help republicans. the president is in difficult shape. at least that's what most polls show. the country feels like we are headed in the wrong direction. and there is general dissatisfaction and frustration. i think that will produce an election of change. right now, the republicans are not in the white house, so they should be the beneficiaries. i think they will have a good night in both the house and senate. >> on friday, there is a feeling this will be a record bad night for the president, potentially. how so? >> if you look at midterm elections going back 50 years or 60 years, the combination of the first midterm in this second obama midterm could produce losses not seen since the eisenhower-truman administration. we are talking about a two midterm sequence we have not seen for over 50 years. >> given the headwinds that stu just ran through, the democrats

should be already gone. we saw blanche lambert in the last round of midterms. everyone knew she was going to lose by labor day. and yet they are still within one point, two points, here and there, in the senate races in particular. why are they hanging around? >> that's a good question. in 2006, we saw the same thing as republicans. that was the wave election on the other side. the walking wounded. they were not going to come back. i think you have two things going on. regardless of how well the ground game turns out, they have been able to improve it from where it was in 2010. they have brought new people into the process. you are seeing some of that in the polls. that is why there is not a 10 or 15 point gap between the republican and democratic candidate. a lot of these folks are incumbents. it is still tough to be an incumbent, particularly when

people are frustrated. the alternative is not something that voters are not particularly interested in. a republican party, if they do win control of the senate, will come in with lower approval ratings than the president. when we have a change election, it is, we want this person that is going to do better at whatever this party is not good at. in this case, the voters are saying -- >> at bloomberg politics, we had a democratic polling expert. he sees the same indicators you speak of. what he said was, they want to punish obama, but they don't want to reward the republicans. that is why the choice is so hard and why the voters are stuck. >> that is why, on election night, when they have to make that choice, that is why the margins may increase. one or two points may end up being five or six points. or if the ground game worked, what should have been a five or six point race in favor of republicans will be tighter

because they brought in voters. >> i would add one other thing. i think some democrats in difficult races are running good races. mark prior was better positioned initially then blanche, and he saw what happened to her and made sure it did not happen to him. he is a clear underdog, but he is running a good race. the democrats have done a nice job localizing a number of these contests. north carolina, certainly. kansas, georgia. give the democrats some credit. i do not think it is quite a hurricane, but it has the potential to be a pretty strong republican storm. step back real quick on all democrats onnate, the of defensive here. governorship is very mixed, but

democrats may be slightly on the offense there. house, not much going on at all. why the difference between one party on the offense at the statehouse level and the other party on offense in congress? >> that is a great question. i wish i had an answer i was totally confident of. first of all, i think there is a difference between the federal races and the state races. in terms of the contest between the house and senate, look at the partisan division, barack obama, capitol hill -- the democrats are on the defensive in the u.s. house and the u.s. senate. in the house, republicans are kind of hitting up on their ceiling, so they do not have the potential. the governors races, the problems of the parties of incumbent governors, has to do with the angst and the frustration. republican governors in kansas and alaska are in real trouble.

might not win reelection. republicans might win in massachusetts, connecticut, and rhode island. maryland may be competitive. i think it reflects general dissatisfaction with government, the direction of the country, and people's sour mood. >> with the governors, it is personality-based as well. a lot of governors in trouble are not in trouble simply because of the economy. in some ways, you look at a place like florida or maine or pennsylvania, where the race is really about the personality of that candidate. that has put them in a difficult position they are in, much more so than the national environment. >> you look at what they have done in many cases. you had quinn in illinois, who raised taxes substantially, is in trouble. and brownback in kansas, who cut them substantially, is in trouble.

walker has gotten in trouble. it is a rich stew. >> which is true. at the same time, it is about how you put those policies in place. north carolina and colorado -- another example where legislature has taken over in both of those states. one party state. to saw north carolina moved an ideological right agenda. the governor of colorado is a democrat. is he seeing the effects of that, stepping over that boundary there? at the same time, there is also the way that those candidates relate to the public and personality and the way they decided to govern, in terms of their style. >> in maryland, you wonder if this feels a little bit like bob ehrlich. different race.

