tv Today in Washington CSPAN July 24, 2013 7:30am-9:01am EDT
and so i'm quite concerned that we will manage our resources the best of our ability. we will do the best we can to meet our priorities but, frankly, i think ustr gets the biggest bang for the buck of any place i know, and i think making sure that we're fully resourced to be able to achieve the kinds of enforcement gains in the goshen and monitoring gains that you identify are very important. >> i appreciate that. if there's anything you need from our office dealt hesitate to reach out. good luck. >> mr. griffin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. i want to talk to you about sts and forcibly, and they think might call a, mr. nunes, talked a little bit about this. i believe that you discussed the current arrangement which is to go through the pto procedures to deal with this as opposed to having something in the agreement itself is that a fair characterization to?
>> in tpp, as we seek to negotiate, and, of course, we're still in the midst of negotiation but as we seek to negotiate, what we are calling sts plus disciplines, we want to make sure that they are fully implement it. many of the sts disciplines, sts plus disciplines go to further elaborating how countries, wto commitments are to be implemented. so for example, regulations be based on science, it describes how that science should be applied or what kind of relevant science and art to apply and how that should be discussed. those underlying commitments, those underlying commitments to apply sides are subject to wto dispute resolution. >> right. and the process is laid out in the wto agreement, not in the agreement that is being negotiated here? >> what we've got in tpp as both wto dispute resolution process on the substance of the sts
commitments but also separate tpp dispute settlements on the procedural enhancements that we are seeking to achieve. >> i've looked at this and talked with some of my constituents, and i'm concerned that there's not enough teeth and efficiency in using the wto dispute resolution process as opposed to elevating this and creating a more effective mechanism in the agreement itself. and this is something that i think we should pursue. and let me ask you this. if there are voices in the administration, and the federal government that disagree with you, where do those forces come from? are the fda? are they worried about their science being under scrutiny? the fda is already science-based, so where is the
rabid? >> we approach this by trying to figure out what's the most efficient, quickest way to resolve issues. that's behind a mechanism that we are proposed in tpp because we think by being able to raise these issues through a formal process, forcing the parties to come to the table to try to resolve them can help expedite some of the resolutions. we think we've struck the right balance by leveraging our scientific expertise of the wto because it is a very science and technical heavy set of issues. while at the same time adding a consultative mechanism that allows to force parties to the table and get the procedure elements addressed in the context of tpp. >> thank you. >> mr. mcdermott? >> welcome. i don't know if you got promoted or demoted.
leaving the white house on going over to trade. the last two years as you've worked on this tpp, the issue of access to medicines has been central to some of our concerns. and it seems like the language of put in is really a step back from the maintenance agreements that chairman ringel and mr. levin made at the white house in terms of trade agreement. the proposal you did out did away with the word guarantees and i think that's what poor countries really want our guarantees of access to medicine within five years of their introduction of the united states. you've got a lot of negative feedback at the time that first came out. and since that time usage are in a period of reflection. can you tell us where you are on your decision about that? >> thank you, congressman, and thank you for your leadership on this issue. this is an important issue and
we are committed to finding the right balance to strike between protecting innovation but also achieving access to medicine. we are in the process of engaging with our tpp partners to educate them as to what's in u.s. law. we took the feedback on our original proposal very seriously. we received a wide range of feedback and we are in a process of figuring out how we want to take it forward consistent with some of the principles that you laid out that strikes that balance between -- >> is there any language written that we can look at? >> we have not tabled new text on this issue. we have thoughts of dialogue, with the principles, a chapter on this might look like. >> so the only table proposal is the one of february or wherever? >> we never tabled a proposal. we breathed a committee or and
our stakeholders. >> never tabled a? >> correct. >> let me ask you a second question. this committee does a lot of things you but most of them are irrelevant. it seems that we ought to be dealing with tsp if we are serious about our relationship for the rest of the world. can you just tell the committee why gsp ought to pass the next two weeks and not expire? >> well, thank you. thank you very much for that. we very much agree that gsp has both developments dynamic to it but also very importantly it helps importers of products who can't otherwise access those products to bring those products in and provide them to american consumers at lower cost. so we think it is both good for american consumers, but also good for development. we were comforted to see and welcomed the introduction yesterday of a bipartisan bill by the leadership of this
committee to renew gsp and we think that's important. >> all right, thank you. ms. black. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, mr. ambassador, we look forward to working with you. i want to turn to the issue of data. one of the most important 21st century issues is the protection of cross-border data flows which, of course, is critical not just for third countries budget any globalized company in any sector. firms with global sales must be able to transfer the sales data back to their headquarters, and many companies across the sector that centralized processing of the data. must be able to do so as you know seamlessly. the emergence of the digital trade also depends on the free flow of data across the borders. in both the eu and the united states, data privacy is protected, but we do have different systems for providing that protection. so respecting the difference of those privacy approaches, how
can we ensure a robust protection for cross-border data flows in the eu negotiations, in the trade and services agreement, and also in tpp? and in what other ways as the digital revolution impacted services trade in a manne mattet should be reflected in these negotiations? >> well, thank you very much, and clearly, the impact of the digital economy and digital trade is playing an increasing role in all of our trade agreements, as you say. tpp, we have a particular focus on it but we'll also be talking about with our european colleagues and in the services agreement. we think the free flow of data is important for all the reasons that you say, and also as technology develops and the cloud develops we want to make sure that businesses are able to structure their operations in a way that makes maximum since. at the same time there are privacy concerns. we need to take this seriously
and strike the right balance and ensure that we're able to achieve those privacy concerns without distorting the free flow of data as part of the digital economy. so those are active discussions right now in tpp. my sense is it's going to become an increasing part of our trade agreements going forward and would be happy to work with you and get your input on how you think we ought to be thinking about this. >> i appreciate that. we can all certainly appreciate the fact that data must be protected. it's a very important part of businesses and a very important part of the flow. are you feeling in negotiations at this point in time that there is any really good model that you could suggest this is going to work for all of our agreements? >> you know, i think tpp is farthest along in terms of the negotiation at the moment and we will have to see where we come out on that, but i think we need to remain flexible to determine how best to raise standards and create new disciplines in each
of our agreements, depending on the particular partners that we are working with. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. guide. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. froman, thank you for being here and your service to our country. we look forward to working with you and the meditation on robust, fair trade agenda that can help job creation that we need in this country right now. a lot on your plate. let me just raise a couple of concerns. i'm happy to follow up with you on but i appreciate ustr's report on rush and debbie deal compliance and what further action needs to be taken. i and most of miller's on the committed support a. we felt it was important to get the sixth largest economy into a global rules-based trading system. but there are shortcomings that i feel need to be addressed. not least of which being from wisconsin, their exclusion of dairy products since 2010. i'm hoping that with your assistance, and i've follow up with you as it did with ambassador kirk, that we may
look at practical steps to be taken to see if we can get russia and the customs union to open up their markets to our dairy products. canada right now is revising their stand on the dairy products, consider the possible exclusion of more exports into the canadian market. finally, pivoting to tpp quickly because you probably have seen primus to all these party has been taking a lot of agriculture, at least attended to take a lot of our agricultural products off the table when it comes to tpp negotiations, rice, wheat, beef, dairy, sugar. that's very disturbing to you mentioned earlier in your testimony the large agricultural exports, roughly one of 40 going to you. we feel we can do even better than that. japan is a late entry in tpp negotiations. hate to see us go down the road of allowing them to unilaterally try to exclude certain products from negotiations and i'm sure we'll enjoy your support on that as we move forward as well.
