tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN November 8, 2016 4:07pm-6:08pm EST
i thought it was (i just want to say thank you for that leadership. >> i think what you are underscoring is the total gets that from the top and if the president and mrs. bush they this is the way we want it, that's the way it's going to be. i have a lot of confidence that the president and mrs. obama have not only said the right things, but will communicate the right things to their folks and however the election turns out, there will be a good experience for the incoming administration. >> the only thing i would add, you talked about them not taking it down, obviously the 92 campaign was a difficult time for president bush 41 and while we may not have had as well organized effort in retrospect, i want to really underscore that the cooperation we received from jim baker and others, directly
at the request of president bush 411 could not have been better. it allowed us to play catch-up so much more effective than what would've otherwise been the case it was a case where was a different time, but yet you had an effective smooth transition of power which is the hallmark of our democracy. i think what we are seeing, that you are really refining that process now and moving it forward in a much more serious developed way with the funding, technology, all of these things where the transition planning, and i give a lot of credit to people in the room as has been noted because it's becoming an internet goal, excepted, understood part of a critical period in our democracy. >> thank you very much.
[applause] >> the vice presidential candidates are on their way to new york city to await the election results. this photo was taken by indy star. senator tim kaine arrived in new york earlier this afternoon. he will be headed to hillary clinton's campaign night venue in downtown new york city as well. time political reporter points out both campaigns will be watching election night within blocks of each other on manhattan's fifth avenue. a look at what donald trump's election night night set up looks like, the postelection party down the street from trump tower in the third-floor grand ballroom of the new york hilton midtown.
>> election night, tonight on c-span. watch the results and be part of a national conversation about the outcome. beyond location at the hillary clinton and donald trump election night headquarters and watch victory and concessions speeches. starting live at 8:00 p.m. watch live, on demand or listen to our live coverage using the free c-span radio app. >> would morning. thanks for having me on. >> could you tell us about the organization of american state and what it is. >> yes, it's a hemispheric regional international organization where all of the countries in the hemisphere are represented including, obviously the u.s., 34 active members and we've received, we've been serving elections for over 50
years. this is the 27th country of the region we have observed time elections and it's the first time that we are here in the u.s. and we are thrilled about it. >> how to to get the invitation to come observe this election?rv >> it was an invitation sent to us by the state department. we are not allowed to observe in countries where we are not invited by the government so in june of this year, we decided we were invited to observe. >> were you invited by secretary kerry? >> it was through the ambassador which is the usual conduct of invitation. >> what is your interest in observing this election? >> i think observation hasle evolved in not only democracies
that are asking for observation, they've seen more of the cooperation mechanism, every democracy has challenges and can improve the way the electoral system works and that's what we are here to do. we are here to learn from the good experiences that there are many of them in the u.s., but were also here to make recommendations for areas of improvement. >> and so, i'm sure, you have heard people comment that this is the u.s. election, why do we need outside bodies coming to observe what we do. to tell you the truth, we'veve actually felt very welcomed, both by the press, by poll workers, we have 41 observers from 18 different nationalities in 12 states and we actually haven't felt that rejection at
all. >> so specifically, what states will you be in and around and what role will usurp? will you be inside the polling places, outside, tell us what your day will look like for the day of an observer will look like. >> sure. we will be in california, colorado, here in here in d.c., iowa, kansas, maryland,, minnesota, man tana jen montana, nebraska, rhode island and wisconsin. if you want me to go into how we chose those states, we, we can do that as well.ho the day-to-day, as an observer we really did more of a long-term observer so our observers have been deployed for over a week now being at campaign rallies, being also in the voting centers for early voting and today we will be checking out all or most of the voting places in the cities that
they are deployed in, lookingfr at, from the different voting mechanisms to see how the lines are going, and basically observing the process in generan >> so, if you see concerns about the process, then what? >> okay, so what we do, this is the main difference between observers and monitors. monitors can intervene in the process. monitors do not.ta we do talk to voters, we talk to the people that are working in the polls, but we do not t intervene at all in the process. if there are complaints, we take notes and we will present oh preliminary report tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. in the main building and then we will present a final report to the council probably in mid-january. >> we have heard some concerns from the donald trump campaign
and others about the security and integrity of this election. since you've been out for couple weeks, looking in observing, observing, has there been anything that you and your fellow observers would give you pause about what goes on today? >> we see a system that is based on checks and balances, that's based on transparency and confidence and trust of the voters, and we don't see any areas of concern for something that will affect the election in a major way. >> now, being part of the process this year, does that mean in future elections this will be an automatic part of your organization, the observer of the u.s. election. >> if we get invited, we will be back. we will be happy to do so.
>> with the organization of american. [inaudible] telling us about the role of observers from his body and taking a look at today's election. we appreciate your time this morning. >> thank you so much. >> tonight live coverage from canada for an international perspective of the u.s. election the canadian broadcasting corporation election night coverage in their program, the national posted by peter, we will have that live starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. next, a a discussion about the 2016 debates in election day. it's hosted by the international foundation for electoral systems in washington d.c. >> good morning and welcome to the celebration of american democracy. all the housekeeping is done and now we will go to substance. [applause]
as we know, 40 trillion americans have already voted using absentee balanceearly voting, electronic voting. the expectation is there will be 100 million americans in line to cast their votes through machines and on paper, all of of that will be known tonight and we will elect the next president of the united states. thirty-three members of the u.s. senate, 435 members of the u.s. house of representatives, numerous governors, and i think a majority of members of this legislatures. on behalf of all that energy and be on behalf of i would like to welcome you to our 13th u.s. election program. this program started under my distinguished predecessor in 1992 when the diplomatic community came to him and said we need somebody to talk to the local election officials so we
diplomats can go around and witness america voting. then in 1994, he had the bright idea of welcoming people from election commissions and parliaments. now by 2016, we have no room for diplomats, we have over 200 leaders from election management bodies around the world, we have over 100 members of parliament and legislatures, we have over 30 judges including two chief justices and we are particularly honored, and i'm going to get in trouble for this, but i will at least highlight one former head of state, the former prime minister of the netherlands joining us today. [applause] >> you have to be had of state to get a shout out in this
crowd, so congratulations. now we have election day. it is my great pleasure to introduce two longtime friends, the democratic process in the united states, the the democratic process around the world and bill sweeney as our panelist. we are going to have a discussion about a great american tradition that these two gentlemen are now the leaders of. that is the tradition of presidential debates. we have the cochairs of the u.s. commission on presidential debates. to my left, frank. he was chairman of the republican party under both president reagan and president bush. he was the cofounder of the national endowment for democracy , he was the cofounder
rating, and you try the people who streamed on their computers and ipad or iphone well over 100 million people watched what each of the three debates. that wasn't always the case. the history of debates goes back to 1960 when richard nixon and jfk debated. it was the first televised debate. they were extremely successful and in the opinion of most experts, very important and how the election turned out. four years later, after the assassination of jfk, lbj was the president of the united states and he refused to debate barry goldwater who was the republican nominee. four years later, and eight years later richard nixon was back and because of the traumatic experience that he had
in the 1960 debate which which was not good for him, he refused to debate. it wasn't until 1976, following nixon's resignation when gerald ford became the president of the united states and he pardon richard nixon and was tremendously hurt in the polls running against former georgia governor jimmy carter that he agreed president ford to debate jimmy carter. they conducted the debates and they were very critical on how people voted. now four years later, in 1980, it was extremely interesting. at that point in time, jimmy carter was president of the united states. there was a third-party candidate. the debates in 1980 were run by an organization in this country called the league of the women voters. they had, as part of the rules as to who they would invite to
participate in the debate something called the 15% rule. in order to be included in the debates, you have to meet the constitutional requirements. the constitutional requirements of being a president of the united states is you must be 35 years of age and you must be a natural born citizen. that was put in the constitution by our early founding fathers who were always afraid some rich european would come over and try to take over things and become president. you have to be natural born. then the league adopted the same rule that we use, the 15% rule and that is, prior to the debate you must average and be a 15%. if you're a 15% you are invited to participate. if you're not, you don't participate. at that time, the congressman by the name of john anderson of illinois was at 17%.