different candidates. this has been one of those campaigns under the radar. polling shows it is much tighter than democrats expected. >> i feel like i lived in maryland, so i pay less attention to maryland. i am not sure who my state senator is. i guess maryland was not on my radar screen until very recently, until we had strong survey data showing that something was happening there. i have been doing this all long time. i probably fell into the trap of being more dismissive than i should have of hogan and the republicans opportunity. it is true. i spent more time focusing on races in kansas and colorado than i do in my own backyard. i don't talk to people in my neighborhood. i don't talk to people in maryland about taxes. this is a classic case that it was right on me and i did not notice it until i had to see survey information from other

places. i guess it is possible that the feeling toward lieutenant governor is pretty strong. governor o'malley is leaving office not popular at all. i guess there is an opportunity there. it is really uphill in maryland. it takes a quirky set of circumstances for an upset. >> may be a jumble for either of you -- these races that have come on the radar. at the beginning of the year, there were three categories of races out there. there were the ones that we knew -- south dakota, montana, west virginia, where republicans had good chances. there are the purple states where republicans had a chance of being competitive -- north carolina. there are a bunch of states republicans wanted to put on the radar -- new hampshire, colorado, and virginia. in two of those, they seem to have put them on the radar, new hampshire and colorado. virginia, there has been recent polling we are closer than we thought.

what is the difference with those races? >> can i add three other races? the races they wanted to put on the radar that were not on there -- oregon, michigan, and minnesota. >> right. some of it is personality-based in terms of the quality of the candidates. mark warner's ability from being , the governor and having the name i.d. he has and the persona that he does -- he started in a much stronger place, i think, than almost any of those other. it would have been shaheen if that state were not such a friendly retail state that gets ton of attention. when you look at the first set of polls out of new hampshire, it looked like shaheen was all set. she has some of the same profiles as mark warner.

the owner, senator, everybody there knows her. you can spend the summer, as scott brown did, going to every single town in new hampshire, under the radar. we also thought new hampshire would be a place that would get so much national attention, but the national media looked at those polls and said, not that close. let's go to colorado and north carolina. he was able to do all of that under the radar, and we woke up after labor day and said, this race is pretty close. also, new hampshire wants to swing. every single election, if there is even the slightest that of a wave, it goes with whatever the trend is. >> that first congressional district is a doozy. >> those congressional districts have gone back and forth every year. voters they are i think are more primed for that than in virginia. >> in terms of the races the republicans wanted to put on the table -- oregon, michigan, and minnesota -- this has to do with

how deep the blue is. those are deeper blue states than new hampshire, north carolina, or virginia. i think partisanship is a significant factor. i think recruitment is really important though. there was a lot of of ink in michigan, but people i talked to found her of more limited appeal than other candidates. it has to do with the combination of candidates and -- virginia, i think that is so expensive. northern virginia has become such an important part of the vote, and it is hard to change the index. >> two dynamics. alison grimes asked repeatedly whether she voted for the president and did not answer the question. how damaging was that her campaign? >> i do not know if we were movement in one direction before that happened. mitch mcconnell had been shaky

from the beginning of the race. sort of solidified himself by the time these comments came to light. i don't think he has it in the bag, or and i do not think he did then either. it reminded folks here -- it may have also reminded voters about what they were still holding onto, why they were not feeling 100% confident in taking out the minority leader and replacing him with alison grimes. >> after the president said, i am not on the ballot, but my policies are -- >> they did not really love that so much. there was not one democrat that said, i am so happy that he said that. the reality though, for so many of these senators, is that it is not really what the president says. it is actually the way the senate has been run by the majority leader, harry reid,

no amendments are allowed. it means there is no way for democrats in the senate to distance themselves from the national party. any vote that comes up is one all the democrats would support. that meant that every single one of those senators has a 97% voting record. >> there is one really big aberration, and that is on gun control. it has been interesting to see how the nra, after several democrats stood by them at a really difficult time to do it, right after the shootings in sandy hook -- they withstood withering criticism from their liberal allies and colleagues in the senate. and now the nra is running ads for people who are running against them. there was a case where they did have a vote that differentiated themselves, and yet they cannot

use that to their advantage. why not? >> didn't the nra's stay out of alaska? >> but they are in other states, like arkansas and louisiana. that is a case where there was great risk-taking and no reward. >> right. >> it is party control and outside control of the senate. that seems to trump everything else. i want to disagree with you some. you might be right, but i am still going to disagree. i think the kentucky senate race is over. i think it has been over for a week or two. i think the arkansas senate will lead in much of this. i think the arkansas senate race has been over for a couple of weeks. i think there is an understandable inclination to keep these races in play so we can talk about them and do back and forth. >> i want you to keep going on that list. what else is already out of play

