to that, mr. bewkes? >> yes. the same is true in the history of time warner. we had a merger with aol were some agreements on carriage of other networks are made and they were followed with no incident. and then in the turner and time warner merger we had conditions which also were followed without incident. so our record is without, and there's no instance in which we did not comply with any conditions we had in our various mergers. >> of course i'm not talking about your companies in particular but your companies in particular are the ones who want to be, one company right now. you can understand why some people would express this concern, and you do own some news entities and there are other news entities that have expressed concerns they might be blocked out for one reason or another either through pricing models or as a result of where you locate them, what number
they are assigned, what channel they are assigned to, whether it's put in the same grouping as other news outlets or otherwise. do you understand why people might have that concern? >> yes, sir i do. i don't think those are terribly unique to other concerns people have expressed in past mergers that we've been a party to. i do believe that those of been adequately address about with concessions and conditions. again i will repeat i think both companies have a stellar, flawless track would with complying with this condition. >> ms. ziman, you state that over the top distribution as you put it a one-way ticket to bankruptcy. can you explain why this is not what you would consider a viable business model for independent networks? >> well, right now the ott
market doesn't have the amount of subscribers that make it a business. number one, it's a maze of confusion as i said before. it's a search engine nightmare. for a lot of people that are not used to it. mr. cubans children are much more used to it than some people that are a little older. but at the same time in order to get number one licensees, that's impossible. and in order to get advertisers to advertise with you at such a small market, it wouldn't work. plus, you need to be able to use linear service in order to actually get your brand known to the public. and at the same time you need to be able to show the public that you are delivering and network that is curated and meets their interest and their needs in order for them to then also want some dod, the ods of the market.
we are actually distributing over the ott market, but the reality is it's a very fragmented market right now and confused market. and, therefore, if we relied on it solely, it would be a one-way ticket to bankruptcy because you can't survive. you have the obligation, we are all gatekeepers to the communication media. that's a fiduciary responsibility to deliver to the public content that is quality oriented, that they deserve. that means you have to spend the money and either licensing content or original production. i disagree with some of the people that think hbo is there because of distribution. ..
in order to get an advertiser interest in it, you have to have a distribution of the 25 million subscribers. that is almost impossible right now because they are shedding the doors on independence, innovation, good quality original programming. you don't have any negotiating power. mr. cuban is part as for cbs. it's a different story and even he couldn't get with time warner. it's an impossible marketplace right now and we need to improve the period if we really look at
what is happening here come if we are moving towards an oligarchical he and if you look at taiwan, for instance, with six conglomerate on multimedia, when they want different content, they simply trade at the cost of the public which is rising and rising and the cost of free speech. >> thank you good senator called the chart. >> thank you. i apologize for leaving briefly appeared senator mikulski was giving her closing speech of her senate career and we had a big event to cuba and i carried the bill to lift the embargo as opposed to mr. cuban as with the cubans. so i wanted to kind of go back to some of these cost issues. the money the typical american households which you mention spends 2700 per year continues to trouble me and i am concerned the transaction won't reduce that burden. i think you argue there could be
a chance that it would increase it. is this a legitimate concern and why? >> senator called the chart, that is the baseline and it is the result if you look at a 20 year period of consolidation and limited regulatory oversight during periods of that that have enabled prices to be inflated. there is competition on the market and coming new competition competition coming from your sources about but it is hard to squeeze it out. i will say with what is being offered in the market and includes with time warner is offering and at&t, there is hope the online platform is opening up in offering their products and services and seven at lower prices. the real fear is whether the combined company once it looks that its overall interest will favor itself. and potentially harm competitors. that's where the rub comes on
the prices. they might offer a better price than they might offer it for some time, but in the long run for the competitive process be offended? that is what enforcers need to look at. >> you see a chance there could be another model rather than the monthly cable? >> absolutely. in some ways that their only hope for all the reasons here everyone has stated. the you are concerned about a few things. the prices may be initially 60 bucks or something and then it goes up it would be $35 for 100 channels, but then it goes up and so you are worried about that and also worried there would be less competition for content in things like that and eventually we have problems because of that. you think you could build some conditions into that? >> heart of the reason for the longer-term concern as comcast are already vertically integrated and the mec programming.
you're your time warner program. will they compete aggressively? i certainly hope so. in a market where there are few vertically integrated companies, there is a danger that they'll buy more to cbs, viacom, who knows to escalate against each other, but also follow the same market is in a structure and deal with each other, may be a high prices because they passed onto the consumer, but then charge them through to every other distributor in the market. again, if somebody can come up with something comparable to hbo, they can compete against it. it's been tough. only few major content providers provide the high quality content and we tend to get locked into that. you buy other things on the side, but that means you are paying more for other things. that's why the bill is so high.
>> so $35 for 100 channels is a good deal of, but isn't that introductory price that will go up to 60 bucks or something like that? >> these two go together. i think it is important to understand why we put a $35 product in the marketplace. it is because the old system is find out row can. contact costs continue to escalate. cable bills continue to collect up $10,000 average cable tv bill and 20 million households have opted out. they said we don't want this product anymore. it's too expensive. so we brought this product to market to address those households and is proving we found a sweet spot. it's not as though we have pricing power down here. the pricing power doesn't exist because we opt-out if you don't meet the price point. we've tried to get the cost down, distribution costs down.
to ensure we can get into a market and hit a price point that customers will come back and to the pay-tv system and they are doing it. as soon as we can begin to move prices up and take advantage of that, they have demonstrated they'll do this again. i think we are bound on this and we've reached a place of a consumer that they are happy and willing to enter this market place again. >> to give us some plants, in your testimony you say in short we are still going to purchase high-quality content from all corners of the content community and will continue to distribute time warner program widely. in my understanding your position correctly after the acquisition at&t would not discriminate against content providers in favor of time warner content? >> i don't think we have a choice. the business proposition is he better have a wide array of content. you will lose customers if you do not.
i think we pointed out an interesting dilemma here. we want a broadway trade show of content and everybody wants to be paid for their content whether it is brought to you or ship or not. at the same time we are being challenged to get prices down. the two are inconsistent. we have to figure out what content to the customers want to map what does the government want, but the customers. >> you at the same point but i'm asking about is would you discriminate against non-time warner content? >> there's no advantage to ignore what we do it. how do we determine for contract negotiations between providers and distributors are long, complicated, how do we determine whether at&t has lived up to that commitment? >> we have to allow the department of justice to formulate an approach for doing that. >> mr. bewkes, my last question. and your testimony you explain
time warner's goal has always been to distribute our content broadly across all distributors and platforms. am i understanding this correctly, that after the acquisition time warner will not limit the availability of content to content distributors to compete with at&t? >> right, correct. >> one can deny content through the offer terms and prices. how would we determine that you are that they map to this commitment if there is discrimination based on prices? >> again do it easily say that. we've got fairly uniform privations across all distribution path arms. if you think of verizon, at&t contest, they fall quite vigorous in the negotiation and it's a very competitive
situation. everyone would know because they would not accept the terms that were not equal for what they could get from our content providers. >> last question because i've had some of the incoming for some of these complaints. the universal merger was approved with conditions as you know. how effective do you think those conditions were in preventing anticompetitive harm because they think it will inform the justice department and agencies in this committee as we go forward in terms of what conditions we think would be appropriate. >> i think it's a mixed bag. the fact that netflix has grown. the fact that sling tv has been able to get comcast-nbc program are divorced positive signs in the big take advantage of that. smaller companies have come up short. bloomberg went through a three-year dispute over that.
the problem with conditions is exactly the questions you are just asking. is it discrimination? are the prices the same? here it's even more complicated because its nationwide distribution. its wireless switch has them inherently to the problem and there's some legitimate reasons why you're not getting the quality you want and there can be something grander scale. as much as i certainly respect the justice department to adverse conditions, they do not have the engineers and the experts to look at all these kind of issues. they are very aware of that. these are very difficult areas to thoroughly pleased that there is an inclination to discriminate. >> very good. thank you, all of you. >> senator franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. select googled on my phone when
gretzky and where the puck is going and the first entry is in the annals of overuse corporate clichés, if you match the immortal words of walter gretzky has passed on to the world through his son, wayne skate to where the puck is going, not to where it has been. so congratulations to several of bias for using the most over used corporate cliché. >> i must have really missed something. >> you did. you are the same to barbara mikulski talk i doubt about hockey. [laughter] i'll tell you where the pocket is going. it is going wireless. okay? i want to talk briefly about data free tv which allows at&t customers to stream directv
without incurring any data charges. at&t is white paper on the topic suggest that they thought remiss not discriminatory against other programmers or over-the-top competitors because they can pay the exact same rate direct tv pays at&t for the privilege. however, i understand they have done the math and estimates it would cost an unaffiliated mobile video service provider that netflix or hulu fire more to participate in the program than the $35 a month directv currently charges. the fcc argues that participation in the program would make it difficult if not infeasible for a directv now competitor to offer its
customers a competitively priced service. my question is, explain again how your company is not taking money -- how this is an anti-competitive because you'd be taking money out of your right pocket, putting it in your left pocket. if directv is paid a lower price and you're basically supplementing them. as the fcc asks that most recent letter, how exactly does directv make payments to at&t mobility for this survey is into the respective entities and record such payments? >> i don't know exactly what the payment mechanism is across entities. >> could be good if he did know
it. >> i don't know flatow wire transfer or journal entry to record the transferred, but at the end of the day, the results of directv to impede the flag the cost paid to our mobility business. look at the margins of directv reflect that cost. there is a cost incurred by delivering mobility. if the variable cost business. >> but how do we know that you can't be favoring something that you loan directv as opposed to some entity that would like to have their data delivered free to the consumer? >> we are charging everybody the lowest wholesale price for data transport that we have. everybody gets the same. they companies, small companies. >> i am not sure about that assurance.
how do we know that? >> we can provide data to justice department can look at this and get themselves with the data. we can make data available. that's not a difficult thing to do. >> it sounds difficult to me because we don't know how do you compute that? this is basically unlimited data for your user, directv. in other words, if some other provider parallel to directv wanted to get free data i wanted that service delivered by at&t, how do we know that you are not given directv deal because you own it.
>> this is a mechanism used in our industry for decades. there is a pricing mechanism, same terms and conditions. we will not discriminate against others who want the same service. >> mr. tillman, chris you speak to mr. stephenson's characterization of at&t's track record on complying with commitments as spotless. >> senator, all i can say is it's a great company and i think they are a very aggressive competitor. sometimes aggressive competitors can step over the line. there have been varieties of complaints at different points in time. these will be reviewed by the agencies. they're wonderful company but anybody who's competing hard, sometimes compete a little too hard and that is nothing new in the marketplace. >> a year ago at&t was thought at&t was flat with a $25 million fine for failing to protect his
personal information. mr. stephenson about a year ago, he and i discussed how his company lobbied to prevent municipalities for their own brad and networks to make their communities named. this is using your competitive advantage. i'd love to see that data. by the way, i would like to see the fcc involved in this. in the bloomberg dispute, wasn't that the fcc dealing with that. he said doj has all these resources. that was the fcc dealing with bloomberg, right? >> that's correct, senator. >> the dissent agrees there with the department of justice. >> in a number of these cases, there have been parallel commitment at the sec within understanding the fcc would do the enforcement because they are
the regulator of the industry with expertise. i would say, for example on access to programming comcast-nbc u., their restrictions in place the department of justice decided not to impose those because the fcc was putting us in place. there were parallels were trying to block online innovation in video and the department of justice said they would defer to the fcc for enforcement action and most are nearly always says. so teach one of those at least involved dual agency action with a reliance on the fcc for the deep industry expertise. also just mention one name. mr. chairman, you raise the section five issue. i want to point out we believe the court decision was horrible and needs to be appealed, but there is a gap year
mr. stephenson missed, which is if they purchased time warner and they have content, the fcc can only regulate their common carriage business regardless of how the court wanted to look at it. they are restricted by congress to one of the cannot common carriage assets, which i do not believe these assets would be as many other value-added service or anything that's an online service. there is a gap there that i think is significant. >> i'm not smart enough, knowledgeable enough in a particular area as it relates to content to refute. i do think it do think a point that i need to get clarity around regulations over these issues. >> a third rounder can i complete my questioning? >> mr. stephenson, i want to turn now to send a new side at a "wall street journal" live event. he shrugged off the comparison of your deal to comcast-nbc universal saying that one of the
biggest regulatory concerns around that deal net neutrality has largely been resolved. that event happened prior to, so i'll give you another chance to address the comparison. you still think the concern over ensuring that chalabi has largely been resolved and as an historic proponent of matthew charlie d. are you going to urge president elect trump to enforce the open internet border and ask republicans in congress to halt their plans for legislation repealing the order in order to get the deal approved? >> i would like to further suggest i am not a strong opponent -- opponent of net neutrality. we have, i have 2010 been an advocate of the net neutrality principles. no blocking, no discrimination.
we helped craft those rules to work for senator waxman to craft rules we hoped would become law. >> didn't you go to court? >> we went to court against title ii categorization of our services. that is not synonymous with net hiv. net neutrality has historically been at the fcc has no prioritization. the fcc chose to take a much broader approach and put wireless and broadband services under title ii regulations in 1939-based regulation for services they been in transition it fast. >> he went to court before they did that. you went to court which basically -- >> no, sir. we did not. the 2010 rules that were imposed in court, we did not. we supported them and we helped craft them.