he accepted the invitation to debate. governor ronald reagan of california accepted the invitation to debate. jimmy carter, the president of the united states said hell no, i won't go. i will not debate if john anderson is on the stage. the first debate which took place 60 miles down the road from here. by the time the next one came around they had fallen to 12%. jimmy carter then accepted and he only had one debate between carter and reagan. we never had any problems thereafter because when ronald reagan was president, he had no problem debating. bill clinton always love to debate so there is no real concern with people being involved in participating. now, the commission didn't exist , but following the 1984
election cycle when there was great controversy in the media, particularly over the debate that was held by the league of women voters, to commissions were put together. one at the center for strategic and international studies which was at georgetown university and the other was at the jfk school at harvard. both of those commissions came to one agreement on something that there should be created an entity that exists for one purpose and one purpose only to ensure that general election debates are held every four years. i was the chairman of the republican national committee at that time and paul kirk of massachusetts was the chairman of the democratic national committee and he and i, across party lines agreed to create the commission. we have done every debate since 1988. the final debate which was three weeks ago and that was in las vegas and that was the 30th debate that our commission has
run. now, we have some controversy going into this campaign and that was because there were two other candidates who were on enough ballots to conceivably get to 270 electoral votes. i left that out. thirty-five years 35 years of age, you have to be on enough ballots in states to conceivably get the votes. we had a libertarian candidate and a green party candidate. the libertarian and green had tax on the commission for us to not supply the 15% rule and just say that everyone who runs and meets a certain standard with their on ballots are not odd to be included. our commission reviewed it in great detail and we held it at 15%. as you know, i think when we first applied the rule, the
libertarians were at eight, i think, think, and i think the green party was at three or four. they weren't even halfway to where we were going. then, we sat down as we always do with the professional teams, put up by both campaigns. both campaigns have debate teams. people who are good with these things, with microphones and sound and lighting and they worked with our team. as you know, we went forward and we are very, very pleased with the result. maybe during the question-and-answer period we can get into the intricacies that were interesting to say the least with these three presidential and one vice presidential debate. with that, paul kirk was the original cochairman with me when we started this, but when teddy kennedy died, paul kirk was named by the governor of massachusetts to take ted kennedy's seat and the united states senate. until such time a special
election could be held to replace senator kennedy. at that time, paul had to step down and we were most fortunate to have mike mccurry who had been a tremendous spokesman for president clinton at a very difficult time and that presidency step up and be my cochairman. mike, i sent it over to. >> thank you. just to review a little bit of the work that we do on the commission on presidential debates. we don't receive any funding from our federal government, we are not a government related entity, it is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. our principal assignment is to really choose the dates in the places where our debates are held. we designed the format to give the candidates some opportunity to present their ideas and their vision for the country and then we select the moderators who actually step in to connect the debate.
we have no responsibility for the content of these debates. that is up, for better or worse to the candidates themselves and to the moderators to pose the questions. that is our principal assignment. to review the history that frank just went through, i would say that the principal achievements that we have made over the time the commission has existed is really to institutionalize these debates as part of the political process here in the united states. there is nothing that requires candidates to debate, there is no law that stipulates they have to up here with each other, but i think it is now almost a given that the american people expect these debates to happen. it would be very difficult for a nominated candidate in our system now to avoid doing these debates even though that has happened in the past. now, we almost see the candidates automatically agreeing to the formats, the debates, the design of the debates that we put together.
in fact, four years ago, president obama was the first incumbent president to willingly accept the arrangements that we made through the commission without any fussing about it. i think that's very important. what role do these debates actually play in our process? we know by the time we conduct these debates in the fall of the general election season, they probably are not that many undecided voters. most voters have aligned with one candidate or another, in one way or another. there are some undecideds, in this campaign because it's unusual, we probably have a higher degree of undecided voters that we've seen in some of our previous election cycles. i think the other important thing these debates do, and you've seen that in the debates we've had, it gives the candidates some chance to
articulate what their governing agenda would be once they arrive in office so they are trying to build some support for the program but they would initiate if they become the president elect of the united states of america. the second thing, you saw a great deal of this in our debates is that you get some sense of the temperament, the character and the personalities of the president. here in the united states, we don't have royalty, but we do have this unusual character of relationship between the american people and the president elect. unlike officeholders at other levels. the american people, they develop almost a personal relationship with the person who becomes president. we we get to know the presidents personality, style, we get to know the family of the names of the president because we do have a personal equation that becomes important.
i think these debates really expose a lot of that. we saw a way in which donald trump and hillary clinton engaged in each other, a a lot about their personalities in these debates. in some ways, it becomes part of a narrative that reflects who we, the people of the united states are, for better or for worse. looking out at you and thinking about what you would take away from this, i can't say that this campaign that we have had here in the united states of america, this year and 2016 has been one that we would hold as a paragon of democratic virtue. it has been an ugly, nasty and very polarizing debate. i think the predominant feeling and most americans today is that thank god this thing is over, finally.