but there's a lot that has to be addressed and as you know already, it's going to be important to keep congress informed as far as the state and iterations, especially for large new that is joined the congress recently, who have never been through a trade debate over a trade discussion, try to get them information as well. but i would be interested in her perspective on rush and where they are right now with her newfound wto obligations. >> thank you very much, and we agree that it's very important to stay focused on ensuring that russia and with the commitments it made when there were i think four or five areas that we asked them to take action on. they have taken action on a couple of them on a couple of them still remain outstanding. i would note that when we're talking about russia, one thing we underscored is that i do bring them into the united states is that they would be
subject to certain disciplines and subject to dispute resolution when they failed to meet those disciplines. there's now a case being brought against them on the auto recycling fee and the wto and we will be joining that case. so i think that's exactly the sort process we want to see. we would prefer for them to intimate all the commitments assiduously, but if they don't we will certainly go to dispute resolution if necessary. just with regard to japan, it's very important to us that japan agreed, ma before we let them into the tpp that everything is on the table. there are no up front exclusion's. every country has sensitivities and those will all be subject to negotiation, but we have not agreed to any up front exclusion's with regard to japanese agriculture. >> thank you. >> mr. kelly. >> mr. ambassador, welcome and congratulations. on the tpp i'm interested in this. i know it's going to get the economy back on track we got to go after the global market. there's no question about that. we've all been talking about our districts and how important the
ability to sell things all over the world is to each of our districts individually. but the tpp though, you've got a heavy, heavy low there. and i'm wondering, we talk about this in the sense of urgency but i would just say that sooner of course is better than later. and as you see us approaching that, the challenges that you're going to have trying to get there, and i wonder because geopolitically right now i don't think there's a more important trade policy we can get them in that part of the world. a special with the influence of china and all the rest of the members they are talking to, nations that are talking to you. the biggest challenge that you see. and then on top of that what could we do to help you here? isn't anything to do -- i don't know how you can get it done as quickly as you want to get it done and i know you said we're going to work really hard. the biggest challenges you see. >> well, thank you for underscoring -- >> this is a big deal.
>> the challenges ahead. this will be a complicated process to bring tpp t to a cloe as well as these other negotiations that we are working on. but there's a lot of political will among the countries around the table. because they see this as an opportunity to set high standards, to introduce new disciplines, to have a positive impact on the multilateral trading system. and that i think has mobilize and motivated our trading partners to work with us to try to resolve these issues. they will be difficult issues that will require tough trade-offs at the end of the day to ensure that we can get this done. i would just add to what i said to congressman reid. i think our biggest challenge right now is the resources challenge, so for not having, you have open positions we can't filter graph travel budgets that are constraint that we can't send negotiators to all the browns would like to send them to. we would like to have meritorious enforcement cases we would like to bring. we don't have the capability of necessary bringing them all.
so i think where you all can help in the short run is in trying to ensure that we have the necessary resources and support to get our job to. >> i appreciate what you were doing. i think the close relationship we have with these countries through economies, the better we are as partners also in the world that is costly undergoing changes. china really scares that part of the world. i've talked to those folks, have a pretty good relationship with south korea. i don't know how we, of course for that part of the world if we are not the biggest flare and were not the most influential, then we're going to lose out. people look to us to be the leaders. we need to be able to do that. so thanks for what you're doing. in any way we can help, please let me know. >> thank you. mr. pascrell. >> chairman, thank you. ambassador froman, congratulations on your confirmation. i'm sure those of us, all of us on the ways and means look forward to having a great relationship with you. my other colleagues have
mentioned today different policies that would improve our competitiveness and enhance with a trade promotion authority. the legislation on currency manipulation, strong enforcement of our trade laws, trade adjustment assistance just to name a few. i would like to bring your attention to something that we worked on the last few years. bring jobs home act would provide tax credit for companies that bring jobs back into the united states of america. these are the kinds of policies we need if we're to get the most out of our trading relationships. i want to zero in on the trans-pacific partnership if i may. i would like to talk about our domestic textile industry. that which is still alive, that is. i was glad to learn of your support for this rule during your recent senate confirmation. i want to draw your attention to a bipartisan letter from representatives coble, patrick
mchenry and i sent to you. which was signed by 167 house members, including many of my colleagues who sit on this committee. i would like to ask, mr. chairman, unanimous consent of this letter into into the reco record. >> without objection. >> mr. froman, have you reviewed this letter? >> i'm not familiar with the specifics of the letter, but i'm happy to discuss it with you. >> the letter supports the inclusion of strong rules of origin language, which has really hampered us in other trade agreements. in this case the yarn forward rule. i understand that your migration strategy as yarn forward at its center, can you update this committee on the negotiations over the rule of origin? >> well, thank you very much and you are right that we wanted
very much pursue a policy that addresses both our domestic manufacturing interest in the textile and apparel sector as well as our other interests and strike the right balance, and we think the yarn forward at the center of the proposal makes a lot of sense and that's proposal that we are currently negotiating with. with regards to the rule of origin more generally, those are being discussed among our tpp partners, and we are looking to make sure that across all sectors we are giving ourselves into supply chains by making sure the rules of origin support that. that having manufacturing and production here in the u.s. is made more attractive by the rules of origin and tpp so that copies can make the decisions in a way that enhances job creation, creates jobs here in united states. >> so you're willing to work with the industry to find the proper trade tariff reduction arrangement that does allow for a reasonable approach,
particularly during the transition period? >> yes. now, we're very much in touch with stakeholders and, obviously, with the staff of the committee senior as we try to work through these issues of yarn forward and rules of origin more generally. >> thank you. mr. becerra? >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador, thank you for being with us. a couple quick points and then one crucial question. enforcement. more and more that i've watched and then your, my sense is that if my vote on any trade deal with -- i find that a trade deal is a hollow agreement if our trading partner doesn't or won't play by the rules. and so the last thing we need is to tell american businesses are american workers that we struck a good day with a trading partner and find that the other side doesn't follow the rules and we're losing jobs, imaging jobs and the rest. secondly, i hope that you will take a deep interest in the