>> okay, i stand corrected i guess. not the first time. [laughter] thank you. i just wanted -- i guess i'm done. i would like to see the fcc, by the way, have their section here. would you? >> yes, senator frank. again, i think there's a question of exactly how the jurisdiction is divided into an asset is involved in the transaction for the companies to work out. but at least as compared to previous transactions that are similar, it would be beneficial to the public policy process. >> mr. stephenson and mr. bucher you have not committed to submitting your deal for review, is that correct? >> we are working through the process right now.
the trigger for the fcc review is whether we assume many licenses from time warner. data on access to over 100 licenses. we are going through licensed by licensed discerning which we need to actually transferred. can we get through that review we can't say whether there'll be an application or not. i would suggest to you that the doj as mr. kimmelman has pointed out looks to the fcc and i have no doubt the doj will continue to work as they go through this review. you'll also keep the sec posted by the redo a formal filing or not. >> it's just that there's a different level that you have to meet, whether it is fcc for doj. fcc, their merger review requires that any proposed deal actually benefits consumers. so i would think that the
message you're sending to bias in the current and potential at&t consumers if you can't confidently assert that this deal benefits the american public is not a great message. mr. kimmelman, you think the fcc should preview still? >> at this within their jurisdiction at all i believe they should. i think it would add a benefit to the overall public policy analysis. >> thank you. >> i want to thank you all for coming and participating today for answering questions and providing testimony. we received a statement from mr. patrick gosch. the record will remain open for a week for an additional questions and submissions. this hearing will be adjourned.
right now c-span.org. >> and craig silliman is general counsel and executive vice president of the verizon corporation. mr. silliman, what does that mean? >> guest: i have responsibility for all of our legal function, public policy and security functions. >> host: describe verizon as a business today. what are some of the entities that are under the verizon umbrella? >> guest: a great question. verizon has changed quite a bit. we have our network businesses, wireless business which is nationwide in the u.s. broadband on the northeast quarter at her enterprise business which provides network services around the world for government and enterprise customers. we've also expanded significantly into internet of things and sort of internet video and content business. with acquired aol.
of course announced a plan to acquire yahoo!. over the course of last couple of months we've acquired to tell a medic companies. acquired connected vehicles, smart status of business. you see as increasingly building out into internet of things and online video. >> host: given the nature of your business how often does a federal policy play a role in business decisions that you make? >> guest: it is policy that permits a lot of what we do. it's no luck just telecom policy. we have all rounds of policy going on in washington. in fact some part of our business, everyone in the company wake up thinking about policy everyday? no. do they think about customer needs? but because of the scope and scan of our business there are elements of policy that touch on almost everything we do. >> host: with the new incoming administration, a new federal
communications commission, what's one of issues you will be looking at regulatory and legislatively? >> guest: i think a couple of things going on in the new administration. one of the top things we are focused on is infrastructure, particularly fiber build. when you think about the world we're in today, whether it is wireless, where increasingly difficult back a couple of years, you had a lot of big cell towers transmit it a couple of miles. increasingly as you see this incredible demand for mobile services we are disappointed network. what that means is we are building the fiber deeper and deeper into the networks so the wireless signals are traveling a shorter distance. that means when we talk about our wireless networks, 90% is actually fiber. you mention the internet of things and smart city. look at what cities are tried to do. you need a massive fiber infrastructure to do all that. a lot of the issues we're looking at, where is all that
fiber going to come from? making sure it's all accessible so we can continue to build all the services and solutions on the top of it. >> host: you are not getting just with the fed but state and local governments, cities? >> guest: one of the interesting trends is the increasing importance of the municipality, workings with -- working with mayors offices. a lot of innovation and they are looking at how do they create and if i but that's a great place to live that draws workers in the habit you build smart city solutions to make them more efficient? all of that is built on technology and ultimately built on fiber. a lot of great things going on. >> host: let's bring john mckinnon in to our discussion. >> talk more about infrastructure. congress has been thinking a lot about another infrastructure bill. the president-elect is thinking about as well. how could that play into what you see as the future of infrastructure and fiber development? >> guest: it can be part of
it. we talk about roads and bridges what that when you talk about infrastructure and that's an incredibly important part of it but today with our knowledge-based economy, the services provided, i do think think we need to seek fiber as one of those fundable aspects of infrastructure for economic growth. one of the aspects is the idea that as part of an infrastructure package, you might see some sedation for fiber builds across the country spirit what kind of subsidy are we talking about? tax type? >> guest: can't speak for the incoming administration but i think what you want to look at obviously is any place the market is driving investment you don't need to subsidize. there could be through his ways you can do that. basically look at areas where the marketings may not be there to build up fiber, which is expensive, a heavy capital investment. to encourage whichever players
may want to play in that space, build more fiber and places that otherwise would not be built spirit what other kinds of places we're talking about? are they rural, city? >> guest: the economics of fiber get harder and harder as you do less and less dense areas. the more dense the population base you have the more the economics for building fiber makes sense. i think to think that one is that you are probably looking at rural areas where the economics for the build might not make sense. the second thing you want to think about is that the combination of fiber and wireless is pretty powerful, and you may not need to build fiber where you build it all the way down to a premises, but rather build out two nodes and let people build wireless capability on the ends of those to serve end-users. that may be a cost-effective or more cost effective and more efficient way to get fiber out there but not have to go all the way to the last mile. >> what do you think president-elect trump thinks
about the telecommunications business? he is succeeding president obama who is very tech savvy here he professes not to be as tech savvy, edit think a lot of people perceive he doesn't only focus on silicon valley,, certainly. what do you think he wants out of the telecommunications industry? >> guest: i can't speak for president-elect trump. i can't say what he himself thinks. i'll tell you where think we should all they can about this. i think, as mentioned before, we live in a world where increasingly the services element of the economy is growing. it's a tremendous opportunity for the country to grow as we move into new sectors, new areas of innovation, research and development. all that is built on top of communications platforms. so in order for us to be as a country leading the world in new r&d, in new innovations, we need to make sure that we have those
underlying communication networks as robust as possible, as ubiquitous as possible. all policymakers should be think about how do we continue to encourage that investment in the broadband networks, continue innovation in a platforms so that we reach as many people and it's not a static point. you never reach a point where you are done. you need that continued investment to keep upgrading upo keep track with the demand. i think it should be a a fundamental part of all the other economic growth components of the new administration. >> host: craig, you mentioned 90% of the so-called wireless traffic is done on wired lines. is there a disconnect between wireless policy and wired policy and should to be treated the same? >> guest: increasingly i think we do need to look at the networks coming together converging and you need to look at overall communications policy. there are certain areas unique to one or the others. spectrum is there unique to wireless but increasingly,
everyone is looking at mobility. people are connected with their devices, with their tablets. but then they be in your home, let me get out on the street. when you were doing that that you are really connecting over wireless technology but very quickly moving into a wired infrastructure. there are aspects of the networks and aspects of the industries that of the most networks that still differ a little bit. it's not completely harmonized and the same policies don't comply completely. one example is you still have more nationwide wireless carriers and a number of other players come in, for example, cable players coming in. there's a lot of competition on the edge. there are fewer people who were building the core fiber networks article lacks networks. that will probably always be the case. it probably will not be economically viable to have five or six players over building those wireline fiber networks. it doesn't make sense to do that. it makes a lot more sense to
have those cheered in some way, wholesale, whereas you may have a lot of competition going on on the edge of the wireless networks with all sorts of different technologies. when you look at the markets and how competitive they are, a lot of the issues, think about privacy and cybersecurity, those issues i think what the big issues for some years to, increasingly are common. >> host: a couple of issues that might be revisited with the incoming trump administration is net neutrality. >> guest: it may be. i think, it will be interesting to see what the debate around the net neutrality is. when we talked about this, talked about for a long time, net neutrality is often conflated within the whole debate about title ii. certainly i have said, verizon said for some time, many, many years we support the net neutrality principles. what the fight is been about for many years is about the jurisdictional hook the fcc used
to get there. we came out some time ago before the court decisions on title ii net neutrality and said the way to success is for congress to sell to codify the net neutrality principles into law and a different section of the law and move away, but the whole title ii debate behind us. unfortunately it didn't do that and i think senator nelson and their staff did a lot of work to try to get there. but ultimately what happened in this whole net neutrality debate was you had some advocates that i think either moved the goalposts o are ultimately revealed what they really wanted which was not net neutrality but title ii contents of the push very hard to not have congress simply codify net neutrality rules. i think that was a little disingenuous at in retrospect it was probably a bad political calculation. the real question as i think net neutrality principles are still important. what we do need to stand back and look and say, what is the statutory framework under which
the sec is operating? they have been trying to put square pegs in round holes for some time on some of his jurisdictional questions and that needs to be fixed. i think the new administration working at what you will need to protect consumers. what's the right set of different agencies? watch their jurisdiction? and from that flows questions like how do you protect net neutrality principles? we can do any much smarter, much more efficiently if we step back and look and say we are in 2016, soon-to-be 2017, let's come up with 17, let's come up with a 21st century framework, not under a 1996 law. that doesn't answer the question of what happens to net neutrality rules, but it begins to get into a question of what is the statutory framework under which all these decisions should be made and that's important for the new administration to take on. >> host: and the communication sky greg walton is coming at as the chair of the energy and commerce committee. >> guest: he is. he knows the industry very, very well. he's been involved in these
issues deeply for some years, subcommittee chair. he's fantastically knowledgeable about these. he's also very sort of open-minded, thermite in the way he deals with his things. i think will be a great leader. >> host: define congress overall understand some of the technical issues that you are dealing with? >> guest: it's going to be a mix. congress deals with such a vast array of issues you can't expect every member to understand every issue. but we do have members, greg walden being one of them who do understand these things very, very well. just as important to have staff members who have lived in this world for a long time. a couple of key staffers on the hill that everyone knows are very, very good, very smart, very, very thoughtful, very, very knowledgeable. >> there's a narrative that you made hitting at, how can comes to come such a complex issue like rewriting the telecom act? the fact is your key leaders, key members and key staffers
that actually have the capability to do this. they have the knowledge, the wherewithal to take on these issues. >> you envision legislation that could sort of refine the definition of title ii or maybe make clear that your business doesn't fit under title ii, by and large. you brought in. do you foresee that this legislation would be limited to that or could there be a lot of other issues? if so what do you think those issues might be? >> guest: if it were me i would stand back and take a fresh look at the industry. think about the 1996 telecom act. it was worked on for some years before 96 so it really reflects the world of the early '90s. what were some of the key issues they were trying to solve for? long-distance and local competition come into effect. that's been wildly successful but think about the debates about privacy. you have the privacy provision,
the so-called privacy provision that originally was written as basically a marketing. it was written say the local phone company sees your calling patterns, your long-distance calling patterns, so i have an advantage marketing a long-distance plan. that may have been an important issue in 1995. completely irrelevant in today's world. that provision wasn't in any way written as a broad privacy provision for the internet. think about a world that didn't have any of the major players think of today, google and facebook and twitter. that wasn't part of the system. it was really about local long-distance competition bringing the cable guys in. again, hugely successful and what it was meant to accomplish but not all structured for the way the industry works today. i think you really want to stand back. instead of tinkering with the telecom act you stand back and say what is the structure, what
are the think you're trying to achieve a rep competition and consumer protection and how to write a statute to set agencies that are designed to operate and achieve those things, things, competition and consumer protection in today's world? >> you see a fairly far-reaching scope for this legislation? >> guest: i do. i think if you think about the amount of technological and market change over 20 years, that if you're going to change it, start from a blank sheet of paper and so what am i trying to achieve? don't think around edges for something that's not fit for purpose at all in today's world. >> host: at what point do you draw the upright in a fit and say okay, from this this date forward let's move? how do you draw that line? >> guest: that's a great question. it goes to the point that she really can't expect congress to put something in statute that anticipate the future. no one can. if we all knew how to anticipate the great new technology of the future, we would have a crystal ball that would allow us to be great investors. you can't expect to congress to do that.
you have to design a law that doesn't assume technologies. you have to base on a couple core principles. how do you drive competition, protect consumers? but don't build a statutory framework as it is today what it's built around silos of telecom, cable, wireless. when all those things mailed, it begins to put strains on the fundamental statutory construction for what you want to do is say i assume continued evolution, assume and build it on a couple of guiding principles like competition, like consumer protection. and then the statues can reflect and move as the technology grows. >> host: does it indicate as well that the sec perhaps should be reorganized? >> guest: i think that the sec certainly should continue to evolve with the new technology. the fcc originally has been built around certain silos of technologies, wireline and wireless, whatnot. as this issue become more belted i think you need to look at that.
that's not a criticism of the way something were set up in the past, simple recognition as the technology changes, as the market change you need to change the framework of the regulator to make sure that they are structured in a way to meet the needs of today's technology, today's markets and consumer behavior. >> did you think you should keep regulation what are called edge providers, the internet companies such as google or facebook, when it comes to privacy issues or other issues like that, do you think that regulation should stay at the ftc or should've moved to the fcc? is there a way to slice that? >> guest: for supply think the question of what you should regulate, we should be careful not to fall into thinking this as a certain class of companies or a type of technology should be regulated. he always want to look and say where is their competition? where there is more competition you need less regulation. when you see markets breaking
down that's where you go for -- what of it consumers harmed that arise? as for your larger question, it clearly isn't the case the ftc and fcc are increasingly overlapping in terms of their jurisdiction. you see that with verizon. you asked earlier about the type of business is verizon is in and you are in this situation where parts of the basic regular by one agency and parts by another. given a mobile device, consumer consumer protection is driven in part by where in that device companies at the network, the operating system? that doesn't make sense. it's not good for consumers either. over time to begin to say how are we protecting, what are the important consumer protection principles? what is the agency best suited to regulate across an entire ecosystem in a coherent way? i certainly think that would be good policymaking going forward.
