

MS. JORDAN: Once I lost my job, the health insurance was cancelled.

MR. MICHELS: Dr. Kevin Grumbach deals with such patients often. Not a member of the California Medical Association, he is a family practice physician at San Francisco General and teaches at the University of California.

DR. KEVIN GRUMBACH: I have a guy who works for an elevator repair company. He's working for a month or two, then he's off work for a couple of months. He's not going to be covered under this. I see a guy who does shoe shining. He has tendonitis in his shoulder. He can't shine shoes anymore. He loses his job because of medical disability. He's lost his health insurance under this type of plan.

MR. MICHELS: Medical Association member Dr. Lowe acknowledges Prop 166 leaves out many Californians.

DR. LOWE: It is a flaw in a sense it's an incomplete plan, and last year actually, as we were trying to work out the solution to the uninsured in California, we had a complete plan that takes care of those uninsured also, but it calls for a tax. And we felt given the economic environment of California at this time, there's no way we could call for something that will be a taxation on the public at large and have a chance of passing.

MR. MICHELS: Proponents and opponents clash on how effective the initiative will be in reducing the high costs of health care. The Medical Association says cost containment is built in through the use of managed care.

DR. RICHARD CORLIN: Most of the health care that is delivered under Proposition 166 will be in a managed care setting. Managed care includes contracting of rates, selected providers, tight utilization review, and that in and of itself has very significant cost containment built into the mechanism and the delivery. The California Medical Association has publicly pledged and committed to work supportively on other cost containment items.

MR. MICHELS: Prop 166 sets up panels that are supposed to bring down health care costs. But the consumer group Health Access and its director, Maryann O'Sullivan, say those panels are designed not to work.

MARYANN O'SULLIVAN, Consumer Health Advocate: They only have the power to monitor, analyze, and recommend, but not to enforce any kind of health care cost containment. And then the initiative goes one step further and requires that any future cost containment provisions in the state of California must be approved by a 2/3 vote of the legislature.

MR. MICHELS: That's the legislature O'Sullivan points out that hasn't been able to agree on health care. Health Access and Dr. Grumbach helped organize the rally against Prop 166. They believe the measure is designed to help private doctors.

DR. GRUMBACH: This is a way of saying let's get something partial in there. It'll give the appearance that we're really addressing the problem, and it will totally dissipate the momentum for something much more fundamental.

MR. MICHELS: Neither a win or a loss for Prop 166 will diminish the pressure for health care reform according to Kaiser Foundation's Drew Altman.

DREW ALTMAN: If it passes I think it will be a shot in the arm for the Democrats and Bill Clinton, many of whom are proposing employer-based solutions. If it goes down, it sends a very clear message that the answer to this problem has to come from Washington, D.C., and from national government. The states are broke. They have no money. So the only way that they can cover the uninsured is to do it off the books, in effect, stick it to employers, not pay for it out of the state budget. If that won't fly in California, it's likely it won't fly other places.

MR. MICHELS: All the medical needs of all Californians will not be met by Prop 166. But Altman argues something now may be better than nothing. Should the measure pass, it will have to clear one other hurdle. Congress will have to approve a waiver from a federal law that forbids mandatory employer-paid health plans. Whether or not that happens, California voters will be adding their voices to the national health care debate.

MR. LEHRER: A statewide California poll released over the weekend showed 46 percent opposed to the health insurance measure, 36 percent in favor. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: Now some of the non-political news of this Monday. General Motors named John Smale as chairman to replace Robert Stempel, who resigned under pressure last week. Smale is former chairman of Procter Gamble. The ailing automaker also forced out four other top executives and cut its dividend in half in an effort to stop its massive losses. A study released by Dow Corning today found that the company altered its documents on its silicon gel breast implants. The company said there was no evidence of health risks from those changes. Dow Corning withdrew from the implant business earlier this year after a government-ordered moratorium. Basketball star Magic Johnson announced his retirement from the Los Angeles Lakers, this time for good. Johnson sat out last season after he was diagnosed with the AIDS virus. His comeback this year caused controversy. Some players said they were concerned about contracting the virus from him. Johnson said it was that controversy that led to his decision to leave the sport. United Nations relief officials in Bosnia today accused all sides of holding up aid convoys. In one case, Bosnian authorities refused to accept a ten-truck convoy containing clothing because it was made in Serbia. The U.N., which launched a new large scale relief effort today, has said winter could kill thousands in Bosnia unless more aid gets through. The government of the African nation of Angola appeared to have regained control of its capital after several days of heavy fighting. Only scattered pockets of resistance remained after a United Nations-brokered cease-fire took effect between the government and the rebel movement known as UNITA. An estimated 1,000 people were killed in the past four days of fighting. It broke out after UNITA was defeated in U.N.- supervised elections. Good night, Jim. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. Again, the major story of this day was the final sprint to tomorrow to election day. Gov. Clinton, President Bush and Ross Perot rallied in key states. We'll be here tomorrow night with a look at how the press has covered this campaign, and then we'll be updating with voting results throughout the rest of the night here on PBS. So get a good night's rest tonight and we'll see you then. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.