whole issue of currency manipulation. on a bipartisan basis, more than 230 members of this house, republicans and democrats, sent a letter to the president last month saying, please, please consider language on currency manipulation when it comes to any future trade deal. because what we find is that between somewhere between 1 million to 5 million american jobs have been lost, shipped overseas because of currency manipulation by other countries where they artificially depress their currency so they can export more things to us. so i hope you will really take a crucial look at that and let us know that you will be defending the american interests of both work and business. intellectual property, i'm from los angeles, so to me if we can't protect intellectual property, again, enforcement bridges and are crucial, we're going to lose industries that
have been net exports of goods. finally, the question to you as a just mentioned, i'm from the los angeles area. the los angeles area because of our two ports, we account for some 10% of all u.s. trade in the u.s., and that's now five years running. we are the largest port in the nation and we are one of the largest ports in the world. lots of folks in los angeles depend on the porch for the jobs. plots of americans throughout the country do as well. i know you have to travel all over the place, all over the world including the west coast. i would love it if the next time you find yourself going to los angeles you give me a chance to introduce you to some of those folks in los angeles who create american jobs, keep american business thriving. and can ask you, if you do a chance to go to los angeles, or have spent a little time with folks there in los angeles? >> absolutely. i would be happy to do that. let me just say on the fourth and in particular, we very much
agree. our view, the administration's view has been that it's not enough to negotiate an agreement and to implement it, you need to make sure that it's being fully in force as well. that's why we brought 18 enforcement actions over the course of his term. we brought the first super 301 case, 301 case in 15 years against china for subsidizing a monopoly there. the wind energy business. we brought the first 421 case on thursday we brought an aggressive agenda at the wto and what continue to focus on that comically through the standing above the interagency trade enforcement. so we are very much aligned with your perspective on the. >> look forward to seeing you in los angeles. yield back. >> thank you. mr. crowley. >> thank you, ambassador. great-nephew before committee. graduations to look forward to working with you and continuing the relationship we've developed over the past few years. thank you for your endeavors. i want to point out a particular
-- we appreciate the time and effort to you and the administration have given and put on the enforcement trade rules as has been mentioned. as american exports more, we need to make sure that foreign barriers to trade do not prevent the free flow of american services. because it is one thing to have trade, but it's another thing to have trade deals that work for us and for our partners. so please keep up that focus on enforcement. i think it is paying off and we will continue to do so as well. one of the major problems of service exporters like those from new york, my home town, is having to compete with state-owned industries in other countries. what do you envision for the ustr in terms of how you view those enterprises? and how do you see these issues coming into play in the deals that are being negotiated right now? japan post comes to mind for one
that pertains to ppp. >> thank you very much, and i very much enjoyed working with you at look forward doing so going for. serving the role of state-owned enterprises is absolutely critical, and that's why in tpp this is one of the areas of new disciplines that we are working to introduce into the agreement, to ensure that state-owned enterprises that are focused on competing with commercial firms, engaged in commercial activity, that they play by the same rules and are subject to the same kinds of disciplines as private firms. and that we deal with their inherent subsidies and inherent advantages in an appropriate way. equally, and our bilateral investment treaties, i mentioned progress made last week with china in terms of their moving forward and wanted to negotiate a bilateral investment treaty with us. we made clear that soa these will be a critical part of that negotiation as well and we at ustr working with our colleagues in the state department to lead
the effort are very much looking for to engaging with them on the. >> i just want to also follow up briefly on my colleague, mr. paulsen, and is referencing to india. i did not sign on to the letter, almost 150 members, but it doesn't diminish my interest in issue. i'm a coach or of the india caucus here in the house, and i am concerned about that level that you talked about in terms of the unprecedented nature of the coming together of u.s. industries and the concern for their opportunities or diminished opportunities within india and i appreciate your response and i look for to working with you and the magiciatheadministration movingn a positive growth agenda between our two nations. i do to india and the u.s., it's probably our most important ally in this century and the have to get this right. so thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. larsen and then mr. smith. mr. larsen is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
thank you for conducting this evening. ambassador, welcome and thank you for your outstanding service to the nation. i want to thank you for your testimony today and i wanted to follow-ufollow up an echo on the comments of my colleague, erik paulson. over the last few months, i've become concerned on what we've heard regarding the environment for american businesses operating in india. whether it be patent violations, compulsory licensing and pharmaceutical industries, piracy within the software and film industries, local content rules in the technology sector, or forced localization in green tech industries, the news coming out of india has not been good for american innovators. these challenges are of great concern to me because of what they mean for american businesses and american workers. america is at the heart of the
nations of innovators. millions of american jobs, including thousands in my state of connecticut, rely on this very important innovation. i know that both you and the president get it, and i appreciate the fact that you stated recently that the u.s.-india business council that we must begin to address these challenges. could you please expand on those recent comments in detail for the committee what specific steps you will take over the next year to combat the increasing challenges that mr. paulsen and myself outlined? >> well, thank you. and to build on what congressman crowley also said, this is a very important relationship. and we should and we shouldn't ignore the fact that our economic relationship has developed significantly over the last few years, that there are vast areas of good cooperation, defense sector, in counterterrorism and a number of
other areas. it's a strong relationship. i think the frustration we are all hearing from the business committee and others is that this relationship is not nearly achieving its potential precisely because of the policies that you identify. and that's a message we conveyed to our indian government counterparts last week, both from ourselves but also from the american business community. and the american business community that is interested in india that wants india to succeed and wants to invest there. our hope is that through these dialogues and including the trade policy forum, other high level dialogues, including at the vice president will be going there, i believe next week, and will be conveying similar messages, that we can help the indian government move towards addressing some of these concerns. we've seen some movement, even this week.
we know there is more u.s. pork sent to a central american country of 7.7 million population compared to the european countries that make up 500 million. i think there needs to be some dispiewt resolution continued in the agreement moving forward. can you -- i guess, respond to that and add anything you might have had to say previously.