>> speaking of change in markets, at&t, one of your rifles, he is trying to did a deal to acquire time warner. how does it make you think about your business? what does it reflect about the market and how it is changing? >> guest: i think first, i can't speak to at&t's rationale for the deal because far as how we look at it from our business, we have articulated a strategy, comfortable with that. to a large degree what you see is at&t is by a couple of very good assets assets, directv andw with time warner, that are the traditional winners in the particular content dissipation or content creation part of the ecosystem to our strategy is really looking at what we believe content consumption, distribution, production is going. some of the mobile first, highly curated but also personalized
over the top type of videos, for example, we are doing with go 90. a lot of our businesses are with aol, whether it's yahoo!, whether it's our investment in tv or comp lex media. those are all about really saying we think this is where the puck is going and will skate to where we think the puck is going as opposed to the current distribution and content creation model. >> host: what is going 90? >> guest: it's an apt that serves up short form professional produce content on advertising-based model. so it's not a subscription model. you get the content for free. it supported by advertising and it's really designed for the way, particularly mulligans are consuming content on the go, mobile first, short form following different shows, different stores things like that and available for download. i can help you put on your device. >> host: if that's the future as you say, what happens to your fios home package?
>> guest: that continues to be a great business. fios also includes broadband which is underpinning all of this here that fios broadband continues to be a great business, when we continue to invest in. we also see the traditional linear content model, continued to be attractive for some time to come. but consumers do want more and more flexible in how they buy. we been pushing skinny bundles, try to give consumers more flexibility in what channels make it as part of the package if you don't want to buy the full 500 channels but would rather have 60. that's a struggle because of the way that contracts are set up today and the way that content licensing works but we're trying to push that takes consumers more of a full span of options and how they consume content, everything from the traditional 50500 package linear model to something like go 90 that is flexible on the go short form on-demand. >> going back to the at&t deal,
does is put more pressure on you to do a bigger deal? you certainly acquired some big companies recently, but are you under more pressure now to acquire a big media company? >> guest: i don't think so. fundamentally our strategy will be driven by what we think we need to meet consumer demand, not just a reaction reaction to what someone else does. don't read anything into whether we would wouldn't do such a deal. simply whether we do or don't want not be driven by what at&t has them but rather how we read the strategic landscape. >> how do see the landscape differently than at&t? >> guest: as i said i think there is a whole spectrum of potential content consumption, reduction, distribution. there is probably going to be room for success in various of those models. consumers will look for different things. maybe that there's room to compete in different areas at the same time but we are putting
a bit more of our bet right now on the forward-looking distribution and consumption models that at&t. >> host: craig silliman, tom wheeler is not a fan of so-called zero rating. what is verizon perspective? >> guest: it's funny the about of news about zero rating because zero rating is a business model that's been around for a long, long time. "wall street journal" has advertisements that meets my subscription is less than otherwise would be. broadcast tv and radio, i can consume content without paying for that. back in the day when netflix are still doing a lot of dvds they paid for the many of that. amazon can a lot of retailers paid for the mailing. there's a fundamental business model that's been around for a long time that says companies will provide i think that transport for free in order to encourage consumers to consume more of the content that they are providing. that's a pretty well-established
business model and generally speaking i think when consumers get something for free there pretty happy and it's a pretty good thing. i've been a little amused as i see some of the advocates of opposing curated. i sometimes think there's a classical quote by a jamaican where he defined puritanism as the haunting fear that someone somewhere is happy -- h. l. mencken. think about zero rating, some of his folks have this haunting fear that someone somewhere is getting something for free, and a look at at and i think, it feels frankly a little patronizing, condescending if i say, peter, i know you love getting all that content streaming for free but it's bad for you, believe me. take my word for it. i think it's great for consumers. it gives people more what they want. it's a well-established model that's been around for a long time. i think policymakers ultimately will agree with that. >> another thing that people like is to get their broadband
important that we talk about in the policymaking world and that's a growing threat from nationstates. the u.s. government is a little schizophrenic on this issue when you have a major attack. she parts of the government that are punishing the victim. every time you have the reach and you have the agencies come in and immediately said were unifying of the company for doing something wrong. if you have a cargo ship sailing up the east coast you don't have someone in the government saying you should've hardened the ship against the missal. if a cruise missile come from a foreign agent you have a regulatory agency coming in.
we absolutely do. but when you are beginning to deal with nationstates you are dealing with an adversary that has so much capability and power that frankly the u.s. government is struggling to defend itself. it's unreasonable to simply say if you get hit by an attack with that sophistication will punish you until you do better. i like we need to have more of a dialogue. how do we work together to defend companies just like we do in the physical world. there is fundamental roles of government which is to protect the national security. i think increasingly we need
the government to help protect rather than just simply coming after the attack. should we be retaliating more aggressively? should they be doing more, yes. they get into those issues. he gets into very case-by-case situations. we need to figure out how to leverage those into account. with that visibility to work
together to leverage that. finally what is the status of the purchase of yahoo given the fact that were talking about breaches and cyber security. we will have any new news to report to today on the status of the breach. if with something new to report we will be saying it publicly. nice to meet you. next monday at the the electrical college will officially elect the vice president and president of the united states. they vote by ballot. watch the process in springfield, illinois what her life 11:00 a.m. eastern.
the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell told reporters this morning that he strongly supported partisan efforts to influence the u.s. election. also repealing and replacing the healthcare health care law and company has a tax policy. i think this has been one heck of a year. you see i have my louisville a sweater on. they won the heisman trophy saturday night top typing office traffic year. i know the main subject you
are interested in this morning i strongly condemn any such effort. prior to the election the director of national intelligence released a statement saying that the russian government directed the recent compromise of e-mail from u.s. persons and institutions. including is what that is what the intelligence community believes can be said and unclassified remarks without risking sources and methods. anything else is irresponsible and likely illegal and potentially for partisan political gain. i agree with senator schumer.
the simply cannot be a partisan issue. let me remind all of you that the senate intelligence committee on which i am the chairman of the armed services committee is more than capable of conducting complete review of this matter. and senator schumer well soon join us on the committee and he will review this through the regular order. i have every confidence. in a responsible way. the obama administration is also now launching a review with the national intelligence completes its review there will be additional information released to the public in a response or manner. they will announce. that will be useful. as we need to integrate this
in our overall war fighting doctrine. the obama administration attempted to reset relations with russia and attempted to bully countries. it defies -- they are reluctant. or to ignore them. so last let me say i the highest confidence in the intelligence community and especially the central intelligence agencies. >> can i have some honor. -- can i have some water?
and wrapping up the congress and i will open for questions. i think by any objective standard the hundred 14 congress looks and 14 congress looks pretty good compared to the previous one. everything from the cures bill to the first long-term highway bill the water resources a bill. the permanent tax relief. we addressed the opioid and prescription drug epidemic. a complete rewrite of no child left behind. with the education issue. the accountability of cyber security. humor trafficking. and many others. even though there were some pretty big differences in the time of divided government i
think we were able to search for the things we have some agreement on and make some progress and there were a number of things upon which we were able to score some points for the american people. with that let me throw it open. >> do you believe that the russian government was trying to sway the politics? >> the reason i read that statement it thoroughly covers what i'm prepared to say about that issue. without bipartisan admission. we are going to follow the regular order is an important subject.
[inaudible] with a different attitude or orientation and more friendliness towards russia but the statements. >> let me speak for myself. the russians are not our friends. senator mccain and i and some of our democratic friends met with the delegation. to say that they are nervous about the russians. let me also say as i said last year. nato is important we intend to keep the commandments that are made it's been in the most successful alliance in world history. i think we should approach all of those. they do not wish us well.
>> is it a problem that the incoming president is sending sources to russia that he has been sending. but as is he say about his supposedly adjustment. i just address how i feel. i hope that those who are going to be in position of responsibility in the new ministration share my view. >> you mentioned your confidence in u.s. intelligence agencies. with the russians behind the hacking and the credibility of the cia. speemac i've already addressed my own view about where we are on those issues and i really don't have in the attention any attention of further leverage.
[inaudible] knew have any concerns about this. >> i've been very depressed with the nominations so far and we will have to wait and see who is nominated for secretary of state. and we will treat whoever that is with respect. we will go through the regular process and we will see where it comes up. let's wait until we get nominees i think of the nominees that we are already aware of i think i'm optimistic that they will all be confirmed. but i don't want to comment on a phantom nominee today. can you just go back one more time and clarify for us. it was reported over the weekend that you had expressed skepticism can you continue to
clarify for us. i clarified for you when i what i have to say about that in the statement that i read in our opening. do you think that the president-elect is getting off on such a great footing with the agency's overall in the general trajectory that he's on right now. i will come in eight -- i will comment on who has been nominated so far. i'm optimistic the president well have a good national security team with all aspects of it. in place. with regard to his relationship with the intelligence agency. i think i have pretty well covered that.
speemac with a three-year transition to replace obama care do you agree that it's you too long to wait three years. >> the status quo is not sustainable. the notion that we could do nothing and allow the current law to implode is unexceptional. therefore we will remove right after the first of the year on a robot -- obama care replacement and then we will work to come up with a better proposal than current law because current law is simply unacceptable and not sustainable. and we will be working with the various stakeholders to get their best advice about what comes next. and what they me to say again
doing nothing is not an option. because we've seen the headlines all across america last year about the status quo. >> when we get through deciding how work in a and i do that i will be happy to let you know. >> are there stakeholders that you will be working with do they warn you about the dangers of that. this is actuaries, hospitals. medical associations. how does that factor into your decision. none of the people that you mention are happy mentioned are happy with the status quo. we are to work with them to come up with a better system than this monstrosity. it was left behind by the obama administration. where they'll be any framework
established. we will move forward first with the obama care replacement resolution. legislatively then we will determine what that replacement is can be. one of the principles as it can be that you will cover as many americans with health insurance is currently masked. it was an abysmal failure. and that's what we intend to try to do. and that's what we intend to try to do. as i said earlier we will move first with the obama care replacement resolution and then we will come with what that replacement will actually be.