that is unlike many of your systems where you have short campaign seasons, parliamentary systems, a much different atmosphere. this campaign here in the united states has gone on well over two years. it probably has not produced the best of what we would call democratic virtue, but i think most americans, and i will end by saying most americans probably expect something better to come as a result of this. they expect a new president, whoever he or she may be to rally the country together to try to establish some sense of the common good and then to really begin to build some consensus around how this country will move forward facing the difficult issues that we face. the one thing i forgot to mention, and wanted to cover it is the work that we do in the commission depends on the collaboration that we have with the five major television networks here in the united states. all of them together go into the
network pool, the major networks, abc, cbs, cnn and fox and together they pool their resources in order to simultaneously broadcast these debates for the entire american public. that arrangement is probably going to change. bill mentioned we would maybe think about where do we go in the future. with the decline of the traditional mainstream media and the less influence that these major networks have, i think we will probably see some reconfiguration of the way in which the american people engage with these debates going ahead in the future. obviously the rise of the internet, social media becomes very critical part of this. this recent series of debates produced the highest number of tweets and responses on facebook and other social media in the history of our political process here in the united states.
over 83 million people tweeted or went online or when on facebook to register and even a decline in the end, over 50 million people were somehow or another registering their own views has we went through the third debate and in the future i think we will see much more of that. these will be much more participatory events with a lot of people trying to express their own opinions, probably wanting to be engaged in shaping some of the questions that the candidates themselves are asked. i think we will see, because of the changes in technology and media, a need for us on the commission to think through how we present these debates to the american public because they will no longer be exclusively biased events but something that's much more interactive and much more engaging and something
that i think all of this in this room know are importantly increasingly important. with that alternative back over to you and we look forward to your question. >> thank you mike, thank you frank. terrific first round presentations. [applause] what i would like to suggest is we try to have two questions from the right and two questions from the center and two questions from the left. i would appreciate it if the questions could be questions, not statements and i will exercise the right of being moderator to be rude and interrupt. for frank and mike, the translation channel is channel eight. if there is a delay or whatever, i will repeat the question for the benefit of everyone in the audience. one house keeping note that i failed to mention and i simply want to highlight it to make
sure no one was concerned, the bacon that was served was turkey bacon. there was no work on the menu of the conference and we did not want anyone to be concerned about that issue. i should have mentioned that earlier before breakfast was served. i apologize. i had a series of housekeeping notes and i forgot that one. with that, people with microphones, can we get microphones? we are on televisions. if we don't have microphone, please. >> my friend from uganda. >> right next to. >> thank you very much. i wanted to thank. [inaudible] i was wondering, knowing the
direction depends on the goodwill of the people. do you think the claim by one of the candidates that the elections are rigged could have had the outcome to this result? >> thank you very much. >> second question, pass the microphone. >> thank you, i have two questions. since there are four candidates that are from libertarian and green parties, if i'm not mistaken, joining in the election and of course. [inaudible] why the 15% rule still used on
the two candidates in the debate people have their right to know what the views of the other candidate is instead of considering only the eight or 4% in the polls. this is my question because people have to have their right to know what the views of the other two candidates. >> secondly, what are the norms used by the commission of the presidential candidate. what is allowed and what is not allowed to express in the presidential debate? i think that's all. thank you. >> we start off with the question, i think frank starts, mike mike respond to the first question please. >> let me respond to the last
gentleman first. there were over 1000 people who ran for president of the united states this year. 1000 registered with the federal election commission. we have to draw a line somewhere as i've said, we debate every four years. we go back and we look at the standards that are applied. we look at whether or not someone will be getting an invitation. 15% rule which was the same role used by by the league of women voters back in 1980 and that's the role we decided in this election cycle to stay with. we still think it was the correct one, when you really look and see what occurred. we will be looking at that rule again, clearly between this time and the next presidential election. it's hard to believe there's going to be another one, but i think most of you will see that the next election, 2020 will start tomorrow. some candidates will be out
there who are looking down the road and we will be hearing some speeches tomorrow. with regard to what they say, when they are answering questions, as mike indicated, we have no idea what the questions are be, only the moderators know what they are going to ask. we have no way of controlling what the answers are going to be we don't want to control them. we think the american people ought to see the candidates give the answer he or she wants and make a judgment on that. as mike said, we are not electing the best debater. we want to have, through this process, we see someone in the base mode were seated at tables and we went to see them in different formats to make a determination because one thing we know, the american people want to like the president. they may not always vote for who they think is the smartest person. they want to like the president. i think they're a little challenged in this election as to where they are going to go. that's the best way i can answer
that. >> let me add a few things about the commission itself and answer your question about the standards are the ethics of the commission. the commission is composed of 16 people. frank and i are obviously the cochairs, but we have a range of people from all walks of life, business, academics, corporate, and people who have served and political office. of the 16, i can really only identify the party affiliations of about half the members of the commission. i can guess on a number of them what their political leanings are, but people like father john jenkins who's the president of notre dame university or shirley tillman is the former president of princeton university art by a margin on political actors. they have enormous stature in our system and they carry a great deal of weight, but i think the reputation and the quality of the members of the commission themselves as part of
what gives us the legitimacy in our system. obviously i worked for bill clinton when he was president and i know mrs. clinton very well. way back at the beginning of her campaign, i made a financial contribution to her campaign. the commission later talked about that and thought about that and said we should not, as an independent commission, a nonpartisan, not a creature of the two political parties because we are nonpartisan in the work that we do, maybe we should have a rule that says for the time period of our national election, we won't contribute to the parties, the candidates were what we call the super pacs that support those candidates. we did institute that rule and i think the members of our commission thought that was an important standard that we should have so that nobody would question the alliance of this commission when it came to
designing the debates which was then the answer of the first question, even though there have been some commentary during this political season about the process being rigged, i think we were credited with putting together very independent and very fair opportunities for the candidates to present their views. now, some people judged one's the winner and once the loser, that's the way our commentary goes but we don't make those comments ourselves. our job is to present the opportunity and let the candidates go with the questions and the answers and moderators as they pose the questions, take the content in the direction they think is in the best interest of the american people. >> frank, would you like to add to that? >> i agree with everything he just said. there have been charges by individuals in this campaign that the system is rigged. i will limit my remarks to the electoral process in this country.
i do not believe the electoral process, what's going on today across this country with americans going out and casting their vote. this probably already been 40% of the public that has already voted. i don't think that voting process is rigged in any way. in some states, there may be problems with people who shouldn't be voting who vote because they're not properly registered, i remember some cases years ago dead people were voting, but that is in operation. the system is a fair system and i don't consider the wreck electoral process to be rigged in anyway. >> okay, can we go to the center. i need to questions. [speaking in native tongue]
you also mentioned that there is moderator who plans the question have they connected with the voters questions? number two, [inaudible] >> let me take the first crack at the last question. we have experimented a little bit in this election with how could the american public have more impact or more say in the kinds of questions that the moderators would pose. there was a group that did a great job of actually creating an online mechanism for people to register their opinions on certain subjects and questions. two of our moderators actually
injected some of that material into the question they asked. they reference this process that went on. i suspect we will see more of that kind of activity as we go forward because i think people want to feel they are a part of the process of really defining what the debate is about. our moderators, even though they have total control over what the questions are that get asked, they are very sensitive to public opinion. they look very carefully at what americans are suggesting are the primary subjects that they would like to see debated. i think we have built into the system because the moderators are responsive to public opinion, we have built into that some assurance that the questions that get posed will be about subjects that people care about. they go through the electoral process. now, it's not without some shortcoming.