>> right. thank you. we agree that the agriculture opportunities for export are significant. we're exporting at the all-time high now. there's more we can do. it's an essential part we are doing in ttp and tpp. we worked closely with the urinen colleagues even before we -- to underscore the issues. and work with them to resolve long standing disputes like lactics acid and that's going to be important to move forward to address the outstanding issues. on the issue of dispute resolution i.t., as i mentioned, most of what we're seeking in tpp, we call the sps chapter. the underlying discipline are subject to dispute resolution either the wto or the mechanism that we're proposing in tpp. and we think that is the appropriate way of moving
forward to ensure there are e feshtd ways as issues arise of getting them resolved on ab exdd we korea -- agree it's a critical area of trade. we want to make sure we have heck ni.s they are fully implemented. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. miss san san you're stepping to the u.s. trade representative at the very excite time. the administration is negotiating agreement with the e.u. european union. we have the issue of congressional action on trade promotion authority, or fast track authority, and the expiring preferences program. and hopefully tougher trade
enforcement rule. i guess the main point i want to -- express to you in the past i have been highly critical of past u.s. trade representatives because all too often i think our trade deals that are negotiated are unfair to american workers and erode the u.s. manufacturing base. i want to share with you a few of the priority that i think we should keep in mind as you continue your work in that office. first of all, strengthening customs enforcement to create a level playing field for american industries is something i'm very interested in seeing. aggressively trying to crack down on currency manipulators. one of my colleagues mentioned that is results in huge job losses for american businesses. ensuring high levels of labor and environmental standards in our trade negotiations and
specifically trying to build on the bipartisan agreement. and promoting u.s. manufacturing and upping access to foreign market. i look forward to hopefully working with you and my colleagues to ensure our trade agenda keep in mind those priorities. you have been asked questions about aggressively cracking down on antidumping violaters. that's an area i'm pleased to see progress on with this administration, but i think we can be doing more there. i'm going ask you a question specifically about the transpacific partnership. i do have some concerns there. clearly japan's late entry to the transpacific partnership has created concerns for us automotive industry, and for instance, the japanese automotive industry control more than 94% of the domestic japanese market making japan one of the most closed auto markets in the world.
that's despite the fact that auto tariff at 0%. with the tpp negotiations, how does the u.s. address japanese nontariff barrier. >> obviously japan awe -- auto sector has been in the concern as ranking member levin said has been for decades and today. priority to allowing japan to come to tpp we insisted on certain up front conditions. in term of access the market more than doubling the php program which provides for expedited entry for imports to japan. but also agree on the term of reference for a specific parallel negotiation on the auto sector that will part of tpp, binding, subject to i dispute
resolution. those are focused at nontariff barriers you mentioned. i'm looking forward to working with the auto industry here and the workers here to get our best -- understanding for their priority of the negotiation. it's a high priority for us. we want to make sure we achieve concrete result to the negotiations. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you ambassador. we are excited that you're in your new post and confident that we're going to do even more on trade in the coming years with you at the helm. i want to bring up two specific concerns i've had. one of them i brought up previously to the trade ambassador, in my opinion, haven't got a clear answer on. u.s. buy logic is an important industry in our country. in my home state of illinois we have several pharmaceutical there. twelve years to be able to
recapture the -- in pharmaceuticals. on several occasions, the administration in its budget and we've heard in some of the discussion has opened door, if you will, on the potential to roll back 12 years protection to 7 years protection as put in the president's budget. obviously that concerns that industry concerns me as a representative. if we're going change current u.s. law, which protects them at the twelve years to seven years, which would be, you know, about more than a 50% reduction in how many years they can recapture their earnings, or investment. can we get some an from you whether or not that's a position the administration hold? is the administration's position going forward they're going to negotiate trade agreements like they did in korea in tpp that upholds current u.s. law,ie, the
twelve years. and why the nonclarity. nortdz -- in other words unless you are adamant you are going to twelve years. it's creating uncertainty in the pharmaceutical industry. if we are going stick to what we did to korea. i don't know how we agreed to a trade agreement that isn't consistent is the u.s. law. let's just say that. >> thank you for that. obviously this is a important issue in term of protecting innovation in the u.s., which is a high piratety. we're currently engaged with our tpp partners in discussing how u.s. law works. it's biological. the time frame in u.s. law for each. beginning the process of consultation with them about why u.s. law is the way it is. we have not tabled text yet in
the particular area. we're in the process of socializing the issues around current u.s. law with our trading parter ins, and obviously it's subject to negotiation. at the current time, our focus is on educating the trading partners what is in u.s. law, why it operates the way it does. >> do you agree you can negotiate a free trade agreement consistent with u.s. law? >> i think what we need to do is to achieve the highest level of protection possible for our innovative industries. and the first step in that process is oughting our trading partner is what is in us law and why it operates the way it does. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, ambassador froman for your testimony. with that, this hearing is adjourned. thank>> thank you.
[inaudible conversations] several live events to tell you about on our companion networking c-span 3. anthony fox testifies from the transportation infrastructure committee. at 12:50 eastern p.m. we'll be live from knox college on president obama's speech. later the congressional caucus on black men and boys exam the status on black male. it include naacp president. that's at 3:00 p.m. eastern. a look at the 2014 midterm election with charlie cook.
this is a little less than an hour and a half. >> sin this is the first of the season, i thought maybe we would sort of step back and think about maybe how we ought to look toward 2014, and i think one way of thinking about it is that it's a ports analogy. whether it's before baseball or football or basketball or soccer or hockey season, you know, you kind of look forward to the season and '02 not -- you're not sure how each team is going to do. what is the season is going to be like. you don't really know for sure. and somewhat painfully we know the washington nationals, according to spilted were world contenders this year and struggling to get up to 500. we didn't really, you know, we kind of overestimated a little bit how the season would be. that's the way i think it is right now mid way through an odd
termed year in term of the next election. we don't really know what the next election will be about. we can have theories, you know, but we don't really know. what i we have to do is watch certain metric to fell it it's going to be that kind of a election, or this kind of a election or something different. ic you have probably heard me tell the analogy. tip o'neal talked about all politics is local. i have an enormous amount of respect for speaker o'neal. my variation of that i thought he meant a state, a direct, what kind of people live there. what are the voting patted earns there? what are the local issues and since, the candidates, the campaign, the money. using that formulation every house rates there are 435,000 stove pipe household races or
senate race. my variation i think all politics is local except when it's not. i realize that's not terribly profound. the thing is sometimes we have these weird years when all politics suspect local. and where there is a mysterious hand, invisible hand pushing the candidates of one party forward and pulling down the candidates of the other party. you can't tell a republican in 2006 or 2008 that all politics is local. you couldn't tell a democracy in 2010 with the undertoe that was out there for democrats that all politic is local. sometimes they are and sometimes they are not. that's the first, is it going to be a microelection? all politics is local? or is it going to be a macro there's the hand pushing one direction or the other? then you can say, okay, well, what do we think of the dynamic going to be in 2014?