[inaudible] his revision that he likes and a lot of people like in your plan that will be separate. is that the approach that you would like i think it's reasonable. we will be working on the phase in. and what it looks like once we get to step two. we will turn to right after the first of the year. >> neck on russia icon russia what will the intelligence committee be doing the expect speaker ryan to have some sort of role here. senator mccain will both be
looking at this issue and doing it on a bipartisan basis. i indicated that in my statement. he expected to be a variable budget. will we see any reference in that. we anticipate doing to budget resolutions this year we will do one later in the spring which will be dedicated to tax reform. there will be two of this year. and they will set up reconciliation follow along vehicles. for us to address two very important issues that they talked about and we all care about repealing and replacing obama care and incompetence of tax reform.
we are all worried about and concerned about that. the single big business -- the single biggest reason is our tax structure which makes it very difficult in many instances to stay here because the corporate tax rate in individual tax-free and is an uncompetitive situation. he will move on as many regulatory changes as he can make as soon as he takes office. much of that was done by executive order. with regulations of one kind or another. to of the biggest impediments to grow in our country is overregulation and the tax structure. the president-elect seems to be committed to addressing both of those. >> you said one of your top goals was to getting that a
preparation process. we obviously failed in that. just to refresh your memory they decided to ball up the appropriations process which you can do if you have enough of a minority to do it because they want us to end up in a year and a situation like we did. we will see if they have a different view next year. i hope so. i gave up to six weeks to try to process individual appropriation bills. >> lets but the failure where it belongs. >> is the same true and how side. why do we expect anything to be any better next year or should we. >> i hope so.
to what end though. i think what they concluded this past year was that when they have a president that they like it gives the president a lot of clout at the end of the year. it actually benefited them. it will be interesting to see if when you have a different president of a different party make sense. the speaker and i would both very much like to do. so it is all on them. the majority of the senate is not relevant. >> the democrats tried to get the president-elect to weigh in. did you speak with him or did you encourage him to stay out of it. >> i have not discussed it with him. my own view on that is the
coalminer's healthcare issue. i would hope we get a full year and we ended up getting enough pics through the duration and it's my goal to try to get the coalminer healthcare issue fixed. in the past we talked a lot about the massive debt we have. our republicans get to take any affirmative action that will reduce the debt committed to the tax reform and doing things like you talked about before the election. things like medicare and social security. there all very difficult. i think this level of national debt are dangerous and
unacceptable i hope you will not live us -- lose sight of steps that we could take that would exasperate the problem. i am concerned about it. i think we should take into consideration each of the things that we have going forward. a lot of other huge tax cuts. you commit to saying hey, i will not remove things. >> my preference on tax reform is that it would be revenue neutral the issue that you raise. and on the info structure issue it will be interesting to see how this is put together.
i'm interested in seeing what is the administration going to recommend and i think the details are really important. what i hope we will clearly avoid and i'm confident we will is the trillion dollar stimulus. we borrowed $1 trillion and nobody could find anything. it seemed to me was a bump up a bunch of federal accounts when you want to find examples of things that want to occur. we need to do this carefully and correctly in the issue of how to pay for it. how would you describe the last eight years directly with president obama and moving forward how you describe your relationship so far with president-elect truck.
i think president obama is a very smart guy. he wanted to move the country significantly to the left and he did. he did it the first two years because he had total control of congress. the 300-dollar stimulus. dodd frank. and then i was wrong in my prediction. three times i thought after the 2010 election president obama would pivot to the center he didn't do that. i thought after the 2012 election when he didn't get the house back at the shirley after the 2014 election he would pivot to the center. they wanted to move america significantly to the left. what i would call the european administration.
what you get in the end is slow growth. we had been underperforming from a growth point of view all through the years. after the deep recession. so if you bear in mind that he wanted to do that i think he moved the country significantly in a european direction. the good news for us is that a lot of that was done by executive orders and regulations. and to get the country going again as i said earlier we have to deal with their regulatory onslaught and tax reform to take our foot off the brake and get it on the accelerator and so i think the president was very effective at doing what he wanted to do. reagan and never have the house for eight years. he moved to the middle to raise the age for social security clinton when he lost
the house and senate did well for reform. and we balance the budget three years in a row. i think we can safely say he was not a centrist. we have a terrific relationship. and he is a very high energy person. just to give you an example. in talking with my colleagues on the floor last week. i wonder if the man ever sleeps. i think were all excited about the energy in the direction. they want to take the country. i think the appointments had been made so far. to. >> during the obama years it says that it be used as an instrument do you want to
if the president have wanted to do more deals with us we would've designated biden. that was on the first term. and then the fiscal cliff deal. new year's eve 2012. the president give them the opportunity to negotiate. in the second term he has a record sense of humor says joe was in a witness protection program. their best negotiator was not around during the second term i'm sorry for rambling on here. i think it's unclear to me or
the raising of the debt ceiling and up carrying things with it or not. >> if they provoke the 2012 executive order. the young immigrants who came here. >> well had to wait and see with the new administration recommends in that whole era. have a great christmas everyone. we will go back at it. next monday the electrical -- electoral college will officially elect the president and vice president of the united states. they vote by ballot. you can watch the process on c-span.
it will start at 11:00 a.m. eastern. tonight on the communicators. verizon executive talks about the companies changes company's changes over recent years including the purchase of aol and the proposed acquisition of yahoo. they also discussed the need for massive fiber buildout which could be a part of the infrastructure program be considered by president-elect trump in congress. >> we are building the fiber -- fiber deeper and deeper into the network. when we talk about a wireless network 80% of that is actually fiber. used look at what cities are trying to do. you need a fiber structure to do that.
biden as a lung cited candidate for the united states senate. the staff was skeptical that they could win in the and the director was confident that we would. he was elected six times to the united states senate. he won over that. of time the biggest election of them all. the admiration, the gratitude and the affection of all americans. as anybody who observes this. it is with that that i introduce to you the vice president of the united states joe biden. >> think thank you all, very much. i want to make it clear the main reason i am here is bob bauer told me to be. bob is a great friend. his advice is only exceeded in the wisdom by his wife who has
been advising me for a long time as well. every piece of legal advice he has given me i am sure is consistent with what i decide decided when i got elected as a 29-year-old kid. i remember sitting with my legal advisors and i have a dubious distinction when i found the campaign with the finance disclosure as vice president and the lead paragraph. no one has ever assumed this office with fewer assets than joe biden. but i would say to the guys helping me with my tax return if the foul line is here make sure you keep me at least
2 feet behind the foul line. bob has kept me behind the foul line. when he asked me to join you all here today i was really happy to say yes and i wish i could attend the whole day you are addressing some of the most interesting and emerging issues of modern-day politics. from the role of big money which i find corrupting on our political system if you want to change overnight instantaneously the electoral process in america had public financing. i guarantee you it would change overnight. i remember seeking the nomination in 2008 and i was in new york at a very high end
fundraiser which was rare and we were up in the east 80s. the elite of the democratic party in new york was there. while mister chairman. do you talk to ordinary people. i had been a great fundraiser. the point is i hope you spent some time focus on the role of money. you are also can be talking about about the nature in my generation was.
it has changed drastically in how we communicate and how we absorb news and how we seek news. i don't think i know at the baby boom generation. there is no editorial filter that exists at all. it's both good and bad. it will determine an awful lot about how news is absorbed. we kind of self select these days. we watch what we agree with. liberal democrats don't watch a whole lot of fox news except for self-defense. i'm serious, think about it. with the consumption of news is. and think about the fact that four years ago more people got their news under the age of 40 from jon stewart john stewart
than any other single medium in the country. is neither good nor bad. but it is a change. and the way we can generate that. i also this has been a is been a very tough election. it has been divisive in course. it has been dispiriting and with more a battle of personalities than it was ideas in my view. as the vice president of the united states. they were traveling to meet with virtually every i know i've been every single one. every major have of state not to give them important. and i find myself embarrassed by the nature and the way in
which it was conducted. so much for the shining city on the help. hill. but, the fact of it is i know there is a sense in the country that maybe things are worse off than they really are. there is a sense that our institutions are working and maybe we can never get them to work. for a lot of folks it feels as if we are more divided than we ever had been in our history. the election brought out the worst in the political system. i think this is a time to bring a little perspective. the only thing i can do having hung around his try to per perspective to the moment. i have a chance to reflect on a number of these issues when i was asked with my only political hero i ever had in my career and i mean this
without exception was robert kennedy. he was the only person. the only person who was a hero of mine when i was in college and i was in law school. i have a great honor receiving the ripple of hope award in the human rights center dinner on tuesday night. there were two other awardees more deserving than me but one of them got up and made a very compelling speech about how everything was broken. things had never been the same. a brilliant guy it was a serious speech. i was prepared and ask to asked to talk about how robert kennedy by his daughter carrie how his life influenced my career. at every stage in my career.
i was to talk about when i first became acquainted with him was a high school senior when president kennedy got elected. i was prepared to go through how i followed him when he was in the administration and when he ran for president. and i started to think about it. they were heck of a lot worse than they are now. it is a lot more divided than we are now. on november 22, 1963 when i was a sophomore in college i was sitting in the steps at my university of delaware on a warm november day and we heard our hero john kennedy had been
assassinated. it was stunning. absolutely stunning. he was a guy that convinced my generation almost overnight that politics was noble that we can fundamentally change the trajectory of the nation and there wasn't much we can do. when i graduated the vietnam war was raging. there were serious divisions and the family members did not speak to one another. your best friends split on the issue. some deciding to have to canada. others deciding that this was a noble endeavor. a move that most of us think didn't make sense because that's what you're supposed to do. my last year in law school
january of that year after being told the war was coming to an end the tet offensive occurred. and all the sudden it was a great comedian in and out landis comedian. they kept talking about the previous two years the light at the end of the tunnel. he said it's a freight train. and it was a freight train. a train that ran over a man who dreamt of being president his whole life but concluded after the tet offensive on may 31 that he was not going to run for reelection. did something that no one who would ever know him was within the possibility that he would walk away from power. march 4 i have just gone to
the physical for my draft board. for a package to come from home sitting in the parking lot and heard dr. king had been assassinated. i got engaged in public life because of dr. king. my state was segregated by law was a border state. my state still have mrs. murphy's rule on housing that you cannot discriminate against anyone seeking a room in and assured four or fewer rooms in your house. it wasn't until 1968 we elected the first black state senator. that's how i got involved. in college, in law school.
imagine if he had been assassinated. imagine what would've happened. the democratic convention more than 10,000 protesters clashed in the streets with 20,000 policemen and national guard. it was cass. things continue to break in the next several weeks. as a young public defender after having gotten the job with the most prestigious law firm in the state after six months of being there realized i couldn't do it. to the chagrin of all my parents and everyone who knew me. a lot of corporate cases are
done. we walked across from the federal courthouse. i sat second chair. a major case. we walked across the square and in the basement of the building. it was catty corner and i asked for a job as a public defender i will never forget what he said when he ran it. do you know what you're doing. i knew what i was doing. i knew what i was doing. the peaceful protesters were gunned down by the national guard. for students killed.
imagine, that now. may 15, 1972 when i was a nominee for the democratic party at 29 years old. george wallace running for president was shot and nearly killed. a lot of my colleagues said yesterday. i used to stutter very badly and it worked very hard to overcome my stuttering. i have an uncle who was it intellectual and it student of irish poetry. he stayed with us often on. he was a salesman for eastern pennsylvania.
see mackey always goes. it was typical middle-class. three-bedroom house, for kids and a relative always living with us. it was a great way to be raised by the way. it was awful hard on my parents but great for us. nice to stand in front of the mirror with a flashlight with the two sets of bunks when they came to say. and i would stand in front of the mirror when they were asleep and i would take out that book of the gates of poetry and i would read it and i would try to watch my face to make sure that i did not conform my face. when you stutter.
it's the only affliction you can smile about. it's an incredibly debilitating -- debilitating thing. it's awful hard to walk up to the pretty girl and say what you go to the prom with me. people think you aren't smart. my colleagues in the senate for the 36 years that i served i was always quoting irish poetry. because i read it so much. and one of the poems i remember thinking as i was married at this time. the second coming he said things fall apart the senate cannot hold near anarchy it is
losing every place. the best lack all conviction all the worst are full of passionate intensity. someone argue that that best described my generation and a country as a say when i was coming up it was basically told don't trust anybody over 30. it wasn't a joke. and drop out. it didn't seem possible as they would hold because we thought it was all about to spiral out of control. we made it through that year. in those years.
in that whole era america was divided it didn't come apart. i thought that as i think now. i believe we could change things. i truly believed and i would argue i was proven correct that we could change things. and we did in a matter of four or five years. we ended that d'amore and brought everyone home. we gave voice finally to someone of the civil rights movement. when there is movement. it came in to full and clear view. with the women's organizations. we made one hell of a lot of progress. because the march to
paraphrase came the arc of history in this country in particular as always that's progress. ending i might add on january the 18th my standing on the platform at the wilmington train station. the same place i used to go as a public defender. i remember standing on that platform over 25,000 people down below in the street waiting for a black man to take a 28 minute ride to pick an irish catholic cannot from a middle to middle class neighborhood to take 129-mile ride to be sworn in as
president or vice president of the united united states of america. they overlook what we say. i stood there almost 40 years before to the day because that's when i joined the public defenders office in mid-january. i said boys, don't tell me there is not progress in america. at the time when i said there i wondered will be ever be able to live together. so folks, one of the reasons i like robert kennedy as he would always quote george bernard shaw.
you see things as you are and say why. i believe it then i believe it now is threatening. i really mean it. i believe in the resiliency of the american people. they are capable of doing extraordinary things. it was a wild wall red haskell man. he said there were two things everybody basically agrees with. two everyone is entitled to be treated with dignity.