it is personally painful to me as someone who works a lot on issues related to hunger and poverty here in the united states that there was no question about that subject in any of the four debates. similarly, you could argue that for all of us, one of the issues that we have to really think about carefully is the health of our planet. there was not a thorough discussion of that issue. sometimes we do not get entirely the substance in these debates we would necessarily want. to the other question, the first question, we are a republic. the design of our constitutional system gives greatly way to our individual states in how elections are conducted. we are not going to federalize our election process. we leave it up to the secretaries of state and each of our states to really administer
and design the electoral process and it is a hodgepodge of 50 different designs. each according to the way in which that state conducts their ballots. there are different rules. there are a number of states today where individual voters could write in the name of another candidate if they wanted to select one of those other candidates who didn't participate in the debates, but there are some states that don't allow right in ballots. we do have this mix, this blend that i don't see us moving in the direction of a national body that would administer our national elections. of course, as all america votes today, it's not just the presidency that we are voting for. we have is we have candidates at all the different levels of government and local and state members of our congress and members of our senate were being elected today. by design, each jurisdiction has
to have its own rules. >> let me add to that, i work with an organization, an institute which which i started back in 1983. i traveled all over the world speaking to emerging democracies. the first thing that i tell them is do not try to emulate what we do in the united states of america. every country must develop a system that is acceptable to the people which takes into affect the culture of that society. ours has been around for a couple hundred years and it works for us. there are some rough spots here and there, but it works for us and it's excepted by our people. it's not perfect but pretty close to perfect. i think what you are going to see today, as you get on the buses and go to these polling places, you you will see at almost every state there is a person who you must go up to when you want to vote. they will ask you your name.
most states require identification. at that same table will be a representative of the republican party and the democratic party who have the right to sit there. they are checking off. every state is a little different, as mike said, but our system works for us. it shouldn't be emulated by anyone. >> let's go to the left for two questions. >> in the back >> this can't be the shy side of the room. way over here. >> bonjour. thank you for taking my question i am from canada and as you know we recently had federal elections about a year ago this time and i was just wondering, with all the travel you have done, is there anything you want to incorporate in the u.s. that could improve the system that you seed being done abroad? anything? >> one other question from the side please
>> from sri lanka. you mentioned that each member of the republican party, are you not part of making concrete the system of two parties, what about the third-party who also has some folly in this country >> certainly, if they have qualified in that state, in other words they are in the ballot in that state, they have the right to have someone there also. with regard to the first question, i think if you asked americans today what we could gain from looking at other countries in the way they do things, 90% would say please
make it shorter. please, let's not have four years of this. let's make it shorter. unfortunately, that is not going to happen, our constitution provides freedom of speech and people are going to start speaking tomorrow which will be the start of the next campaign of 2020. >> to really emphasize what frank said, the ability of a political party representative to be present at the polls and observe the voting is extended to any party that's on the ballot. i think that's in most states. correct? we have, for example i vote nearby in the state of maryland. we have, on our ballot >> the republic of maryland. >> we have multiple candidates listed on our ballot, not just the four that we have been describing. we have others who qualify for the ballot in maryland. representatives of the green
party or the libertarian party would be fully entitled to have a poll watcher there. the two major political parties do this as part of their mechanism for turning out the vote, what we call get out the vote because they are checking off the names of their supporters who have voted and if they see someone has not yet voted to the anticipated would be supportive of their candidate, they go get on the phone and make sure that person goes to the polls. that's part of the mechanism for turnout. back to the first question, we have not a very impressive rate of voting among people who are eligible to vote in this country i think it a presidential election today we get about 67 or 70% >> you would hope >> it will be interesting >> 55 or 60.
seventy is a little high. >> that's a pretty stunning statistic. almost half of those who are eligible to be participating in this democratic process today choose not to. they are entitled to choose not to, they might be turned off, they might not want to participate, but there are systems that have required voting. there are sometimes part of me that says i would like people to feel like it is part of their citizenship duty to participate in these elections, whether we would ever legislate something like that as it is legislated in some countries, i don't know. probably not. given our system in the fierce independence that many people want to have, but i think that is something we would incorporate. there are also other systems, i think think this is may be true
in canada that make it far easier to be registered to vote. it becomes almost an automatic process. there are some states in the united states where if you apply for your drivers license, you simultaneously can register to vote and there are ways in which that happens but we've also had, in this country, very sad history of discrimination against people, particularly minorities and we still have states in which the justice department supports and monitors because of the history we've had going back to jim crow :
or football. >> on going to ask of the speakers to restrain themselves. one comment about observers, depending on the state law, you also have ngo or nonpartisan such as league of women voters or cause oriented groups from the environment or other interests have registered observers in addition to the political party candidates, so just as in your country you can walk in the polling station and there are moral observers then poll workers or voters, that also happens in this country depending on the state law and depending on the nature of the contest in that particular
community-- >> can i ask him to that mike and i both forgot to mention her prepared remarks and that is that commission on presidential debates for the last 20 years have been working with countries all over the world, many countries represented in this room in helping to train people to create the same sort of entity in those countries, so there will be presidential debates or whatever the office might be called before elections take place. affect the final final debate in las vegas we had 50 representatives from 35 countries who have these sorts of commissions or creating commissions who are guests and went through a three-day process of meetings and consultations and also attended the debate. >> i would add that it's a very interactive process because when we go out and assist and provide technical assistance in other countries that are designing and
developing their own debates we get ideas when we see innovation and new things happening we should be aware of or think about in the design of our own debates, so it's actually very two-way interactive process. >> i would second that i know at least two groups in this audience have had meetings with professional staff and people who have been part of that training process as part of their visit here to washington. we are going back to the far right with the question to the table behind him. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> we have seen the positive side of these debates, but what are the negative sides?