and for me, i can kind of come up with two different scenarios, not in my particular order. the first is the dynamic of 2012, the problems that republicans had in 2012, just simply pull forward in to 2014. the other one is that this is a typical -- become somewhat of a typical second-term midterm election where we know that president's typical have tough times during the second terms, and that this is a typical second term midterm election where democrats have real problems. it can obviously be something entirely different. let sort of look at those two things. we know looking back in 2012, and it's sort of still on the top of a lot of our minds. the republicans had some problems with minority voters with, younger voters, women
voters, self-described moderate voters. do they repair their damage? do they fix that? time for 2014? sort of, yes, or no. and obviously we're, you know, it's still -- well still sort of young in to this. so far, we're not seeing a lot of improvement in republican party numbers as of late july. we haven't seen that quite yet. and so we're sort of watching to see do those problems just sort of carry forward? now one thing i have to say is that usually the dynamic of one election don't really carry forward in to the next. usually it's about something different. we have had times when it's repeated, and, you know, you can almost look at 2006, which was a great democratic year and 2008, which was a great democratic year, they flowed in to one another.
that's really, really, really unusual. i think it probably you have to go back with sequence in 32, 34, 36 to find another time where the flow continued on one from election to the next. obviously it could happen. but the other one is that this is a traditional second term midterm election. you know, we historically that bad things typical happen to presidencies in the second term. you know, in some ways it's the freshness, the newness, the novelty of a brand new president has worn off. new ideas, not so much. the energy, the focus. it just starts really a -- the team that elected the president that. may moved on to make money and now the b or c team is sort in there. a wide variety of reasons they tend to run out of gas when they
get to the second term. does it matter whether democrat or republican. we have seen it historically in the post world war ii era. the second thing that typical happens is that stuff goes wrong. you can have economic downturn like eisenhower in 1958. you can have scandal like watergate in the nixon-ford administration. or the reagan administration it -- i think it broke on election day. it didn't matter in the midterm election. monica lee win sky is another. you can have popular war like the kennedy-johnson administration. or the iraq war for george w. bush. you can have economic downturns, you can have scandals, you have unpopular wars. those have a tendency to happen in the second term. the third thing is that you can
also have sort of chickens coming home to roost. decisions, things that -- discussions that were made. dynamic created in the first term. sometimes they come back on a president and bite them on the rear end during the second term. and one of the things we're obviously going to be watching very carefully is the affordable care act. aka obamacare. we know in 2009 and 2010, barack obama's first two years in office when the obamacare was pushed through. it became controversial and say, one, of the two leading reasons why democrats lost control of congress back in 2010. the house in 2010. it was affordable care act -- you know, not a little bit of the economy thrown in for good measure. then in 2011-' 12.
i don't think that many people changed their minds on the affordable care act during that two-year period of time. the people who were going hate it, already decided they were going to hate it. the people who liked it liked it. roughly a quarter of american people that were undecided really still undecided. the next question is, as we go in to '13-' 14 and more part of the law -- i realize some has been pushed back to 2014. do we see it become controversial again? yes or no? that's something where you know what you ought to do maybe is, you know, do your own research and look at any impact on your own. health care policies and, you know, have rates gone up or down or stayed the same? what has happened in term of deductibility and copay. ask your friends and neighbors. you'll have a fair idea of what
i've done is startedhappening watching -- we have it stuck on our website, "politico".com. it's a little guy to looking at the political environment in term of trying to look for cues about where is it going to be a republican problem continued? is it going to be a second-term problems occur yet again for another president? or something entirely different? and what i would suggest you do is sort of watch some of the polling data, you know, number one, obviously, you watch the president's approval rating. midterm elections typically are to a certain extent referendum on the incumbent president. right now he's at the ebbing liberal point. the approval and disapproval are about the same. the mid to high 40s. he's not a asset but not a
liability either. watch the numbers. he's been dropping sin say, mid january, about a point every three or four weeks, and does that level off at some point? or keep going? whatever. watch the overall job approval rating. the second thing is watch public attitudes toward the economy. one thing that happens when things are -- when the economy is perceived to be good or improving, people are a lot more forgiving than if they think it's not doing so well or getting worse. and one of the things that really helped president clinton back in his second term through the whole monica fare. today is her 40th birthday. [laughter] but who is counting? -- i completely lost my train of thought. [laughter] i guess i'm wearing a blue shirt.