by the way he just had good manners. it was accommodated. they don't always do it but the vast majority know that. and you say that the one thing that they agree on is the abuse of power where there is economic political, or physical. i know now the debate going on in my party and outside the party which is normal after every loss there is a recalculation. why did we lose what she would do differently. notwithstanding the fact that
hillary got to have more votes than the other team we talk about this as if there is they have a chasm now it's described in terms as if there was a fault line down the middle of the country and the coast split we are now a bicoastal party i am told. a bicoastal nation. it was translated to the folks on the coast. much more interested in the progressive issue than they are in the plight of those left behind in the middle class. all of the white boys out there. living in the suburbs. in my career i have never found there to be any
inconsistency with the concerns about the difficulties of working americans in being progressive. i say this only for those of you that don't know my career. i had been rated by one of those. three to seven depending upon what the agency is. i didn't have to be in the position where my position on lgbt abound. i will compare my role. ..
usually meant his not that sophisticated. i'm pretty damn sophisticated about what made this country what it is. it's the middle class. middle class has held the social fabric of this country together when in other countries it's afraid. the middle class is an aspirational notion, pretty straightforward. during the campaign i spent a lot of time in union halls in ohio, pennsylvania, michigan, wisconsin.
i did over 83 events in this last campaign. 50 uniquely hillary, 30 uniquely to hillary. 50 for the party, which always included hillary. and i talked about how we indiana to change the culture, about how we protect women from violence in this country. and union guys would cheer, this idea that all these blue collar guys are a bunch of racists and sexists, simply not true. i was recently indown, ohio -- youngstown, ohio, packed house. i talked about equal pay for women. and a cheer came out. people in washington don't get:
if wives don't get paid will their standard of living decreases. it's not complicated. it's not complicated. i talked about my passion to end violence against women, and on college campuses all those guys had daughters. so this idea that somehow what was the base of the democratic party is no longer compatible with democratic principles i reject. i might point out all the places where our candidate got beat, 90-10, 80-20. barack and i either almost one or almost lost. close, we got 40% of the votes in this -- all those red areas
and counties you see. so much for it all being about racism. for me, when i think about the challenges in front of us issue think about the people i grew up with in my neighborhood. most of all, the american people are full of grit and determination, a sense of fairness, equity, balance. there's no quit in the american people. they get up. they move forward. and i'm really proud of what barack and i did for the economy. 15 million new jobs after losing almost 800,000 jobs the day we got sworn in, that month. lowest unemployment raid -- rate since 2007. rescuing the auto industry. but at the truth is because of the changing nature of the economy, globalization, use of
robots, the depth of this recession, still people got left behind mitchell dad used to say i don't expect the government to solve my problem. but i do expect them to understand it. to understand my problem. it's not an accident that the highest rate of suicide is it would men between the able of 40 and 55. the greatest abuse of opioids is not in black neighborhoods or barrios. it's those white men. the only cadre of people in americay me life expectancy has gone down in the last 100 years is in that same category. you think intelligent people would ask themselves, why? why? what the hell happened?
my dad used to say that, ever since he had to move from scranton, where there was no work -- there was no hardship, live withmy grandpa, a great family. everything was find. remember when he told me he was going down, he said it's only 157 miles away and when i get settled i'd bring you and your mom down hitch said everything will be okay. hoe believed it. there was a basic agreement back there both party as i agree if you contribute to well-being of the enterprise with which you work you got to share in the profits. that doesn't happen now. for whole range of reasons. some of them intended, some unintended. some of the consequence of globalization. i know i got in trouble at the
convention when i spoke and i talked about why i thought hillary would make such a good president. but i did say we're not paying enough attention these people. not showing enough rerespect to these people. globalization is not an asset to everybody as much as in washington know national relations policy and the economy think. you know, quite frankly, even those with middle class backgrounds, the knew elite in america, it's not the social elite. it's elite lawyers, docs, the elite public officials -- not all of them -- ceos and based on -- meritorious. it's black, it's white, women, gays, straight.
but there's not a whole lot of connection to the old neighborhood you grew up with. i bet i can tell you students where any of you work in the administration -- i bet i can pick one of four neighborhoods you live in. we tend to congregate with people of like backgrounds. that's normal. and that's a good thing, not a bad thing. i don't think we -- it's not just the economic of the nation. as i said, it's -- when it does well, everybody does well, the wealthy do very well. the poor have a way up. there's hope.
and as i said and got some criticism from my own staff because i was -- indirectly criticizing the campaign issue one, because i know she agrees with me, when i said we're not showing enough respect to a segment of the population. that is scared to death. not just because of the effects of the middle class, this sense of loss of wealth, which they did. how many people do you know -- i know a lot -- who never missed a mortgage payment, but the long-term ground on either side with the come maimy mortgages and all of a sudden the only thing they owned, the only equity in their home erap -- evaporated. it wasn't because the top one percent were bad guys but they
got 80% of it. shape didn't lute their homes. -- lose their homes. they didn't get knocked out of the market. they could stay. in remember the discussion the day we are were inaugurated, would the market fall below 6,000? remember that? all those investors with their pension funds and iras. now it's over 19,000. guess what and they're not in it anymore. one thing that bothered me most was -- i remember i was going into cleveland, and i was in the plane, flying with my staff, and i couldn't understand why i was getting so upset about the election. certain reasons. this is a month out.
i don't know if you have had an epiphany about what is really bothering you. i realized what it was. elections are supposed to be about referendums on the country, so when a president is elected this they can say this is what i told you i would do. the majority of of you agreeing with me. but other than make america great again and forward together, what do you know about the last election? among the most educated people in the country, the moses is in tick indicated audience is can into to and i'm not being solis to us, i wonder if you can tell me what hillary's plan was for free college education. wonder how many can tell me how
we planned on changing the tax structure to make them more equitable, tell me what the position of either candidate was in south china sea and how to engage china? i could go on. and even those in the campaign, come up here and i challenge you to tell me the detail. >> remind mets of jim satts, great guy from tennessee. when there were programs people would say, how gun going to pay for it? waste, fraud and abuse. but we were going to make wealthy people pay more. why wasn't there more discussion? hillary clinton in my view -- i'm prejudiced -- the single most qualified candidate on the face to run for the president of the united states we have had. period. period.
she had all these ideas. but the press, a lot of which -- some which is here today you didn't cover it. wasn't your fault. when a guy talks about grabbing a woman's private parts, when a guy says some of the incredibly outrageous things were said, it sucks up all the oxygen in the air. i was told there were something like -- don't hold e held me to this, press. i don't remember exactly -- 44 more times of stories about hillary's e-mails than any single issue she talked about. it's not in the press' fault. i'm not blaming -- just the reality. it was little discussion and it was a very close election.
120,000 votes, a different outcome. so, any number of things could by attributed to why my team lost and their team won. from the director of the fbi to not showing up enough and paying enough attention to people. put the one thing i think is pretty clear is that there wasn't much of a discussion of the issues. even in the debates. and so the reason i bother to tell you that -- i apologize i'm going on so long with the -- means to much to me and the country, is that i really think that i'm still optimistic for this country because we're better positioned than any
nation in the world to open he 21st century, by a long shot. -- to own the 21st century, and now we'll have the chance to have a debate. because there's going to be specific individuals and proposals put forward to the congress, even though the other team controls both houses, and the debate will have to be covered. you know, i guess it was pt barnum who said no such thing as bad publicity. i'm not sure that's true, whoever said it. and trump says it. turns out he's pretty damn smart in terms of being able to figure out how to deal with the press. you would have thought some of the things he said would be so ipso facto with qualifying for the president of the united states of america. but such a negative campaign, it seemed to take everybody's eye off the ball.
and a debate about was there something in an e-mail versus something in his background that disqualified him. and so, you know, think if you listen, elections just happen you. might think the world is ending, and -- but i'm not saying we're where we need to be. we're a long way from that. but i'm telling you i think now there's going to be a real debate. real discussion, bus the proposals that come forward either to eliminate or initiate fundamental changes, are going to be debatedded. they'll be covered. the public will hear them. will hear them. and i feel confident about our ideas. give you one example.
this overwhelming desire on the republican party to eliminate obamacare. oh, man. all of a sudden, as they say in southern delware, had an alder call. they've seep the lord. -- they've seen the lord. now what are you going to do? repeal obamacare. make it permanent but not take effect until after the next election. think about it. think about it. if it's as bad as that, just repeal it. have at it right now. repeal it wholesale. watch the county hospital go understand. take 20 million people off of health care. get the press covering my mother just died because she lost her coverage. all those millions of kids who
are on your policies, up to age 26 because they can't afford insurance an their open, thrown off. all of a sudden insurance companies going back to charging women more than men for the same coverage. all of a sudden pre-existing conditions, oh, they matter? i don't get coverage? so, folks, there's an awful lot that was said. welcome the debate. i can hardly wait. no, no, no. i'm not being a wise guy. i mean it. i can hardly wait to engage this debate. and you're going to see the american people begin to refocus again because there will be a focus. it will not solve all the problemsment we went have the answer toe globes in the next
six months or a world. not going to figure out how to deal with digitalization, awas a key-note speaker in davos. over 88 heads of state and they gave me an easy topic. asked me to speak to quote, the fourth industrial revolution, will there be a middle class? in every other major industrial revolution we had has resulted in, over time, the ability to mold it to not just benefit a few but to benefit all of humanity and raise it up. --i would say we're probably about where we were in the industrial revolution in england when the luddites were wandering the middle and smashing the machinery. not a joke. all of society was turn
upside-down in that revolution. a big piece of society. not completely turned upside-down. but is fractious, afraid, uncertain, and waiting to figure out how will this benefit me? you know, told you i was out of line with this. i told you went to receive that award at the robert kennedy foundation. and the medicare, the affordable care act, infrastructure, how to pay for it, college education, all those things, retraining and jobs and things were now going to be actually having to discuss, and people were going to listen to, robert kennedy was talking about some versions of those things back when he was
running. and you know, one of the things he always argued about, we don't listen enough. we don't listen to the other person's perspective. it's understandable. human nature. but you know, he used to talk about it, and i remember when he went to south africa. and the south african government, who was -- said i'm not going to give you any police protection, you'll have no coverage, and ethel went with him, and he went and he met with the pro-apartheid practice richer ins and antiapartheid activists. dined with the government officials, the government, who had defended the indefense able and stat with students who were
risking their live. he said it come not to criticize but engage in a dialogue, so toe see if we can elevate reason before prejudice and myth. he did that same thing the next year in deadly bat for civil rights in greenville, mississippi, and bed sty, and new york, and a year after, in the fight for economic rights in kentucky coal country. win to see the segregation of poverty was ripping apart our country, but always listened, even to those who fundamentally disaggrieved -- disagreed with him. crossed mountains, schoolhouses, inner cities. his purpose for all those trips he made were to listen and to let people know he was listening. even if they didn't vote for him, even of they didn't like him, he listened.
and he felt their pain. he understood their perspective. so i think the most important thing we have to start doing in and out of government, start to listen to one another again. because the simple truth is, we don't listen very much anymore. i'll conclude by saying -- i'm always asked, the biggest change since you entered the senate when you were a kid. when i entered the senate i said how divided we were. we had all the old segregationists still in the democratic congress. john mcclellan, byrd from vast. they were all still there. but you know what?
after i was there a while, it's amazing how when even the other -- quote, the bad guys listened, the time strom sure -- strom thurmond left the congress he had a diversified staff. on his death bed i got a call from the hospital, would i do his eulogy? i was hiseulogyist. i ran for the senate gauze i was against everything strom thurmond stood for. i wasn't honest in the eulogy. i didn't patient a rose -- paint a rosy picture, but he changed. long time coming. long time in coming. jesse helm, a man who was most bitter of all the people i got elected with. he ended up saying awful things
about african-americans. i mean, just flat racist. he said two years before he left he had to do it all over again he would go to africa to be a missionary because he was wrong. chris dodd and i the only two people who showed up to his funeral in north carolina. a big baptist box church. and a side room or reception room, where all the senators went in to meet the family. as they walked out before the service started. i remember helms walking out, two beautiful daughter and a son who was 50-some years old now, in braces up to his hips and steel braces on both arms, who they adopted in that same condition and not when he was 14 years old.