the second question has to do with the difficulty of putting together this debate. what are the problems that the commission usually faces in organize the debates? thank you. >> things have really changed-- >> let's go to the other question. >> i would like to be informed on how the-- the process of elections in this country, what the current president go out. does he use air force one? when the vice president go out, does he use a personal office because where i come from there is always the complaints about the use and abuse of office. >> i will start with the second
question and work my way to the other questions. we have a very complicated formula that is used in the united states when the incumbent president campaigns for office. in which the cost are apportioned on the political side versus the official business side, so there is a reimbursement that comes when president obama has been campaigning for the last several days, a portion of the cost of the use of air force one and the travel expenses for his campaign trip will be a portion through the political side and will be paid, usually by the democratic national committee, the democratic party will pick up the cost. but, the president also usually does official business in the course of travel and there are people that are required to travel with the president for protection and for assistance
and communication purposes in those are deemed to be official expenses and they get paid by all american taxpayers. it is by and large a pretty time-honored system that is work through different political parties having the white house and presidency and it works and is administered by our federal elections commission and there is really much dispute about the way in which that happens. going back to the first question or. i think there are some negative sides. we would stress the positive experience of having the two candidates there to engage each other side-by-side and debate the future of the country, but having been on the candidate side of having helped prepare bill clinton for his debates in 1996, sometimes there is too much attention to the theatrical aspect of these debates to the short soundbite that will sound
good on television and less on the substantive presentation of a program or ideas or a platform and i think we saw some of that during these debates. the number one recommendation that i am hearing from people who watch the debates as if they wish the microphone for the candidate who is not the candidates turn to speak would be turned off so they are not talking over each other all the time. we had, you know, sometimes the debates themselves were a little chaotic when hillary clinton and donald trump decided they wanted to argue with each other and it was not maybe is orderly as some people would have liked, so i think that's an area where again, it's the candidates debate, not our debates, but it is-- a lot of people in america had concern about that and the
other, you know what problems have been encountered in the 20 years. we rely on the places that host these debates to do it off a lot of work and to raise off a lot of money, frankly to help host these debates and each of the colleges or universities that we pick have to go out and do fundraising to equip to the facility, to make the arrangements, to have the security necessary to arrange transportation and prepare their facility or what is a huge global media events and i think that becomes difficult. sometimes some of our host sites have had experienced difficulty in doing that, so that is something that just happens to be our model. we commission on presidential debates, but doesn't raise the money necessary to put on these debates. we leave it to the institutions we select to host the debates a doing a lot of that work.
i think that is probably in the realm of a what's difficult or challenging that the work we do and that would probably be very high on the list. >> let's me just add that it's been longer than 20 years, the commission has been in existence for 29 years. next year will be our 30th anniversary and things have changed dramatically from when we first started. as you can imagine, that campaigns and the parties were not always happy that there was a commission. an outside group coming in in the last months of a presidential campaign and saying you will show up on this night at this place and you will debate your opponent. they don't like the interference about sort-- outside organizations and so it was at the very beginning chairman kirk and i had with the candidate and parties what we called the debate over debates. was always a question of where
it was going to be, when it was going to be, who the moderators were going to be, but slowly we did two steps forward and one step back for many many years until we reached 2000. in 2000, we reach a point where we picked the dates, we pick the locations, we pick the path format and we pick the moderators without any consultation with the candidates or the political parties. we reached a point of total independence, but there was certainly difficult times in the early years, but thank god that is beyond us. >> before i go to the center, let me follow up with one question i know has been puzzling people. as more and more americans are voting earlier and perhaps with introduction of technology we will see even more americans felt earlier either electronically or on the internet or using other devices. how do you select the debate
dates and when viewed select the debate dates, so that the candidates can work their schedules, but still have enough time to present their views to the american people and the debates have an impact on the voting decision? then come i will go to the center for the next questions. >> well, this cycle was very different for both the commission as well as the political parties. historically that campaigns-- excuse me, the parties have held their conventions in late august, early september. but, because of the early voting factor we knew that four years ago 40% of the people had voted before election day and that number is probably right about where we are right now. the parties move their convention into july, move them forward. we also made a change. historically, our debates and then in october. we move the first debate to september, but it's a factor
that we are really wrestling with with one of the things that early voting does provide is that challenge. it doesn't do a hell of a lot of good if you are holding the debates after most people voted, so our function is an educational function. we are trying to help educate the american people as to who the candidates are and where they stand on important issues. it should be taken into consideration cast into your ballot, so something we will have to deal with, i think. micah nine other members of the commission four years from now because i think technology-- >> our final debate for the third presidential debate was october 19. i think it is true, if i have looked at the literature on this correctly, that most early voting takes place in the two to two and half weeks before the
elections hit, so there are some states in which you can vote earlier than that and some states that allow for absentee ballots to be sent prior to that, but i think most of the quote" early voting probably occurred after our final debate. i have had some people ask me, why was the final debate three weeks ago, three weeks before the election because they wanted to see trump and clinton presumably debate again kicks sometimes we are in the final days of this campaign, but one reason for that is that because of early voting and also because the campaigns themselves like to build off of the debates that present their final arguments to the voter-- voters. without october, 19th was a reasonable time to allow the candidates after that third debate to wrapup and make the final presentation to the voter as they saw fit.
that is something that i think as frank indicated we will have to examine that schedule and think about the reality of the fact that summing millions of americans are now voting earlier than the election itself. >> i need to questions from the center. >> thank you. just one question. in the morning continued-- on tv justice department sent to 12 states-- my question is what is the role of this department in america? thank you. >> and over here?
[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]
but the question was the justice department deploys people under our federal law, civil rights law to monitor voting patterns and activities in certain states that are covered under provisions of our civil rights act and i think that they have done that. and they have deployed people to be on hand and be available-- available if there are allegations of voter intimidation. there are very strict rules about not intimidating people who are exercising their franchise to vote and that is taken very seriously and our justice department monitors and people in state law enforcement agencies who are available if there are any allegations that people are being promoted to exercise their opportunity to vote. that is taken very seriously and i think the justice the permit has make clear that they are
going to be engaged in that. on the second set of questions, i did not quite catch the question. i think the question was why has it taken so long for the united states to seriously consider a female candidate for president. i think that is a peculiar clarity of the rhythm of our own political cycle and the people who have been available to run, but curiously the fact that we might in fact elect our first female president today, has received less attention in the public discussion about this campaign than one would have imagined. i think if mrs. clinton is elected today there will probably be much more attention going forward on the fact that we have made that kind of history today, but obviously we will have to wait and see how that works. on the question of the disclosure of funding, we have throughout our political system
pretty high standards of disclosure of campaign contributions required of candidates and parties. people who contribute to the commission on presidential debates, which has relatively small budget. because, as i mentioned, most of the cost of the debate themselves are borne by the colleges and universities that host the debates, but the money that we do raise in order to maintain our staff and do some of the work that we do is disclosed in the forms that we file with the internal revenue service of the united states of america. a form called the form 994, so most of our contributions that are given or disclose in a document. >> this will be the two last questions from australia and the lady at the same table, please.
>> thank you very much. my question is on issues-- the public debates have made sure that the americans get to know the president to be, but from the debates especially the current ones there was some kind of character assassination. how does the american system ensure that-- [inaudible] >> someone that has been assassinated through the public debate and then goes back to the party to the big donors and gets money to actually read the ill that has come through. thank you.