anyway, what -- why did i say that? is that the economy was doing really, really well, and as a result, i think people were little bit more tolerant than if the economy was getting worse. i noticed in my home state of louisiana that voters in louisiana were always more forgiving when oil prices were up in the state economy was good. when the oil prices and state's economy were down. they were less forgiving and sometimes thought some of the poll tieses like edwin edwards weren't funny when the state economy wasn't doing so well. watch consumer confidence. university of michigan numbers, conference board, they are roughly right now basically at or very close to a six-year high. does it stay that high? or improve? in which case, again, public a little bit more forgiving given the tough times we went
through. if consumer confidence starts coming down, you know, it's pretty clear what conclusion you ought to draw from that. the third thing is the affordable care act. one of the things i'm watching, we have a political environment guide. watching the kaiser family foundation tracking almost monthly, they ask a variety of questions on the affordable care act, favorable, unfavorable attitudes. these are off the top of my head something like 37% and 38% favorable and 23% undecided. something like that. watch those numbers and see if they start changing. is the fairvelt number -- favorablability numbers go up or down? watch for any changes there. it might give you a hint where things are going. the favorable or unfavorable rate of the two party. i confess, i look at polling
data and have for many years. it's not something i paid a lot of attention to in the past. i'm really starting to. because for republicans to take advantage of democratic problems, they really need to get their numbers -- get their favorable -- party favorable numbers up and the unfavorable numbers down. that simply hasn't happened. there's the brain damage you've heard so much about over the last couple of years. it's still very, very real. republicans need to go something to address those problems with minority women, younger self-described moderate voter. so far that hasn't happened yet. at the same time if the second term midterm election problems that typically happen if they start reoccurring you can expect the democratic party's unfavorable numbers to come up. the good characteristic --
characterization the american people are not happy with the democrats. they have fairly lousy numbers. it's that the republican party has worse numbers. watch those fave, unfave. finally, watch the questioner generic -- some pollsters will ask which party would you rather see in control durcht make any difference. one thing you need to know about the question, it typically has for some bizarre reason. i've never heard a good explanation. it typically has a two or three point tilt in favor of democrats when you compare what it ends up being for a national popular vote for the house of representatives. i don't know why, but it sort of does. for that reason, a lot of people, a lot of analysts lock like to gook at the generic congressional ballot test. i can use my louisiana public
school math and subtract two or three from any number. it doesn't tell you how many seats one party will gain or lose or anything like that, but it does tell you sort of which way the wind is blowing. it it likely, moderately, or fairly heavily? which way is it going? it's a useful indicater there. i would suggest you watch those metrics to get an idea as we get to this fall and as we get in to the and the election year officially starts. watch those things to kind of figure out for yourself is it scenario a, scenario b, or something completely different? and i don't want to dismisone other possibility. what if it's kind of all of the above? what if voters are growing. the novelty has worn off for
president obama and the freshness, you know, not really hit the mute button. not really listening that much anymore, and but at the same time what if republicans haven't fixed their problems? and you just sort of have a model of both scenarios. right now if i had to pick one, i think that's actually the one i would pick right now. in term of the house of representatives, let's just talk about the end game. in term of the house of representatives, it's pretty, pretty, pretty unlikely. i think most people in the room would agree, pretty unlikely that republicans will lose their majority in the house. that democrats need a 17-seat net gain. which isn't a huge number, but when you sort of look where the congressional direct boundaries are drawn and the landscape, it's hard to see how either party can pick up double budgets and particularly 17 seats.
93 percent of all the republicans in the house of representatives are sitting in districts that romney carry. 96% of all districts that democrats hold in districts that president obama carried. to a large extent the house is sorted out. republicans were very fortunate they had the terrific 2010 election. the election preceding the congressional district boundary. they were able to draw boundaries that they have seen in a all -- democracies had done that plenty of times in previous decades. this time, you know, where they had a chance to and for example illinois. the thing about it is, but because where the lines are drawn it's really, really, really, really hard for either party to get a major switch and particularly for democrats to do it. another factor to keep in mind,
this is actually in my "off to the races" "national journal" daily column. keep in mind midterm election dynamic are typically a little bit different than presidential election year. administratorly when you look at the group where the democrats have done so, so well in recent years in presidential elections like young people, like women, like particularly unmarried women. minority voters, they have a tendency to overperform some in official years, but then underperform in midterm election years. yesterday stan greenberg, democratic pollster works with the democracy corp., and page gardener, women's voices women vote. they released some surveys that
showed exactly that. that among all voters democrats were ahead by one point on the agree generic voting test. they were down two points. and specifically looked a unmarried women. that's a key group democrats are focusing on. the gap between democrats and republicans on unmarried women it's close to 30 points. it's an enormous gap. that's where democrats have the work cut out for them in term of boosting the turnout the groups that helped them in '08 and '10. that obviously didn't help them in '10. some of you may be wondering the previous midterm elections democrat did well in 2006 which was absolutely true. that was really more of an election it wasn't about the turnout dynamic changing so much as independent voters because of
the war in iraq swinging strongly away from president bush for bush. that wasn't a turnout situation. the senate is the action. where the democrats -- it's overexposed. you know, if you just look at the numbers you would say, wow, this is not just not a question of whether democrats are going to lose senate seats but how much are they going to lose? there's one problem with making that statement, that is that most of us made that statement two years ago. and that, you know, through most of the 2012 election cycle, it really if look like republicans would pick up two, three, four u.s. senate seatses in that election. and keep in mind, you know, we have to -- we kind of have to have two mind sets in the house, you know, the table is set or the cards are dealt in each election by the previous election. what happened because the two
years term. in the senate because six year term we have to look back and say what happened six years earlier? in 2012 we operating off a base of 2006, as i said which was a terrific year for democrat, the iraq war and bush's second term midterm election. the arguments we talk abouted. they had a great election in 2006. democrats did. they were overexposed in 2012. they probably should have lost seats. i don't understand -- we went from a situation that everybody thought republicans would pick up three, four, seats to actually a net loss of two.
even though the dynamic are similar. 2008 was a great year for democrats; therefore, 2014 they are overexposed. you walk through the numbers and the overall number, the open seat number, and the seat that appear to be vulnerable. all of the things by all democrats are enormously overexposed in 2014. yet, a lot is going to be contention upon can republicans fix their problems? both in term of the macroproblems on the one psych like problems number one, are they getting good people to run? are those people winning the primary? and are they, you know, -- what kind of campaigns they run. that sort of thing. because republicans have had they have been kind of senate bitten in the senate for the last two elections. even though 2010 was a terrific year for the republican party. they picked up -- they picked up a good number of senate races in 2006 of the
seven senate rates we rated as tossup going in to election day in 2010 republicans lost five out of seven. in 2012 they lost eight out of ten. there's sort of a monkey republicans have to get off the back they have been losing the close races, and some of this is brand damage. maybe a little bit of it is technology. we can talk about that later if you would like. if the republicans get their act together, they ought to be able to pick up a bunch of seats in the election. as of today they need a net gain of 5 seats to get a majority in the senate. the real number is six. they borrowed a seat in new jersey they are going lose in october. it's going to be a six seat net gain that republicans will need. and showerly --
there are three democratic open seats that look more likely than not to go to the republican hands. it's the fourth fifth, six seats that republicans have to worry about. i mean, it's alaska, marry dr north carolina would be the seventh if they are looking at. can those tip over -- can republicans tip those over in addition to, you know, the open seat in south dakota and in west west virginia what is the other one i'm thinking about? republican -- you have three democratic held seats that look like they're probably going go to the republican side.
the key is fourth, fifth, sixth. that's assuming republicans hang on to all of their own seats. the thing about it is, there's only one republican seat up in a democratic leading seat. that's susan colins in maine. unless he doesn't run or gets bumped off. i don't think that's going to happen. she's fine. the other one is georgia where sax by saxby channel bliss is retiring. there are five or six republicans running on thesore pied. and the question is whether or not is running. it matters only if republicans nominate -- how do i say this? an exotic or potentially problematic nominee. that is the term i use with my
wife trying to convince me not to use the term wacko anymore. [laughter] anyway so that if republicans nominate a normal chrome zone. georgia is shifting a little, i mean, in the south, you know, virginia has become now a certifiably mid atlantic seat. it's not behaving like a southern state. t a classic swing state. north carolina is working the way through the transition. it's not as far along as virginia is. it's getting less and less of a southern state every day. georgia's way back. but it's sort of moving the same general direction and the rest of the deep south isn't moving at all. georgia is sort of not there yet. actually texas is its own world. we're not not calling for texas or florida. georgia is not there yet.