that we do not know? who else is already gone, who they may not know it yet? >> they will be playing this the day after the election. >> i would say kentucky is off the list. i think arkansas is off. louisiana is probably done. there is an unusual combination of run of events and other things happening. i guess so. i cannot imagine. i don't think alaska is quite off the table. we do not know who was going to vote up there. all the pollsters i talked to, republican and democrat, say it is hard to pull up there. i don't think that is off the table. almost all the other races. >> what about colorado? >> definitely on the table. we moved a race from tossup to tossup tilting republican. i think cory gardner does have a two or three point advantage.

huge uncertainty as to what the vote means. this is a state of guy cecil, a lot of experience in the state. i would not call it off the table. if i had to be gardner or udall, it would be gardner, but i do not think the races called. >> and georgia? >> i am still somewhat convinced it goes to a runoff. you have to get 50% of the vote, the top two vote getters go to a runoff. i would not be surprised if we see this kind of momentum that republicans are carrying make its way, through the weekend, through the tuesday, pretty able to withstand it. >> both the republicans are already calling in lawyers. they should, because it is that close. >> absolutely. >> which is really remarkable. why do you think that one is so

close? >> georgia is a state we are going to be talking about 2016, 2018, 2020. we saw it with virginia, north carolina a few years later, and now georgia. you see states that are less red, or purpleizing, or turning blue. georgia is the next on the list. this is examination of democratics, a very good nn and ae, michele nu , republican candidate who is problematic. you put all that together, even in a bad year for democrats. it goes to show you the demographic infrastructure that is going to be a benefit to democrats going forward. >> we talked about georgia and

the louisiana, the two places where there is the possibility of a runoff. is there a possibility president obama does this immigration executive order between now and other times? would that erase any chances for democrats to win those states, if you were to do an executive order on immigration in the middle of those runoffs? >> i have also talked to democrats who say, why would the democratic president come out with the epa rules that he did, in the middle of a very tough midterm election, with so many democrats up in red states, kentucky especially, where issues like coal are going to dominate? i do not think that necessarily goes into the thinking process. >> did he kick the can down the road initially as a purely political decision? >> on immigration, definitely. >> the bottom line -- will we know, election night, who has

control of the u.s. senate? >> i will know, because i know who is going to win the runoffs. what do you think? >> i feel like we will. what you come to find as you get into election night and you are watching the exit polls, the states and congressional districts -- not just the senate race. as you see it races start to break these races usually all , break one way. you see an outlier here and there, but most of the closest races break to one party or the other. >> and don't you think we will know by north carolina? >> we could. if north carolina goes, i think that is a very good indicator that colorado will go. owa would go, and all

the others. >> even if it was 50-48, the runoffs in louisiana and georgia -- even if that was the case, landrieu would be 51. she would control a louisiana. that would be a terrible position. >> i think she would take it, though. >> lord knows mary landrieu would not go down without a fight. >> house, senate, democrats, republicans -- who has run the best campaign? who had the worst campaign? >> it is easiest to do the worst campaign. the pat roberts has been somewhat terrible. it has been terrible, the purdue campaign. that is the candidate as much as the campaign. i think stu is exactly right when you look at some of these democratic races like landrieu,

prior. kay hagan has done a fantastic job. that is somebody who at the beginning of this year, we would have put her at the top of the list, most likely to lose election night. she is a freshman, not very well known. it is a tough state. i think she has done quite well. >> pat roberts is the worst. i think the best are mark begich and cory gardner. terrific campaign. good ground game. great candidate. he is happy. he is upbeat. he smiles. he seems to enjoy himself around the country. they are always complaining and everything has been miserable. he is happy. refreshing. >> may i throw out my personal favorite? >> please. is the worst campaign in america. >> it may be the worst race in

america. >> the candidate. >> what i love about that race is, both of them have such high unfavorables that no matter what happens, they have to elect someone they cannot stand. >> that is what it basically comes down to. >> there is a lot of animosity, personal dislike, distrust. there has been recent stuff in the last few days. one has rick scott ahead in one. a miami herald poll. quinnipiac had charlie crist ahead narrowly. a very close race. classic case of a jump poll. they do not have "none of the above" in florida. >> i wanted pursue that, the none of the above. >> in a lot of these races -- kansas -- essentially, when we had a republican and a democrat and an independent jump him, that became the none of the above. in a lot of these races, democrats chances for keeping