>> good morning. i'm from the australian electoral commission. my question is this: if the 2020 election campaigning begins early, as he predict, the use of electronic communication could become predominant as the means of medication to the public and potential voters. we are told that free speech will mean that there will be little doubt about the two curved or control it, but what regulation is there to curb on the use of the right of free speech? if, for example parties or groups made false or misleading information, which was disseminated to the voters, what can be done to prevent that at a national level?
>> frank is deferring. >> let the press secretary answer that. >> two very difficult questions, to me, to begin with. they both go to the unique character of this 2016 presidential election. it has not been an uplifting inspirational occasion in the history of this country. it has been, frankly, one of the meanest and most bitter and most toxic presidential campaigns that i remember and as bill was gracious enough to say, i have worked on campaigns going back to 1976, usually for the losing candidate, by the way. >> thank god. >> i don't know the answer to the questions that you both posed.
there has been enormous personal levels of insult, character assassination is what our questioner called it and it has been among the things that has made this a dispiriting exercise for most americans. i think most americans would agree with the statement that we are happy that this campaign is coming to an end today because it has not been a good example of what spirited debate looks like in a democracy and i hope and pray that your countries provide the world better examples than we have provided in this election. of how people need to conduct themselves in a democracy, so the only hedge against the kind of false statements, mistruths and that information-- today
there's an article about fake news, news reports that appear to be real, but in fact, are entirely fabricated the answer to that for our system is a first amendment to the constitution and a vigorous peart-- free press, the fact that we have a media that can expose wise and falsehoods in character assassination that it occurs to bring that to that attention of the american people is the work that we have against things that would take our democracy in a bad direction. the relative strength and power of the media is in decline of this country because all of the change in the media and technology and the way in which people access content, but i think if you talk to journalists editors and publishers and producers of our media organizations, they understand
the critical responsibility they have to be the watchdogs to conduct ourselves as a democracy and there will be a lot of discussion in the aftermath of this election and the role the media has played to try to call a candidate on statements that have been made that are not true and there will probably be a very spirited debate about what types of things should happen the next presidential election to ensure that we don't have as to present a campaign is the one that just ended today. >> lets me ended this by saying that whoever wins this election and becomes the next president of the united states has a tremendous challenge and opportunity before him or her. whoever wins it.
this country is divided as that ever since-- never seen a divided and i've been through a lot of presidential campaigns and other campaigns. whoever wins this election has an obligation to try to bring this country back together again i have tremendous confidence in the american people, tremendous confidence and the overwhelming majority in my view, overwhelming majority of republicans, democrats and independents will reach out and support whoever wins this election, trying to get the job done there will be people who will yell and scream, but they always do. but, i am convinced that if the next president uses this as an opportunity to reach across party lines to stop the deadlock that has existed in this city in washington dc for some years and worked together, for example as ronald reagan did with tip o'neill, speaker of the house in
reaching across party lines to save the the social security system back in the 80s. it's that sort of opportunity that is before the next president's. i have confidence the american people will rally and will give that president the opportunity to get something done and i'm hopeful that will happen. thanks so much for you guys coming and i hope you learn and enjoy from your visit here. >> please join me in a round of applause for two great american public servants from two great political parties who have devoted their lives to improving the quality of debate in democracy in this country. our country is built on a culture of political trust, the hard work that these two men and their colleagues have done in creating a tradition of a commission on presidential debates has resulted in the opportunity for all americans to get to know their potential
presidents, their candidates for president on a personal basis and make a personal judgment about who want they wanted in their homes every day for the next four years on whatever type of media they were consuming. this contribution and particularly the eloquent and is really a great way for us now to transfer to the next stage of this conference and go and actually witness americans votes but, please join me in one last round of applause for these two gentlemen. [applause]. >> election night, tonight on c-span. watch the results of the part of a national conversation about the outcome be a location at hillary clinton and donald trump election night headquarters and watch victory and concession speeches in said houses and
governors races starting line at 8:00 p.m. eastern and throughout wednesday. watch live tonight on c-span on demand at c-span.org work this into our live coverage using the free c-span radio app. here on c-span2 we will simulcast the canadian broadcasting corporation's coverage of the us election. that also gets underway at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> voters are choosing which ballot member issues to vote today. >> mr. altic, thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> could you generally talk about what is a ballot measure and how they generally work? >> they can be divided into two sorts. every ballot measure is a poly decision that's put directly in the hands of the voter, so
direct democracy. there are measures that can be put on the ballot through signature petitions, so people collect signatures from registered voters in the various states and 26 states have apu process where you can put something on the ballot through collective signatures. the rest of the measures that voters see come from the legislature pick the legislature will vote to put a measure on the ballot and lots aree constitutional amendments because every state the delaware has to put constitutional amendments before the voter's. they can't pass them without f ratification from the voters and those are the two main types of measures there are also outliers like automatic referral that has to go on the ballot for the constitution, but most of the measures you see are put there by the legislature or citizens? host: when it comes to ballot measures considered today across the us, do they deal with issues of social issues or do they deal with democracy issues ask how
would you break those down? guest: we have broken it down into at least a 15 different topics. you have 1504 statewide ballot measures on the ballot for 34 differentda states on tuesday. they really do very as to what topic they come from. lots of measures about taxes, finance, but the topics that really are getting people going and making people vote this year our citizen initiatives and a concern things like marijuana legalization, minimum-wage, gun control, tobacco tax increases and healthcare is also a huge issue on the ballot to this year. host: when it comes to say the topic of marijuana what is considered across the us? guest: there are nine states that have marijuana questions and every single question would in some way legalize the policy on marijuana. that leaves you with 82 million residents82 m that live in states that
could be looser restrictions on. marijuana after november five of those states are voting on recreational marijuana legalization including california. you have california, nevada, arizona, maine and massachusetts for recreational marijuana legalization that is a huge step forward for that jenna. a national agenda has been putting pressure for quite some time now and you have seen the four states that have legalized marijuana, alaska, washington, colorado and oregon have all done so throughh citizen initiative. it is still a schedule one drug according to federal law, but the fact that you have five states voting on it and california especially i with the 53 representatives and its huge population. large economic value. you are looking at a state that could really change the game to policy around marijuana.