they walked out and i stepped back to meet the republican leadership and they literally walked up to me and said, joe, we put your sign on our lawn for president. you and barack obama. we voted for you. we voted for you. i don't expect epiphanies to occur. some of this takes a long, long time. and i'm not trying to paint jesse helms or strom thurmond into being assistants. -- saints; they did some terrible things and i voted against then constantly. but if you listen, if you listen to the other guy's perspective, it's amazing what happens, takes
patience, but it's hard. we don't listen much anymore. you know, i learned a lesson from senator mike mansfield when i was a kid. the i was elected when i was 29, november 7th, didn't become eligible to be sworn in until november 20th, and december 18th my wife was christmas shopping, broadsided and killed my wife, my daughter, and my two boys were badly injured. decided i wasn't going to go to the senate. we had a democratic governor, could have appointed a successor. and on a bipartisan group of people, including mike mans field and hubert humphrey and fritz hole innings and ted stephens came to me and said you have to come get sworn in, just be there for six months and then help us organize. we had 58 democratic senators. had to be organized.
but i used to have to report to the office of the majority leader every tuesday at 3:00, and i got an assignment. i honest to god thought every senator got assignments from the majority leader. like i said i'm the first senator who ever knew, and one day i was walking -- in may i was walking in from my meeting. walked on the floor and jesse helms was writtenning into ted kennedy and bob dole. on the precursor for the american's with disabilities act, saying we had no obligation no required, wrong to mandate businesses have curb cuts and elevators, et cetera. thought it was heartless and i sat down and didn't realize until then that the reason he was seeing me was to take my pulse to see how i was doing, how i was handling going home every day.
he said, what's the matter, joe? i went on and i ripped into jesse helms. i said he has no social redeeming value. went on and on, doesn't care about -- looked at me to said, joe issue found something interesting. everybody gets set to the congress because the public finds something admirable him. it's a better use of your time to try to find out what that is. then go every people, question their motive. then he said, joe, what would you say if i told you that three years earlier, sitting in their living room in raleigh, reading the observer, an advertisement for a younge man issue think 14, in braces up to his hips, in an orphanage, saying all i want for christmas is someone to love me. what would you say if told you jesse and todd helms went down and adopted that child as their
own. if said i would feel foolish. he said joe, it's never, never wrong to question another man's judgment and go to war over it, but it's never appropriate to question their motive, because as obvious as it appears, you don't know. and once you question motive, you can never get to go. we do too much of that now. so we should not remain silent one instant weapon thissed a -- when this administration goes after the progressive value wes care about. we should not back away one sin tell -- sin tell la from the arguments and merits of all we care about, but we should listen and realize that the american people are a lot better than they're given credit for right
now. and let's go back and speak to the people. they used to say any neighborhood, brung to us the dance. working class people, black and white, the ones ones who broughs to the dance. thank you for listening, sorrying for being so serious but i am optimistic, thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations discussion] >> for the next panel is changing role of the new and social media.
we have two remarkable panelists. on my far left is the deputy editorial page ed for for the "washington post." he its writing for the "post for for a number of years and -- the morning without a -- what is wrong. we have sitting next to me, the white house communications director who is both a participant and observer ol' the role of media in campaigns, in politics and our -- i want to thank you both for being here, and i'd like to start with the question, in terms of the role of media, how is this election different from previous
elections? and there's a little -- you don't have to catch that -- and what lessons can we learn from this election for the future? kind of wide-open and then we'll hone in. and you want to start on this? >> sure. okay. thank you. all right. well, i think there's a lot of ways to go with that question. that you eluded to with a wink. 'll start with the media specific area and that's one of the areas is that people consume informs through social media and news through storm media at much greater permanent than any past election. -- percentage than any past election. something that people are familiar with. the question is, why does thatmeter? why it matters is because there's a much lower barrier to entry to provide information and share information and be an originator of information on
social media platforms and, therefore, it is -- doesn't go through the same quality control that i would say "washington post" information -- the information on a range of online television, radio typically does, and what that means is that people can't differentiate, and people are receiving information that is not through a fact-checked editorial board or editor. it is the editor is the algorithm that puts information into people's social media feeds. and i think that has had a huge impact. people who say it didn't, i think probably need to wait in more time for some analysis of why voters voted how they did before we make a conclusion. >> so, hi. my name is ruth and i'm hereafter to answer for all the sins of all the media in this entire election. not.
there has not been an election cycle where, in my now lengthy experience, where we have after the election and gazed another our navels and said, damn, we did a great job, and more important where the rest of the players in our business looked and said, oh, that media, even better than usual. so, this one in that sense is no different from that. i think we saw -- this is built on some of what jen said -- three phenomena this election that conspired to make things look -- to borrow -- even more open, not get iting and right -- even worse than usual. before i get to the event worse than usual i think i really want to make sure i don't forget to stand up for the really good things we did. can brag a little on the "washington post" because i'm on
the editorial side so i can brag a little bit on the news side. look at the reporting that david fairwayhold did about the trump -- thank you. -- go, david -- about the trump charitable, in air quotes, foundation. that was the best of journalism and it wasn't just that. it was the access hollywood tape, good reporting that "the new york times" did during the election, with the tax returns. so, we were not massive across the board failures. we pushed and pushed and pushed, and did our job. however, purposely. three things happened in this campaign. the first was donald trump. the second was the siloization, increasing siloizations through social media of our vote -- of
voter's access to information -- access to is not right. it's more consumption of information because if you want it, you can get it. just deciding what diet they want to eat. and the third was this phenomenon unanimous of the rise of fake news, and the three of those conspired to create a different atmosphere. i'll just say a few sentences about the trump phenomenon. under the normal rules of political gravity, what a lot of cable channels were accused of doing, which is giving trump unfiltered air time, should have brought him down. right? when i watched personally wall-to-wall coverage of a trump rally, i walked away from my television set saying, you've got to be joking, okay?
that was not how voters responded. obviously. at least enough of them. is that the cable companies' fault or the voters' fault? i'll let you decide. when trump, time after time, gets enormous amounts of attention for saying things like, starting with, john mccain isn't a war hero and going through the mexican judge and we all know the list of outrageous things he said, and gets a on norm mouse amount of attention for those, the fact that he survived is just the difference between -- it's not a journalistic failure. just that voters were in a different and particularly whatever adjective you'd like to insert -- moved this cycle. but it did have an impact on the coverage that was really problematic for me in this sense. he was just the bright, shiny
object in our journalism and so it occupied all of our attention, the latest trump outrage or trump statement of the day, and it continues to do that by the way, during the transition, and it distracted us as a collective from asking him really -- not just him but any of the other candidates while they lasted -- really serious questions about policy. and not entirely, not throughout the whole cycle, but for too long, and i think that for me is -- if i were the editor of a newspaper rather than on the editorial side where i would really kind of try to think through how we can do that piece better in the future, and when there is something so mess morizing as a -- mess morizing as a trump candidate and how boring how we're going to structure infrastructure program, how you can figure out how to make both of those forms
of coverage work because you can't ignore the bright, shiny october but if you never -- object but if you never pay any attention to the how and why and substance of campaigns you do not end up in a good place. >> let me try to impact some of what you talked about and let's talk first about the mainstream media. do you all have a definition of mainstream media? i'd be interested in that. ruth, you were just a great defender of what the "washington post" has done. the mainstream media is not universally well-regarded. it's not trusted by most voters, and it's not read by most of the millenials. how do you reclaim? how do you reassert what is the role of mainstream media as you see it?
>> so, i'm going to go back to david fahrenhold because i know when my two millenials as home were e-mailing me and saying his go win the pull letter, right? or this is incredible journalism. okay, they're washington kids and "washington post" kids, so they're not necessarily completely illustrative but that stuff -- or at all. that reporting broke through. and the "access hollywood" tape broke through. how do we get people to pay attention to us? this is the -- and how -- i think the question is not as much how could doo we get people to pay attention to us. it's how we generate a business model that gives us the resources necessary to do the excellent kind of journalism
that my colleagues own in the news side did this election. in order to -- the been mod toll get that done. but i would say i'm not -- i am not all that concerned -- imif people don't trust us, that's not great but i would say there were a lot of really, from my point of view, quite gratifying things that happened this election cycle. as we -- now we have this capacity to -- in newspaper, see numbers we never had before. so, for example, in one of the moments -- one of the earliest moments of getting substantive questions asked of donald trump, donald trump came to our editorial board, and good for him. a certain other candidate on the democratic side never made time to do it.
so good for donald trump. we asked him serious questions and wrote an editorial about it but to our absolute astonishment we head millions good momentum. readers of the transcript of the editorial meeting. that good news for journalism and good news for our ability to get information to voters and readers. similarly we wrote extensive and really quite long editorials condemning trump, even after he came to see us, and those similarry got millions and millions of readers. this to me is good news, not bad news for journalism. it suggests there is apatite for quality reporting. there is an appetite for intelligence questioning, and there's an appetite for what i hope is intelligent opinion. >> so, jen, if you were to have another campaign that you were
running, would you turn to the mainstream media or do you think you would prefer to look at some of the other sources out there? >> so, first i would say that the question with all due respect is the root of the problem, and the root of the problem meant a lot of traditional newspapers have and i read the "washington post," i read in the "new york times" but i'm in the communications director at the white house. of course i would. and i think part of the problem is that a lot of mainstream media -- i think people think of traditionally as national newspapers or even local newspapers, maybe network television -- sees online digital media as not just a competitor but the enemy and lesser than. there is a certain -- putting my colleague -- not my colleague but my friend here aside -- but that is hugely problematic
because if the mainstream media, national newspapers can't figure out how to reach people, that root problem they need to solve. i think that in my deals with a lot of newspapers, with very smart reporter, i think -- this is a side bar but i feel like i need to say it -- i don't think the media should get a bad grade for this election cycle because elects are determined by winning heards and minds, not actually determined by charts and policies. we may want it to be the other way but it's rarely that way. how people should look at the media is the next year or two and how when donald trump is president, he performs as it relates to policymaking and the analysis of policymaking in government. that an aside. just want to say it. but -- let me go back. ruth wrote a column hourthrough needs to be so much searching. this media, democrats, republicans, agree what it
including with democrats. [inaudible] >> true, but maybe we have more soul searching. we sheaf soulful-searching to do but with the main stream media, i they way we in the white house view the media is it's a spectrum, right? "the new york times," the "washington post," but there's also online outlets that do great excellent work. mike.com is a. >> one we have donwork with. buzzfeed has done some interesting things. not all cat video, i promise you. i'm not in the media but i thing thick us versus them is very problematic and one of eye the soulful searching thes the main stream media needs to do is to figure out how to reach people and how to change how they do that. >> one response. jen and i were talking bit this earlier. here's an an astonishing fact about the obama presidency.
because you're going to -- you can explain why that's totally sensible choice. right? so, president obama came -- enhe was president-elect obama, came for an editorial board meeting pause we had failed to lure him when he was candidate. so he came for an editorol board meeting -- and this is a true fact -- that was the last time he spoke on the record to the "washington post." through two terms he has not given us an editorial board interview or an interview to our news reporters. despite, i think, numerous requests. there have been reported about off the record meetings with columnists so i don't want to -- i'm just citing those reports. but amount of time spent on the record with "washington post," zero. amount of time spent between two
ferns with zack galifinakis or you youtube video bloggers with purple hair, much greater. that to me -- i'm going to be just a little snarky about this. that's unsettling, and i think not really as a white house product tough of the sort of reporting just jut says you wanted to see from the trump white house about deep substancetive palsy issues. >> well -- policy issues. >> i don't feeled need defend miss. my are responsibility is to determine how the president can reach the american people. the "washington post" readership is lower than a fuming up in or media outlets that do reporting,
that report on smart issues, that ask challenging questions. so, it's not my role to solve that for the "washington post." i think i would say that the president has done interviews with "the new york times," he's done interviews with the pi thelet thick "with charlie rose, george -- step nap plus, i don't think any of those -- they would strongly defend the nation that's aren't serious, hard-hitting journalist. that's going back to the question of what your role is. the benefit of having so many outlets out there is that you have mean more choices, and many more choices as a president precisional working on behalf of the president or senator or elected official or organization. you have to determine one of the choices we make is how to reach the audience we're trying to reach. often times that is millenials,
sometimes it's senior citizens, sometimes i it's middle age latinos. depends who you're trying to reach. that's how we make our decisions. i had hoped we would be able to do a "washington post" interview, as i told ruth, and i think there a lot of reporter, some of whom she mentioned today, who have done inand amazing work and this questions of how the main stream media kind of -- i hate that term, main stream media because there's lots of ways to define it -- reach more people because it isn't an a easy one. media companies are businesses and not just a public service. providing the information is a public service, but there are other factors beyond that. >> you just spoke about the bull caneyation of the audience and multiplicity of immediate and we heard the vice president reminisce about an earlier age.
was actually i'm his generation and i remember when it was only walter cronkite, and there were three networks at the time. but virtually everybody in the united states got their news from one of three sources, all of which were within inches of one another on any kind of a spectrum. now it's a completely broad range as you were saying, and i was asking earlier about your thoughts on one end of that range. theirs -- there's the other end which may be the source or vehicle for some of these fake news that you had both mentioned. eye like you to spend at built of time talking about that as a phenomenal, given our traditions of free speech and our seeming enthusiasm for these multiple media unchecked sources. can anything be done?