control of the senate may hinge on an independent in kansas, or an independent turned democrat in florida. obviously, an independent was playing a role in maine until recently, and may still play a role. >> north carolina. >> talk about the independent, what you are seeing in terms of support for independent candidates in this election. is it more than we have seen, the same as we have seen? >> i think florida, north carolina, it is largely a reflection of a bunch of voters who are unhappy with the major candidates. otherwise, congress's rating is terrible. the republican brand is horrendous. the democratic brand is only slightly better. it is very individual where you have a third-party. you have a third-party candidate doing well, but it is an unusual situation.

i guess i don't see the angst you might think there would be, given the numbers. >> one of my colleagues raised the question today -- if there was a group, americans elect, that spent millions in the presidential cycle, getting their third-party on the ballots, trying to recruit candidates, millions of dollars invested in that, and it all splattered out. he raises the question -- did they miss the cycle? if they had that much infrastructure and brought it into the senate races, could they have found -- almond in kansas was on the board. could they have played harder with independents during this particular cycle? >> i will raise two points. the first is we see the number of people who say they are independent continue to grow. most are not independent. if you break down -- something like 42%.

once you break them into people who lean one way or the other, the core of independent is 10%. it is still a small percentage. we assume independent means moderate. been sort of turned off by the partisanship of either party. in many cases, these people are either more conservative or more liberal than the democratic or republican party. the parties lost me because they are not conservative enough, not liberal enough. >> that was the case in maine. >> that is part of it. i think that we assume -- we make some assumptions about independence that we have to be careful about. midterm elections, it is not the kind of election that attracts independent swing voters, because the goal is really to just turn out the base, right? you are really speaking to that core of voters.

it is hard to get independents or not as engaged voters to turn out in a midterm year when there is not a president at the top of the ticket. that is a lot of work as an independent. you could run against the system. you are still running up against the fact that a lot of voters are not interested. >> people do not want to throw their vote away. unless you had an independent who was so well funded he or she could run ads or gain the visibility. the independent vote melts away throughout the election cycle. you need somebody like ross perot, who has incredible personal resources and can match the major party candidates in terms of visibility -- but that is very rare. you have quirky states, alaska, maine, where there is a tradition of this, but mostly

there is not. >> charlie cook predicting between 5-12 seats for the republicans. what kind of a night will it be for speaker boehner? >> the question is how many seats they gain. there is a possibility that if they picked up 12 or 13 seats, they would have a bigger majority than any time since back to the 1920's, i think. this is a high water mark. where democrats have been from the beginning is, they were playing defense in the same way democrats in the senate were playing defense. what seems to have happened in the last few weeks, i do not know if it is panic on the part of democrats, but concern in states we do not additionally -- traditionally being problematic for democrats -- new york, california, illinois. nevada. some of this is due to the fact there is so little attention at

the top of the ticket. jerry brown having an easy race in california. andrew cuomo does not have a major opponent up in new york. in those places where there is not the localization, you are going to see democrats losing in districts where they should be winning or would win in the presidential year. >> after the 2012 election, we were talking about hispanic voters and their importance. we have regularly talked about the gender gap and what that will do. --t google voters will we be what group of voters will we be talking about after tuesday? >> old white man, maybe. midterm electorates tend to be older and whiter. i do not know. i think it is a great question.

when people say, who is going to win, i say, tell me who votes. a laugh at me, these experts. it is about turnout. i remember going back to the democratic senate campaign committee more than a year ago. here is how we are going to proceed in arkansas. we are going to turn out african-americans. they had a strategy in alaska. congressional democrats, that is one thing. democrats understood from the beginning the big problem with the cycle. even without the president's problems, you have the midterm turnout problems. they made a major effort. if the democrats hold onto the senate and only lose two or three house seats, and will mean they turned out younger voters we never thought they would. 2012, 18-20-year-olds, how great the obama campaign was a second time. if they lose eight senate seats and 12 house seats, we will

probably say the electorate was older and whiter, and went strongly for the republicans. if the democrats do not hold their margin among women -- younger women may not turn out. >> the one indicator we have to see how they are doing is early voting. how are they? >> can i complain about early voting for a second? >> sure. >> the problem with trying to analyze early voting is that i personally do not have the voter file in the states and do not have the data the campaigns have. i see the ballots but do not know anything about them. the question is, can democrats get those people who did not vote in 2010 out to vote? how many republicans versus how many democrats means nothing to