you could see pressure this year really building on the federal side of things to take it away from schedule one-sided maybe get a schedule to drug or remove prohibition. it's a big year for that policy and everyone is looking to see what happens with these ballot measures and see how it impacts the future of marijuana legalization. host: your website says when it comes to these ballot measures 123 million residents across the us will be affected by ballot measures concerning taxes. can you give us a sensegu of what's going on? guest: a lot of those tax measures do, from the legislature. those policies are wide. europe tax increases including kind of a really interesting one in california that was on the ballot initiative to continue attacks for education and you also have things like locke's box measure that specifically dedicate revenue to a specific purpose, so you see that in illinois, with
transportation revenue. revenue specifically for transportation and also the measured in california dedicating hospital fees to medi-cal and that is kind of a lock box measure to make sure funds are spent for a specific purpose and a lot of measures about tax exemptions. passing tax exemptions for widows of first responders or increasing tax exemptions for solar energy and things like that are on the ballot, so that is definitely a topic that reaches across the spectrum of increasing taxes, increasing exceptions and also what to do you do with the tax revenue and voters are getting to decide that in lots of different states. host: josh altic, for those ballot measures that don't come from legislatures, but fromm people, is it truly a-- grassroots effort? guest: they are called a citizen initiatives because of who has
to sign the petition, not necessarily who has to propose them or back them through funding. there was a study doneget of who is spending money to get these on the ballot and overall,are 71 there is 71 initiativeses on on the ballot and for of either referendum that easier-- either petition referendum. overall, they cost a million dollars onse on th average. it varies across the country and in california the average is more 2.9 million to get one of these things on the ballot. there were only seven actually volunteer driven and only volunteer driven successful initiative efforts and those are inin the current and northma dakota, which have really small signaturesignat environment.s as far as grassroots efforts, these need to be successful in a needbe to have money. whether you have a national organization like someone that has
money and pushing for an agenda across the country or one rich individual back in the measure, it depends on which one of those you have, but you need something like that to really succeed in putting one of these forward. with that being said, you need the money, but you also need support from a pretty large percentage of voters, so you need a significant number of signaturesrom re from registered voters to get these on thet on the ballot as well. host: before we let you go, are there any out of the ordinary measures this year?are th guest: oh, yes.s kind for sure. actually, when is thehe measure getting the mostecord. campaign money spent on it they share and probably a record for sometime now. that's in california, called prop 61. it's a measure backed by the eighth healthcare drugdation and it would tie the drug prices that california state government agencies have t
to pay to the rates that the veteran affairs department pays, so supporters say it with a lower drug prices and opponents say will damage the economy, but either way big pharma is spending overing 109 million to defeat that measure, so it's something they don't want to see go intothth effect in california and adding pressure to that race is the fact that the aids healthcare foundation has already certified a measure for the 2017 ballot that's nearly identical in ohio fac , so the fact that they are willing to push this particular policy in other areas in other states probably putting pressure on the pharma to keep this measure. that is something bernie sanders has endorse and is getting a lot of attention and no one is really sure exactly what the measure will be, but it's a first of its kind measure. host: josh altic, he is the ballot measures project director
joining us to give us a snapshot of things going on on this election day. mr. altic, thank you. guest: you are very welcome. thank you for having me on. >> the election today could also affect congress. current us hadn't-- house mentorship includes 246 republicans, 186 democrats and three vacancies, all 40025 members up for election in 218 are needed for a majority in the chamber. the votes counted here's a look at the history of reporting election-- recording election results. >> in the latest edition of time magazine and available online at time.com. , how the media got smarter about calling
elections. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: lets me begin with the question, how so? guest: well, in the early 2000, you might remember the media messed up a lot in calling the 2000 election for gore and then for bush and then neither, you know, catalyzing the select for a crisis, so in the wake of that they put their heads together and change a few things. the first one was that they formed the national election pool and changed their name, hired a new pollster. they hired edison research, very well-respected. they pledged before congress that they would not call an election based on exit poll results before they had the final-- before the polls had closed. so, that was a major difference. beginning in 1980, the
networks would call elections before the polls closed. then, the last thing they did that was really interesting is instead of allowing exit poll data to lead to newsrooms to become available to reporters, and to become available to anchor sitting at the desk and it pressure to report on that is huge. a actually chose to put it into quarantine, so the five big news outlets, abc, nbc, cbs, cnn and fox news all send people, data analysts and other tissues to a room with no phones, no computers, no tablets where they look at this election data all day long and analyze it, question it, polka, prodded, make sure that it's robust before reporting back to their individual outlet just before the polls close. host: as you point out in your
piece, this all begins at 6:00 a.m. east coast time on election day and continues throughout the day, so how does edison research determined where they send canvassers and what are they asking? guest: that's a great question. it's an absolutely incredible army of people. i mean, edison research said that about-- it's a little more than a thousand surveyors and then ap has their own army of stringers and members that have about 4000 more people reporting back from county seats, so between the two of those outlets , there's an absolutely enormous number of people on the ground. edison, for its part is hired by the big media outlets as part of the national election pool. the national election pool exley really-- actually comes up with the questions on this exit poll questionnaire and it's just a one-page questionnaire with two sides. about 20 questions, 15
to 20 questions. we don't know with those questions are now, but they work and arrived at by committee with abc, nbc, cbs, everyone else and they will go out to randomly selected precincts and that's an interesting difference from years past. they won't choose key precincts, not necessarily in key swing areas if they are randomly selected in these states and that will be whatever data they get from their the surveyors will talk about a hundred thousand people leaving the poll that information will be combined with telephone poles that research has been conducted over the last week with people who have voted early and absentee voters. host: so, is this to learn not only who voted on election day, so that networks can call it early, but also why they voted the way they did? guest: exactly. on that questionnaire, front that questionnaire
we know generally that every voter who is called ahead of time absentee or early voter or who is ask at exit poll as they are leaving will be asked to they voted for in the state national elections. and they will be-- and gubernatorial races. they will be asked why and their general feelings about the major candidates and they will be asked about which issues are important to them, so on this particular questionnaire there are questions about debt, pension, euthanasia, marijuana, big topline issues like that. host: we have come a long way from 1948 when the chicago tribune declared tom dooley the winner over harry s truman. guest: that's correct. that's kind of the chicago tribune headline there that says dewey defeats truman and i think it's that specter that hangs over the media on election night. you don't want to screw
it up that badly again took there is a very robust understanding and a talk to a lot of people who will be in the quarantine room. there is a very profound feeling that this time they have absolutely got to get it right. if there is a question, if it comes down to a very close call, most of the vote has been counted, but it's a tight race in the loser could still pull it out they will not call it. host: we will look for your reporting online at times.com. thank you for being with us. guest: thanks so much for having me. >> election night, tonight, on c-span. watch the results of the part of a national conversation about the outcome. the allocation of the hillary clinton and donald chubb election headquarters and watch a victory and concession speeches in key races starting line at 8:00 p.m. eastern and throughout wednesday. watch live tonight on c-span on demand at c-span.org or listen to our live coverage using
the free c-span radio. here on c-span2 we will simulcast the canadian broadcasting corporation coverage of the us election. that also gets underway at 8:00 p.m. eastern. a look at presidential candidates victory and concession speeches starting in 1980, when the sinking economy and iran hostage crisis where the issue of the day. republican ronald reagan defeated jimmy carter. us electoral college map shows ronald reagan earned more electoral votes than any nonincumbent present a candidate in the nation's history. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, not only the president, but the splendid
president of these united states. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> i promise you four years ago that i would never lie to you. so, i can't stand here tonight and say it doesn't hurt. [cheers and applause] >> the people of the united states have made a choice and i accept that decision. but, i have to admit, not with the same enthusiasm that i accepted the decision of four years ago. i might say--
[applause]. >> i have a deep appreciation of the system that lets people make the free choice about who will lead them for the next four years. about an hour ago i called governor reagan in california, and i told him that i congratulated him for a find victory. i look forward to working closely with him during the next few weeks. we will have a very fine transition period. i told him i wanted the best one in history and i sent him a telegram and i will read it to you. it's apparent the american people have chosen us the next president. i congratulate you and pledged to you i will support in bring about an orderly transition of government in the weeks ahead. my best wishes are with you and your family as you undertake the responsibilities that lie before you and i find it jimmy carter.
[cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> i have been blessed as only a few people ever have. to help shape the destiny of this nation. in that effort i have had your faithful supports. in some ways i have been the most fortunate of
all presidents because i have had the daily eight of a wise man and a good man at my side, in my judgment the best vice president anyone ever had. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> i have not achieved all i set out to do, perhaps no one ever does. but, we have faith-- based half issues. with search warrant fought for and achieved very important goals for our country. these efforts will not end with this administration. the effort must go on. nor will the progress that we had made be lost when we leave office. the great principles that have guided this nation since its founding will continue to guide america to the
the -- through the challenges of the future this has been a long and hard-fought campaign, as you well know, but we must now come together as a united and a unified people to solve the problems that are so before us to meet the challenges of a new decade and i urge all of you to join in with me in a sincere and fruitful efforts to support my successor when he undertakes this great responsibility is presidents of the greatest nation on earth [applause]. [applause]. >> ours is a special country because our vast economic and military strength give us a
special responsibility for seeking solutions to the problems that confront to the world, but our influence will always be greater when we live up to those principles of freedom, of a justice, of human rights for all people. god has been good to me. god has been good to this country. i am truly thankful. are thankful for having been able to serve you in this capacity. thankful for the successes that we have had. thankful that to the end you were with me and every good thing that i have tried to do. there is an old proverb that i have often thought of in that time i've held this office and excessively: golf-- god gives the burdens and also shoulders and all the days and months that i have served you answer this country you have readily given me your shoulders. your faith and your prayers no man could ask anymore of his friends. i have wanted to serve
earlier this evening i spoke on the phone with president carter. he called. john anderson called, but the president pledged-- pledge the upmost in the transition that will take place in these coming months. i offered him my own cooperation. he graciously said he wanted this to be the-- [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> we wanted to show you what the map of the united states looks like as of tonight. >> when that began to
slide i thought that maybe the world was going out just as i was getting in. anyway, as i say, the president to as most gracious about this and now all across america there are some people that i zero a great debt of thanks to. baby-- there they are meeting tonight international headquarters. the national committee people, the dedicated professionals who have made the campaign run and in every state in the counties, the cities and the precincts to all of them who work so tirelessly, literally hundreds of thousands of volunteers and i have seen them at work throughout the country on this campaign and i just zero them on immeasurable that-- that of thanks. to george and barbara bush, our running mates
down in texas. no one has worked harder than they have. we only crossed paths a few times on this campaign and had to go out of our way to do it because their schedule was so heavy and i can tell you we will have a true partnership and a true friendship in the white house. [cheers and applause] >> now, as i said before , my family. i am so grateful to them for their love, support and for the hard work. some of them were out on the campaign trail easily as much as nancy and i work. speaking of nancy, she is going to have a new title in a couple of months. [cheers and applause]
>> is it-- it isn't really new because she has been the first lady in my life for a long time. [cheers and applause] >> now, we will share that a little bit in the future. you know, abe lincoln, the day after his election of the presidency gathered in his office summit news man who had been covering his campaign and he said to them, well, boys your troubles are over now and mine have just begun. i think i know what he meant. lincoln may have been concerned in the troubled times in which he became president, but i don't think he was afraid. he was ready to confront the problems, the troubles of the country,
determined to seize the historic opportunity to change things and i am not frightened by what lies ahead and i don't believe that american people are frightened by what lies ahead. [cheers and applause] >> together, we will do what has to be done. we will put america back to work again. [cheers and applause] >> you know, i aim to try to tap that great american spirit that opened up this completely undeveloped continent from coast to coast and made it a great nation, survived
several awards, survived a greater depression, and we will surprise-- survived the problems that we face right now. [cheers and applause] >> when i accepted your nomination, i hesitatingly, but i asked for your prayers at that moment. i won't ask them for them at this particular moment, but i will just say that i would be very too happy to have them in the days ahead. [cheers and applause] >> all i can say to all of you is, thank you and thank you for more then just george bush and myself. thank you because if the
and we will simulcast the canadian broadcasting corporation of the election that gets underway at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> three presidential candidates 1992 george h. w. bush, ross perot and bill clinton. recent story says the election had impact on the of modern internet. the web does not comment but the early effort to create the online database and the text of all daily - - bill clinton's schedule some
papers were made available online. here are those concessions speeches followed by the bill clinton victory speech. [cheers and applause] [chanting] [chanting] >> this is the way that we see it that people have spoken we reach - - respect the majesty of the system might just called governor clinton to offer my congratulations you ran a strong campaign. i wish him well in the white house and now what the country to announce that our entire administration will work closely with his team to ensure that there is a smooth transition of power.
there is work to be done and america must always come first. we will get behind this new president. [applause] for all who voted for us especially here but all across the country, you for your support to we fought the good fight we kept the faith that i believe my upheld the honor of the presidency. [cheers and applause] but now i ask that we get behind hour new president and regardless of our differences, all americans share the same purpose to make this the of world's greatest nation to guarantee every american in a shot at the american dream.
and to literally change the world. also to our vice president dan quayle. [cheers and applause] for that tremendous pounding he stood for what he believes and and will always have my profound gratitude and certainly my respect. i would salute so many do ran the campaign, our entire campaign team that has a valiant effort in a very difficult year also salute the members of the cabinet, all of whom have served this nation with honor and integrity and great distinction of like to
single out those two leaders the ideal of public-service to go astray period unprecedented transition of course i am talking about when national-security divisors -- advisers. brent scowcroft and jim baker. [applause] [cheers and applause] and finally a special emphasis with a woman named barbara. [cheers and applause] she has