what can be done? i live very close to -- so i understand that some of the fake news has real ramifications. long question. let's talk about that end of the spectrum. get off the mass media part. jen, you can start. >> sure. so, i would say this is one after the most important questions that can be asked right now, because there is -- a lot of question wes don't know the answer to. even as a government. about who these fake news sources are, whether there are actors will mall intent wind behind it and not just a bunch 0 of teenagers in macedonia and pushing stories about donald trumpment we don't know the answers to those questions and once we know the answers it may become more alarming than now. i would say that there are a couple of things i think we need to -- i n think a lot of the social media companies are
beginning to think threw but -- think through but we as a society, as a government, as media organizations and companies need to push hard on, which is if you're a social media platform where the majority of the public or a large swath of the public it guessing their information about an election, do you have an editorial responsibility? i think the answer should be, yes, in some capacity. i don't know what form that takes. but i think current -- the current situation is clearly not sustainable. i'll just add one challenge that i think isn't talked about enough that a lot of these companies will have to grapple with this standards around the globe because here in the united states we are lucky to have a free and open media are and press beings we have three briefings from the government every day where reporters can come and ask questioned. that's rare. the number of free -- countries
with a free press continues to decrease. so there's a question of standards. you've look at a country like russia or china, where the -- where people are serving up information from state-run media that is like a cousin of fake news, and maybe a good learning device for us all to look at -- does that mean that social media platforms prevent these outlets from putting information on their sites or not how do you draw the line? i think there are some hard questions bus i think to there are some serious changes that need to take place. >> so i don't pretend to have the solution to the fake knaus problem because -- news problem because it's a very complicated problem. it's really easy to say pope francis endorses donald trump. we all know that's not true. we all know it's fake.
you could take it down. but once you then get into -- it's a very slippery slope about truth that goes from there to man-made global warming and on. who do you want to put in charge of making that determination? even if you could put people or algorithms -- computers in charge of making that determination, can you really scale it? because facebook and other social media are global platforms in multiple languages and so it's a really big conundrum for them. it's also really essential for them and everybody else to try to figure out a way to figure this out to try to give some priority, this little self-serve, inty algorithm to trusted news sites and push those up and suppress the
others. but i went and i was looking at some of the things -- the fake news things tweeted, and the thing that is alarming is that if you are disposed to a vert point of view, it's conceivable you would believe that the fake news is real because it looks real. it doesn't have the feel of something slapped together. it's really easy for kids who know how to code to put it up and make it look real. so we could say, you know, civic education and educate high school students and lower about news literacy and that's really important, but it's hard. and so you have this phenomenal, for example, people who have been nominated or chosen for very high and responsible positions in government, who seem to have been taken in by this and so underlying the
phenomenon of fake news is the absolute willingness of people, apparently to believe the craziest worst of people and the pizzagate situation in which i've actually been -- turns out two toe my surprise, because i was caught up in a weird way in pizza gate, i myself am a pedophile, caught up in child sex ring because there is some pizza gate things and i have gotten nasty tweets but also gotten really sincere e-mails from people, worried about this, and so we are now in a society that is inundated with fake news and where a lot of people are so unhappy or disgusted or angry or whatever they're disposed to believe it. that's another part of the fake news problem that i think we have to figure out a way to address.
>> i like to stay on media literacy for a minute, because i think that is critically a important with the environment that we have now, and i've always learned that the answer to bad speech is more speech that corrects the speech. don't know if that's possible. that would be going to the source, media literacy is going to re recipient and i'd like your views on which would be the more productive and what you think, if anything, either the news media itself or government should do. we've got another campaign coming up in two years, and then a presidential in four. what do we want to think about and start doing to enhance our ability to discern what is being said to us? >> sure. well, think if people dish looked at the statistics and i'm sure you have seen these, too -- of kind of how many people are tricked by fake news and they're
shocking. it was something like 8 other% -- 80% of high school students couldn't differentiate between a fake news story and real news story. you could go on and on. some very interesting stack statistics out there. their defendant it in live needed to be an education campaign. what format that should take, maybe it's through the media, maybe it's through the government. maybe government should play a role in that. i think that's an interesting question. i'm not too hopeful about the next administration taking that on but we'll see. encourage them to, i'll just say. but one thing i think that there haven't before enough discussion on is native advertising, and i don't know if people know what the is. it's evil genius. if you go to -- even a media site or many web sites, advertisers or i should say
company's people who are trying to advertise do what is call native advertising where the material presented look exactly like a news story, exactly in the format of the outlet they're advertising on. now, that is confusing. so, yes we need to do a media campaign but are we making it harder for people, individuals who are busy and just maybe they're trying to find ruth's column or who knows -- to try to find information. and i think that is a problem and one -- we're in a stage where it's very easy to differentiate when you're watching television. if you're watching this is us, my new favorite show -- it's so good -- so if you're watching -- sorry, haven aside -- if you're watching a show like that, it's a commercial, you nit a commercial and you can get a snack. >> wasn't always so. the ftc was worried about saturday morning television, when bugs bunny would run for 20
minutes and then bugs himself would sell toothpaste. normally sugared cereal and the insisted on breaks and the following is a paid commercial advertisement, and it couldn't be bugs bunny or even captain kangaroo. it had to be a different type person. >> spoke as a regulatory expert to his is exactly the point, right and is that there has been laws and policies that have been nut place about media and advertising. i'm not a lawyer. i don't even play one on tv at all. but that has been put in place as a result. so are we at a stage where online media, online advertising, all of this has been explode over the past couple of years. it's fascinating but do we need to take a closer look at how this is approached from a
government perspective as well? something the future administerings and legislatures have to deal with. that makes me nervous about government to be involved, morer in nows for facebook to decide what is trusted news and less trusted news. any government -- or even to tell people how to figure it out. just makes me nervous, makes me nervous for any administration, particularly the -- >> don't even like -- >> breitbart now. >> now going to break for a commercial announcement? >> for example, the ftc -- which i know a little bit about, have been married to somebody who worked there -- got in involved in requiring bloggers who received freebies to disclose that it was a freebie.
judgment in this process. >> that is totally fair. and i think this campaign in those particular people like donald trump did require fact taking - - fact checking in to incorporate that into the median story and that took some time and adjusting on our part. and they do think it had some potential downside issues so the education
institutionally among these organizations of how far we were willing to go in terms of calling out false assertions and how we would deal with that. i think it is still a work in progress. we year in a pretty good place. but the false equivalency question and i get this lot lot, i think we spent a lot of the selection right team brutally critical things about donald trump and also
spent a lot of things brutally critical about hillary clinton and i think both of those were doing my job. but it was not half and half or there's a lot of different ways to calculate the numbers one with. but i think that both candidates came with a different magnitude of what is and to ignore the flock of one because the other has a greater fly is not doing our job. maybe i think to notice the substance across the board is not journalism like a lot of journalistic physics that these outrageous statements will trump boring policy
statements and these issues relating to scandal or questionable activity will trump policy statements. was there too much attention to clinton's e-mail's given the scope of other things? perhaps. but that does not mean it was not legitimate or important up for discussion. i broached that it was problematic and it was clear to me well before they said it was clear to the fbi one that it was not a criminal prosecutor one manner. i am losing one alatas sleep
these days but it is not over false equivalence. >> she is in the media said she is the expert but i will add that one of the things that was challenging is that there is a long tradition the elected officials and their staff to save what is accurate or true i think that went out the of window whereases historical eight it may lead with a candidate as a senior staffer may say it to the crime a while to figure out how to handle that as it wasn't the case. >> care is the question the audience noted, not just
editorials to compete with more attention grabbing sources to be worried about this trend? >> the idea that the press is sorting this out across the board and not just appearing in the editorials. >> what we should be concerned about the snow -- the snippy way to say they are not getting their information from reasonably neutral news organizations. with those publications like "the new york times."
but by sorting themselves out from these left side solar right sites if you only watch and listen b.c. but to the extent you are depriving yourself and it is clear that social bdm algorithms that make that even harder to avoid. i don't think that we feel the institutional pressure those at have news reporting and in editorial-page to make the white house of unhappy that is a way to say you must be doing something right. >> and those that had sped
around long time. and that was not left or right leaning either. and of that well-established outlet that is where we are cursing the washington post editorial experience the gamut. and one that dealt think about enough to read broadly but those that use disagree but what i would pass on is it is painful to do but
often i will turn on fox to see what they have to say to see what they say in the certain population would. >> this is of question of a different potential. but whether or not the media organization with those socio-economic side but the policies are unfamiliar. but the group of white non college educated voters on the radar. >> but the polls may not
and certainly from the of losing campaign. >> and that is accepting political more responsibility. been to have those young political reporters and they need to go door knocking and what they thought about the candidates. with the analytics hand of predictability of science and we forgot we are the focus group interviewers of all.
so to the extent it makes the bulk ultraviolet old it is less on the near-perfect science that would be a very good thing. >> added the same lesson although a differential objective because clearly democrats did not just lose the of white house are the seven seats they only one in the six house seats through redistricting. so this is the time of self reflection. data is compelling and interesting that you could never gather as a campaign official but is imperfect
and clearly it was the of poles of the country that was mixed. and there was one communications listen -- lesson to get too far down uh dated driven communication where it is dissected to we are communicating specific messages with because nobody is hearing your overarching passion or messages. that is that we all need to look at coming out of the campaign as well.
>> and to be quite an question of the of media to be very statesmanlike but the question is the following, how is a possible with respect to one of the most important issues of the day, a climate change, and not one question was asked of clinton or trump that the debate? they fail. >> i don't think i will be an indisposition to defend laugh of questioning from town hall from a voter on energy one and that is unfortunate to. all i can say is that this goes back to the bright
shiny object point i was making earlier that took away from what we should have been doing. , leading to the editorial board we asked about climate change of that human contribution is very different from any york times. but with those three presidential debates so with that totality this is serious questioning of candidates. but there has never bed at a candidate who makes himself more accessible to more
media more constantly and does not adequately e questioned and i could list things he was never questioned about over the course of the campaign that should have been. >> i think everything we have ascetic is fair. -- have said is fair but i will say on climate change specifically the president cares about this very deeply . a year and a half ago they said that i focus on this i don't think people really know this so the reality is we have to work very hard and probably should be but what is interesting is
several months went by that were more visual so we did in interview with cbs and we care about that issue that climate change portion of the interview had of farther reaching more people watched that than the news of the day. and that is different from campaigning not underestimating the intelligence of the voters including the omelette deals -- miller kneels on what issues that they care about. but this is one of those that i think has been slow
>> we have spent through the panels does the party make us a difference? so no does technology make a difference? all or alternatively is technology to blame for what we heard about earlier today? but that talk - - technology in campaigns has transformed bin of communications technology with the explosion of data every kind of enterprise and campaigns are no exception with with a long way from the discussion from the 2004
campaign one when they said there are no votes on the internet and that that time when they were watching the how word team campaign takeoff. and only about 2,000 campaigns had websites we were still in the era of female and dial up with the explosion of female and the fund-raising so then along comes the i found -- the iphone with the obama campaign to harness that
start their in to help organize a similar discussion particularly the role of digital technology in silicon valley and we heard that mentioned this morning but i will laski's judge view to pick this up, how technology is an overview was used in uh 2016 campaign in rhode was new this year what was 2016?
demon spawn and die ware that proudly. [laughter] and thanks to the conference at stanford last week on the digital campaign. and i thought what the conference would marginally improve and here is the new digital tools. and not just a surprise victory but who knew we would talk about macedonia at teenagers? that could not be forecasted
seen as critical to the obama success that the tools failed clinton but sewed decides those tools web if they were apart from the digital campaign and those that the political scientist were from four years ago we should not over emphasize to determine the campaign. second, ed donald trump's operation with, people looked at the two that hillary clinton had a digital operation and he did not but to some extent'' we have learned there is the few features there are few
things aikido its spend more money on facebook the least according to the campaign half of that was on digital and tv she certainly spent a lot more on television but it is three or four times from a previous campaign so we do see movements in that direction but what they spend their money on was radically different but the local advertising we would of thought that is what everybody would have been doing so as part of the i.r.a. ramshackle operation they ended up outsourcing the architecture as opposed to putting it in house
dwarfed so one reason they ended up spending more money is they used the people there to help with the digital operation. so the one example is the way that he covered the third debate. but it actually ran the clause i television studio to cover his own debate. so the of live stream it was his own digital operation covering the third debate actually brought in a 9 million viewers even more than the abc live stream he could also raise $9 million from that production and was
a totally different type of experience and what we have seen before. similarly the use of lie video was and polish with the lions and video so those digital operation rates so with the basic strategy but there are some certain things that were effective. but one of the things they've mentioned before was native advertising.