if republicans nominate someone that can't reach out it to the suburb and do well, the moderate suburban voters, particularly voters from other part of the country that have moved in to georgia over the last thirty or forty years, then that that would be one they could potentially lose as well. that's really the only republican seat that i'm paying much attention to all. that's where we are right now, you know, we are raising lots of question, not coming up with a lot of answers. it's early in the cycle. that's what keeps this thing, -- keeps this thing interesting is all the different permutation what can happen. let's open it up to questionses with comments, or accusations. there are miewrk -- microphones here, here, and over there. raise your hand in a nonthreatening way, and a
microphone will make the way to you. there's one right here, do you have one there? okay. we'll start off here and come over here next. >> hi. thank you very much. melissa -- [inaudible] a quick question. you ran through the races you were mentioning. you didn't talk about kentuckyed at all. i'm curious you're not mentioning it. >> it's early in the morning and my five-hour energy hasn't kicked in. i should. you know, i should have mentioned that. i apologize. i think you come up with a decent democratic candidate against mitch mcconnell. you get 47 percent. you get that. the next question is do you get the next two or three%? that's a very hard, hard two or three percent.
part of it is that mcconnell -- because mcconnell is a polarizing figure, he probably underperforms a generic republican because he's got sharp elbows. what democrats are hoping for is that grimes can reach in and grab some of those moderate, moderately conservative women in the louisville suburbs, in the cincinnati suburbs around lexington can reach in and sort of go after some of these voters that maybe they're uncomfortable a little bit with guns. maybe they are uncomfortable a little bit on abortion -- whatever the issues are, that she can sort of peel some off just a couple percent off mcconnell and beat it. so i think this is going to be a premiere race, but it's one
that, you know, if i were grimes, i want to keep a relatively low profile early on. get my organizational ducks lined up, raise my money, get fully up to speed on federal issues, because she's got to know that she's got the equivalent of presidential campaign on the other side. any misstep, real or imagined, they're going to pounce on and just beat the daylights out of her. and so i think she's got to do this in a very measured way. frankly, i'm not expecting to hear a lot out of the race for awhile to go, but it's certainly, you know, i think we fully expect it to to be a top-tier race. this is what i get from not using note. i leave a race out. >> mike the with the american florida society. i'm a physicist. i look at numbers. >> we have a lot in common.
[laughter] by grade and basic physics in college. >> you should have taken one my course. i want to turn to the issue of turnout, which you referenced earlier, and i think stan's polling probably doesn't reflect some of the issues surrounding the trayvon martin trial -- i should say the george zimmerman trial. i'm wondering whether in fact we've going see mobilization on the minorities who are very upset with you. you see the same issues with woman on restrictions on abortion. obviously it's not going to effect the house but it could effect a number of senate races. i was wondering for you had any views on that. >> i think that if this case occurred in september or october of next year, i think the possibility of that really ratcheting up minority turnout
would be very, very high. but issues tend to have shelf lives. energy and focus tend to have shelf lives. in politics, fifteen months is a really, really long period of time. obviously i think you're going have group on the democratic side that are going to try to kind of bottle capture that energy and keep it going, but that is a very, very, very, hard thing to do. you know, think about it's the reverse of the scene in "jury raysic park" they are getting chased by the dinosaur and look in the rear view mirror and says, you know, on jets may be closer than they appear. it's kind of the opposite of that. that the longer the election is, the farther away it is. the less likely to be real vaunt, the more likely something else will be relevant.
and so that is why i'm a little -- i think there's a tendency we naturally have to look at whatever is happening to us right now and project that well to the future. so i would say what is the news in september. what is in the news in october, the first couple of days november it would be more relevant, but clearly clearly, you know, an event like that can really change things. the other thing i might say, though, is that the -- when we talk about the difference between midterm election and presidential election turnout, the gaps aren't as wide between say african-americans, between midterm and election year. it's not quite as wide as some other groups. i think that's one of the reason that greenberg and women's voices, women vote group are focusing on unmarried women because there it's an enormous gap. these are people, you know, that
don't -- a lot of these folks do not follow politics avidly, and as a result it's a good group for democrats in a sen it's -- sense it's very e fecialt. -- efficient. they can move a bunch of numbers pretty quickly when you can get them to vote. when you have a group already voting in reasonably high numbers. african-american turnout doesn't trail white turnout much anymore. it's harder to move the numbers forward. i'm sure you know some term for that -- a technical term i don't. it's certainly the case. >> good morning, patty with target. could you discuss the drama becoming the wyoming race? sorry. [laughter] >> you know, i think i'm going stop answering questions from this little corner right over here. [laughter] you know, there are a lot of
reasons why incumbent draw primary challenges. sometimes somebody is old and grown out of touch with the state. sometimes they have gotten either too conservative or too liberal or too moderate, and aid logically out of sink db ever -- sierng with the -- sync with the state. i can't find any with mike enzi. it would be uncharitable to say it's able percent ambition -- [laughter] but i'm -- my mind is open to be persuaded it's not the case. [laughter]
sometimes silence is golden. >> who is next and. >> [inaudible] i had the pleasure of going back to shreveport the other day. i tried to engage almost everyone i talked to about landrieu. nobody wanted to talk politics at all. what are you hearing about those races down there? >> part of the issue -- there is a reference to my hometown, by the way. part of the reference -- part of the problem is in shreveport nobody knows who he is. he's not known particularly in shreveport. i think the race hasn't really engaged at all. louisiana hasn't sort of turned the corner, and focused, i think on the senate race. i think this is going a very, very, very big race. that landrieu, you know, one side of the equation, she's
going to be taking over the senate energy committee, and, you know, gathering a lot of influence in a state that is historically had a lot but of late hasn't had as much. on the other hand, senator landrieu's been the beneficiary of having either really weak opponents or really, really good years for democrats. so she's never had a tough opponent in a tough year. and so that is going really, really test her. and i think this this is -- i believe, the toughest opponent she's had, and at worst, for republicans it will be a level playing field in louisiana. at worst. and so i think this is going to be the toughest election she's had yet. i mean, certainly it's tougher
than winning jenkins. it's tougher than sue city. -- suzy. it's not as bad a year for republicans as 2008 of. although 2008 in louisiana wasn't that -- you know, you get the general idea. , you know, i think if i can know the outcome of just three states that would be one of the three i want to do along with alaska and arkansas, if i had to cheat g on to four and i would go to kentucky maybe next. it will be -- it will be a good race. she's going have to run, i think, a better campaign than she has in the past because she has a tougher opponent. but louisiana is a tough -- a tough place for a federal candidate to win statewide. it really is. >> yeah. >> [inaudible]