me if they are voters who are going to come out anyway. i need to know what percentage. you talk to folks on the ground, you have access to this in a place like colorado, they will tell you, we feel pretty good but we are not at the place we need to be, in terms of getting those new voters or expanding that electorate. in iowa, i think you are seeing some of that same concern. do i think they will turn out some of those voters that did not turn out in 2010? yes. will it be enough? there we go. >> if you look at the polling numbers, the president at a 41% approval rating. why is he so unpopular? is there anything this white house could have done that could have changed the dynamics? >> so -- we have six years of an administration. the president made numerous decisions that were controversial that crossed his

party lines. the other party did not. some decisions his party did not like. scar tissue builds up after six years of the presidency. i happen to think his biggest problem is -- there are two things going on. one is, the perception has grown, and frankly it was not created by some outside force, that the president is detached and has not shown the leadership skills some people thought. the second thing is, the mood of the country is very sour. we have some pretty good economic news. it's not all good. but there is wage growth and the like. gdp numbers are up. unemployment numbers are down. there is some reason for optimism. the public does not seem to want to buy it. i think it is the drumbeat of bad news since the government shutdown. since then, we had the launch of the health care website.

we had putin in ukraine. we had beheadings, isis, ebola. i've joked saying that the next thing is a martian invasion. it is a drumbeat of bad news. i think it has weighed on the american public's psyche. if you feel miserable, you cannot even feel good about good news, because you are depressed about everything else. that is the essence of the problem. i do not doubt that some of his decisions and style maybe even contributed to that. but i think it is bigger than that. >> could the white house have done it differently? >> they knew what this map would be like from the beginning. they talked about, let's turnout latino voters, african-american voters. the struggle for democrats has been, they had to outperform the

president even at his highest point in 2012. this really was a, can the candidates themselves in these races outperform the president? and what does not help is the nationalization of the races. anytime the mood is as bleak as it is -- >> we would agree that if the president's job approval was up, these candidates would be in much better shape. how could he have gone from40 to 48? >> you know what? it is not just among the older white voters you are talking about. i heard about this this week. if you look across all the groups in the obama coalition -- younger voters, women, latinos, people making less than $75,000 a year, unmarried women -- his numbers have all dropped

precipitously. when your own base is not that excited about you, it is hard to turn them out, even if you have the best ground game in the history of the world. >> it seems to me that the nationalization of this midterm came very late. it started a little bit around isis, and then ebola pushed it over the edge. is that where you all see it? >> i think that stu is right. it started with the obamacare website, and that became the issue. that, i think, encouraged -- >> have they started backing off the obamacare issue? >> they have not. they have spent as much money on ads on obamacare now -- >> they think it is the single most important way they are getting voters out in the election. >> it is not an issue they will

talk to among swing voters, because you are right. you have made up your mind on obamacare. everyone in this country has made up their mind. they are using it in a targeted way to say, "got to keep you angry, base. come out and vote." >> distancing yourself from the president, how does that get the base to the polls? you cannot do it successfully anyway. >> the way i would respond to the question -- it is a very good question -- is this. i try to put myself in the place of the voter. this election was not nationalized in february, march, and april, but folks were not seriously thinking about the election. a pollster asks you a question, opinion, you do not have an opinion. the process of making a decision does not kick in until later in the cycle. you have a general election. >> everyone is >> giving democrats credit in north carolina, for instance.

four talking about education. everybody was giving them a lot of credit about that. they are not talking education down there anymore. tillis was one of the first ones out to criticize the president on isis. he did not stop. ebola comes along and he ramps in that, and that race is nationalized. >> i think you bring up a good point. republicans needed some way to nationalize this, and so the obamacare message has run its course in the sense it was not going to move any more voters. it was just going to motivate. how are you going to move people on the fence, feeling kind of bleak? don't really know why. not feeling that confident. as these international affairs started to happen, that was a great vehicle. >> tillis was on a defensive early on.