hagueen race. >> i did. >> and north carolina. i think i specifically mentioned it. but i don't put quite -- i sort of put sort of three democratic seats that are at least leaning republican, then there are three more alaska, arkansas, louisiana that are, i think, are top tier, then go back a little bit and find north carolina. tom till lis, the speaker, i ran in to him last week. it's the first time to kind of run on the big stage. sometimes state house speakers, state senate presidents, sometimes they become good statewide candidates. and sometimes not so good. and, you know, we have to sort of let that race begun. he's not -- you know, and what does the legislature, what is the the image of the legislature going
to be like? i think the race hasn't developed yet. we know the first three are going to be very hotly contested. north carolina they very well get there. it's sort of not there yet, so but -- you know, it's clearly one i am watching, but, you know, you have to kind of -- you can't prioritize all of them as top races. you have to make some delineation, and so i put three ahead of that in term of the really hot races. it's certainly one that we're going to be watching. you know, i don't think that he's defined in the state. i think that's true. you know, i guess it's good and bad news for her. she's not defined in a per -- positive well. she's not well defined. that's something she's got to do before tillis can get ahead of
momentum. mika handson with hrp. you mentioned it would be the first time landrieu would have a tough opponent in the tough year. considering how the republican legislature and specifically bob jindal has been fairing in the state. do you think it could help lift her in the case? >> i -- not really. governor jindal's numbers are not particularly good right now. i think that's absolutely true. in fact, i think i saw some they were around the same as president obama's in the state or maybe a touch lower. i don't think that the governor or the legislature, i mean, i mentioned the legislature in connection with with north carolina because tom tillis is speaker of the north carolina house. i don't think --
i just don't think that the senate race will be effected one way or the other by the governor or the state legislature. you know, it's a federal race, it's going to be more sort of washington-oriented. you know, there may be a republican congress versus a democratic president, or republican house versus a democratic senate. i just don't think that is going to be connected in any way. so if landrieu gets re-elected, i don't think it's going to be because of the governor or the legislature. so i just don't think that connected. but, you know, obviously they could be. >> good morning, greenwood. thank you for this. thank you for the hospitality and hosting it. back to georgia for a quick second, if you would. i think your analysis was that
the only way nun is relevant is the g.o.p. nominate somebody exotic. i want to ask if you think if you can consider michelle nun a generational change. ceo of the largest service organization in the world. all of those things. iconic family names, et. cetera. if you layer in the democrats haven't really tried to win in georgia in a couple of cycles. if they try and get somebody registered african-american vote and unmarried women. do you think nunn's candidacy can be relevant? do you think it's about the crazies on the other side? thanks. >> i don't think georgia is yet to the point where just a really strong democrat can make the difference. virginia's there. north carolina may be is there. but, you know, look at the
presidential numbers in georgia, for example, i mean, wearing a blue jersey is a liability in georgia still. maybe not as much as it used to be awhile back. it still is a liability, and i think just being a fresh face, a new person all of that. i don't think that changes the color. i think what you have got to have, though, for her, and again, six, eight, ten, twelve years from now it very well might be different. right now i think she really does need to have an opponent who, you know, fairly middle of the road person relatively independent, just kind of look at and say, wow, i can't go there. and i think that is -- i don't think we are quite there yet. all of those things are things that may very well help her, but if republicans --
the state is still a lot more republican than not, and i don't think that alone really gets her there. it's -- take a look at last year's presidential and that kind of -- it's a pretty good big sample poll where the country is. either side competed hard in it? it's a reflection where was the state right then and, you know, it's on the transitioning from red to blue. it's still very much on the red side, and take awhile to get to the blue. it's kind of like texas. texas just isn't there yet. >> good morning. ruth with the american -- [inaudible] you kind of skipped over social media. you mentioned that earlier. how is it going to come in to
play? how does that track all the tweets and twitters and stuff i think only birds do because i'm old. how does that track and how does that come in to play? >> you're asking someone that turns 60 later this year. you're asking the wrong person, i mean, when i was looking at that and thinking, god, i hope it's not like #mj charlie cook is a twit. it probably already exists now. but anyway, you know, again, i'm the wrong person, i mean, there are people that can speak far more eloquently and expertly than i. it's something that is out there but, you know, enelevation isn't -- innovation isn't new. i can remember back when before there was a regular -- how many of you remember the old kind of fax machines where you put it -- the piece of paper under a lip and would spin around and, you
know, all of these things have revolutionized politics in different ways. and social media is the same way, but and so all of these are innovations that really, really important. you know, i don't think it changes -- i don't think social media changes anybody's values. i don't think it changes their political orientation in any way. what it does is just speed up the process of information and getting information out to people who maybe in some cases don't read newspaper, they don't will listen to -- they don't watch cable news. they don't watch television news, you know, it's getting information in to kind of crevices that sometimes political news doesn't normally go to. it's -- it's something i think republicans -- you know, the whole -- let me expand it from social
media to technology. republicans really do need to kind of catch up, and in term of the whole idea of campaign technology and social media is a part of it. but, you know, if you think about it, the 2004, george w. bush re-election campaign was absolutely state-of-the-art. to the extend there was data mining, there was microtargetting. to the extent it twisted twisted in 2004, republicans were right there at the cutting edge. but for all purposes the next eight years were lost on the republican party, and during that time, you remember in 2004, you know, the republicans didn't have it alone. you had the dean campaign, and the kerry campaign, they were also doing technology and social media and these sort of things. they kept developing through 2008 with obama and in to 2012.
so i.d. -- i would say on the broader technology side it's something that republican need to work on, and elizabeth who works -- a contributing editor wrote a piece recently that where she was pointing out that on the democratic side, a lot of those bach campaign developed a lot. these people have gone out to the private sector and you have sort of private sector initiatives going on developing cutting edge technology and data bays -- baseses while she was drawing the five-year styling plan. it centralized and not in the private sector. and maybe not as innovative as it needs to be or as democrats are. and republicans might be well ad vised to sort of revisit a little bit how they are