financially, republicans have not had the resources. the democrats introduced tillis to the entire state in a way that they demonized him and hammered him over the legislature and abortion and voting rights. he was unable to get traction. you are exactly right. i think it is relatively recent that he has been able to say, this election is more than about the state legislature. >> steven knight, i want to ask you about another state we hear about democrats vowing to make a push, turn red to blue repeatedly -- texas, where they have wendy davis as the gubernatorial candidate. it does not seem like it is going to work out for her. the way the polling shows, abbott may be close to getting 50% of hispanic votes. is texas poised to go purple soon, or is this proof that texas is still red? >> a very good question. the focus on texas -- i would make the argument the focus

should be on georgia, if i were a democrat, rather than on texas. i think that is more primed to turn than texas. part of the reason is that point. hispanic voters there are much more open to voting for republicans than they are in some of these eastern seaboard and west coast states. they think the republican governors, whether it was george w. bush or rick perry, actually made an effort to court the hispanic vote as opposed to trying to push them away. there is that. abbott has done that as well. that is the way you are successful as a republican in the state. you cannot deny the importance of the hispanic vote. white voters are simply much more conservative than they are in a place like virginia or north carolina, and increasingly in a place like georgia. it is even harder for democrats to go and get that coalition that you would get in a state like virginia.

>> i would say states do move. 1980, delaware was a swing state. i do not think we consider it a swing state anymore. sometimes there can be a dramatic change over four years. west virginia changed quickly. alaska, louisiana, arkansas have done it quickly, but were slow to realign. there is a tendency for analysts to try to be ahead of every curve and point at georgia or texas to have realigned. david purdue would be six points ahead if he had run a bad campaign and screwed up on outsourcing. texas could realign, but not in the next six years. population trends are slow. people moving from state to state, it takes a while. those states will come, but not now. >> since we're talking about the

future, i wanted to ask you guys about 2016 -- you mentioned earlier the way the senate has been run, leaving a lot of these folks with not much of a chance to distance themselves. harry reid, what are his prospects for 2016? >> that is a good one. >> he is running. we assume he is going to run. >> harry reid? >> for reelection. >> you know. [laughter] >> let's assume he does run for reelection, what he has done in the past is cut everyone at the pass. any candidate who gets in the race cannot raise money. notional candidates can get into the race. strong candidates can get into the race. i assume that will be his strategy. >> cutthroat. >> the republicans got a good candidate who is well funded, we will have another barn burner. it is an evenly divided --

>> the former congressman said a warm mammal would have beaten harry reid in 2010, and they got the one candidate who could not pull the race through. he is obviously very well funded. do you expect to see harry reid in the senate in 2017? >> i would not bet against it, because we will get a nasty phone call. >> whether it is tom steiger on the left or the koch brothers on the right, how influential has outside money been? >> i think it has set the table in a lot of these races. i think it came in and polarized these races earlier than ever. i do not know that it had the ability to swing a race one way or the other. i think the candidate still matter, and the campaigns they ran. it came in, took the state, and

turned to the kind of state we would see in october, the red to blue line up. that was way back in march. >> it is an interesting question. i am not sure how to answer it. in some ways, it is all about advertising money. these democratic senate seats that are going to be lost, in a sense, it was wasted. all the republican money that went into states that did not flip or come into play was wasted. the outside groups, they want to play. they have the right to play. they have plenty of incentives to play. some of it is to play so they can raise more money and play the next election and pay themselves to play. the money, when you look at it -- there is so much money out there, and it does not move the numbers. and yet it is kind of mutual assured destruction. as long as one side spends, the other has to spend, and it mostly cancels out.

that will not stop the spending. >> what one state do you think will set the table on election night, one state you are looking at that will tell you which way it is going? >> iowa would be that one state. where it goes, i think, will tell us. earlier in the night, it is north carolina or new hampshire. the republicans, i think that is a good night for republicans. >> new hampshire, i never expected scott brown to get this close. looks like he is pretty close. right now, we are expecting democrats to hold on to both house seats. carol shea-porter, it is not easy. if we see the senate race and one of the two new hampshire democratic members of congress, that would be a be indication it would be quite a good republican night. >> stu rothenberg, amy walter, and joining us, stephen dinan of

the washington times, jeanne cummings of bloomberg news. thank you for being with us. >> and a little bit more than 20 minutes, we would take you live to pennsylvania where president obama will be attending a rally for tom wolfe. the associated press reports wolfe currently holds the lead. it is receiving some high profile help. event is expected to be president obama's last campaign stop before election day. it is one of two stops today for the president. earlier, he attended a rally for the connecticut governor. as we wait for president obama to