and the of way that they use other digital tools but the big story is how you define the digital campaign it is hard to figure out where the campaign ends or begins. so think about how to you describe the digital campaign went right buyer puts out us story on trump or hillary clinton in the campaign manager is bannon and then retrieved stock breitbart story? so those boat -- barriers have been breaking down it is extremely easy difficult to figure out where the boundaries are.
some of the story is the twitter feed to command the attention it is not just the power on twitter but his twitter feet became a feed and the paid media but now the lines have been blurred. so to pick the line between foreign and domestic and wit but the state news sites if you don't impact -- know that impaction then it will be hard to study the problem
but the one steady was 20 percent of the related tweets mendez seem like a large number but it is on the entire platform. and that is what we need to investigate. and talking before the world wide phenomenon with regulatory issues and that this is what we year looking at so this is the phenomenon of bob populist campaign is not unique to the united states. what we saw with the five-star movement the pirate party is a focus party and that ability of
nontraditional politicians and the campaign's going through different means. >> thanks for having us we appreciate the opportunity i think the part that i agree with most that the credit and the blame goes to the candidates for what they want to message and their management style and obviously that is a potential outcome affected by a then say and personnel and strategy one of the best
look at 2016 i think donald trump operative from that digital perspective of the bottom half of the outcomes if you look at the campaign they really did get started late. and of organization and that you put together cats more effective and intelligent and powerful as we go. so for all of us of christmas ornaments make america great again he will raise as much as mitt romney or maybe less we will find out so we have to be relative to obama in both campaigns made over three times as much as that is we have to be careful what we are thinking about with the
campaign strictly digital. from the outside a few things to look at from 2004 and 2008 and 2012 was then that apparatus but the mitt romney campaign that outsource their infrastructure to the rnc super pac and they could not innovate and a disciplined way but for the most part outside from the previous cycles were taking those big dollar donations and there was not another set like there was for the first time in 2016 think of those media forces like the campaign being embedded but also those macedonian kids and the robots and obviously
that actual hackers trying to take down the organization through illegal activity and that is what we saw in the other races but then we could. but that became a much bigger operation. the other thing that isn't mentioned this time enough is the weapon highest outside forces is the of mechanization of abuse but to have a toxic effect of the electorate to have a conversation with itself about the campaign. obviously related to the fake news but also to being asleep at the switch and not necessarily enforcing what
they would of their policies toward their platforms as a public state and that was unfortunate not what anybody had a good answer for outside the platform other than talk about bullying and talk about the better side of our nature but those who had the ability to drain the swamp of abuse on line of that political conversation and they choose not to we are starting to see some of those reforms now. looking at innovation i think you saw incremental moves from both candidates have the party and the general election to figure that out but the big changes from the outside of the campaign. >> to echo what was just
said the discipline comes from the top down. at some point to be, apart of the campaign if you think of the obama social media programming had the honor to work with, we were creating flows rules as we went we want them to be embassies of the campaign. and we said hateful misogynist dick things then we would take you off the platform if you said things about our opponents we would kiki was off we would not engage we would give factual answers to find the truth. the team created fight this
smear campaign to actually do optimization so my point is this year we saw the exact opposite be ugliest corners of the internet to be elevated that only by the candidates also the meander everybody. so we only use one social media and social media has grown up now we are reach we in this darkest corners in a way that is not good for politics in my opinion. so that is the biggest change but as far as technology, i disagree a little bit with a neat -- with nate they will evolve
with the campaigns or i would talk about how great my space is. we are pretty humbled on the technology side would is working and what is not but if there was a race if the south by southwest conference a used to be technology now is venture-capital list and nobody actually works that these. but you saw stories like periscope vine, snap chat, people were racing to call it something new verses even the of evolution was 50 percent of a of bernie sanders campaign company name mobile phone and the contributions is that
headline worthy verses the platform you have never heard of election? probably not so you saw a rush to beat that and instead the bernie sanders campaign we did not invent technology but we used facebook but i disagree we spend more money on facebook than hillary we were jumping up and down she was not spending enough on facebook. >> [bels ringing] >> it is just incremental one of evolution i have to give it up to david axelrod to be at the right place at the right time everybody got
a equally even the pollsters it was about winning the fight had a cool crappy idea and we would do it and it wasn't that approval process like the net romney campaign because we were making stuff up in the middle of the night going down the next day and internet video we were burning up laptop on computers and doing light streamed video. so maybe the trump campaign did something different with live stream. >> and almost feel you're looking for a disagreement where there is not. >> bernie sanders gets left
out of all of these. >> i've was really just complex -- comparing trump banana and clinton. >> also the way they were fund-raising broke all types of records were. i don't disagree and i hope i wasn't minimizing the importance of technology to say having a sophisticated digital operation even that ramshackle organization that trump had. >> so what does this say in 2016 barack obama i showed up at south by southwest quick. >> attendee to agree about that particular conference that is the price of success but when people begin to
come looking, the great thing about the campaign that is more true on the democratic side, i did not perceive the crowded republican primary as a petri dish of innovation where people tried out different tools or techniques or structures donald trump was doing something very different that could be characterized but it wasn't really a different set of innovations but one of the unfortunate things about the director added primary and the operation is we didn't have the opportunity to have a lot of different models play al behind the different candidates for coach joe biden brothers were there
obviously the campaigns would have looked but the number of people who came from the obama campaign that were ready to run that scrappy campaign to get that experience and cut their teeth to prove those different models of innovation would have been beneficial to the party berger at the beginning it was not a big operation they just took the infrastructure with uh digital tools for the revolution mobile platform and go on a shoestring before the money started to come in. so the results of the obama and campaign small donor or organizing perspective and
from rapid response messaging the barrier was never lower of the real sophisticated meaningful campaign to plan out as an experiment. i feel that we missed a little bit of that opportunity by having a small primary field. >> so '02 pick up but we talked about earlier in the context of journalism is too much into the data and analytics in that context. and this type is in tune that you talk about but uh trump campaign went to
outsource but they use those romney mistakes with their own model or own technology and the mother of computer science and then have a model that wisconsin was an issue to allocate those resources and relied heavily on that model. >> ultimately the campaign where i learned this from is about time and people and money and ultimately you are supposed to figure out the right equation to win and that's it.
if you are able to talk to elders in the field like a good friend of mine that both have worked clinton in '92, 96 or obama at 2008 and 2012, they tell you there is a problem and you listen to their labor unions and they tell you there's a problem, i was very clear in my assessment that all the data and modeling with the best tools and technology don't mean anything if you cannot have a real message to connect and resonate with the models -- with people that they were not listening to the voters. so if you should be building these tools in house sort out of house i go back to
time people money. with the bernie sanders campaign drove had already built $500 off the shelf to use him is tools. that is reid by your own servers but that is out there. facebook is a powerful tool if i had that when i was organizing maybe a would not use a web site and just use facebook event and don't know if they should be building warships and trump stumbled into that because he did not have the time and the people unnecessarily close to the up primary to build his own warship. >> so let's talk about where things go from here.
in some respects the campaign doesn't change even from 1840 to be well organized to go into small districts keep a constant watch on those doleful voters in be talked to if they don't have much confidence on election day and to see everybody is brought to the apple that is essentially the same today but how has technology changed that? and what is the innovation of the next cycle? >> so the digital campaign culture is that it is a way to bring things to life to be better smarter more
refashioned and at that abettor scale also that it is the question the one that sticks out is if they have the most confidence with that notion of trust and how people are willing to stand behind their candidate is on the table from a civic perspectives though the rise of the abuse of mine -- online is troubling than and undermines that civic and political fabric of those participating in a campaign in a meaningful way so hopefully what we will see before the next presidential campaign is more politicians and more organizations
working to build that trust asking ordinary citizens that our concerned to spend that social capital that they have in their family and work place and neighborhood to stand for the equivalent of those conversation for the next year or the next year after that when they're having discussions. . . >> you want to tweet out we must not 3:00 o'clock in the morning. i don't don't agree with the tone or the content of his
obnoxious ways, but the emotion, the raw emotion at 3:00 o'clock in the morning and 24 hours to change the entire conversation during drive time is something that i urge every democrat that wants to be in opposition leader to be doing right now. i am watching a lot of democrats with the millions and millions of followers of assets not getting in that game and showing rage the way that you saw joe biden earlier today talk about his real emotion around leaving office. we felt that. there were people in the audience tearing up. i would like to see that more and more. so i think evolving online in ways that trump did by spending 50% of the monies what you said, roughly, it is something very different.
bernie sanders campaign is much as we did online, our spend was not to that extent. our spend was around 30% online. google, facebook, books like that are saying it depends whether it will be 20, 30, 40%. corporate america you see spend 40% in branding tactics or mask medication. the final thing is, i do think the increase in ad servers and add technology are growing. so people that used to say early money is like yeast, i would say say early ad money is like yeast. all of these things work on compounded interest. the fact that bernie sanders when he first launched gave us enough money to do acquisition and then get repeat donors of young voters to give us 20 some dollars at a time was super important and it is only going to get more important as the add technology quickly evolves.
>> the trump campaign said they deputy% digital and 50% traditional advertising. we will see. one one of the problems in studying this is that we do not have good disclosure of where money is spent outside of tv. we may never know. i think the trends are quite clear, given how much money was put away by either by jab bush in his campaign or hillary clinton and television ants, the generational shift which is already underway and campaigns and folks are going to get older anyway a more senior in the campaign so they're going to be dominating the and four and eight years. we should should expect that trajectory to continue. secondly, this sense in which the boundaries of the campaign are disintegrating and whether it's a platform's or the media organizations trying to figure out more broadly how to integrate all of those other
kind of gray areas that are relevant to the campaign i think if we are fighting them cut the last war, the next time that's where you will see the action. very. very few people are going to have the kind of immediate name recognition and twitter following and then ability to get attention like donald trump did so the $2 billion he got was just in the primaries that was mentioned before, probably double that if you look to the general election. very few candidates who just announce are going to be able to garner that kind of attention, but the playbook, the loose playbook is there about how you're going to try to use these digital tools in order to get the attention you need to run an effective campaign. >> let's step back and take a plumber topic and then go to questions. i want to step back from some of the nuts and bolts.
[inaudible] >> he said among many other things that we are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, without fear of being coerced into silence. you brought up what is going on parallel around the world, we've heard today about some of the negative impacts of social media. to what extent you see technology is to blame, or not to blame for those challenges to civic discourse and civility?
>> is a 74 think the platforms were so much of the discourse taken place have more control than they are exercising over enforcing a standard of decency in their own codes of contact that they already have. i think that that is something that needs to be addressed. it is important to note that more people voted in the selection than any other one. that is in spite of concerted efforts by people to prevent groups from voting. let's just say by republicans to prevent people from voting. so i think that is an important reality. i think there are some silver linings, things like automatic voter registration, the initiative that just passed in alaska is going to provide a fascinating set of data for
academic world to look at the effective broader voter registration on turnout. my hope is that the peculiarities of the electoral college and they voter registration and process after this election will hopefully become more focus of attention, but also become more of a bipartisan and less polarized issue. i'm not sure what the political path for that is, but i think that is a key aspect and i'm encouraged by the fact that the fight is on those things and that we are seeing some progress on it. it is tough times out there for civic life. the politics is not helping with that. what i can see from where i sit and we work with progressive and
democratic advocacy groups a part of the time, we also work with 5o1c3 charities and folks like partners in health or the u.s. fund for unicef and things like that. what we are seen of the of across hundreds of these organizations was that both the political and advocacy groups fighting for civil rights and justice are seen a big uptick, as has been reported in the media, also the 501(c) three charities are seeing historic giving tuesday totals and end-of-the-year fundraising. while the social media scene can be one depiction of civic life that feels like it's a bit in the ditch, what we can see on the backend of the date is that people are sitting both upright as a result of this election season and in the aftermath are
deciding to give to causes they believe in and also to folks that they think will be in the front lines of what other the policy consequences of this administration are. that gives me hope. >> sera question i took it was, where the technology is taking us as a democracy. to go back to the earlier panel which is that it's unmediated democracy or at least the old mediators are not there whether you're talking about political parties or their traditional media organization it's a very different situation when a candidate is able to talk to his twitter followers and it was when they had to talk with walter cronkite or have to pay money to get airtime. so i think that has a lot of troubling consequences which we have seen, so there is always
the utopian and the dystopia view of anything internet related. one is every power to the people everybody has an equal voice, but then the other side is enabling a lot of the more racist fringe to have a greater megaphone, as well as the fact that democracy needs mediators and someone to aggregate interest in political parties to effectuate policy and the like, that 300,000,000 people yelling is not exactly the way to run a government. the way think about the consequences, the the unique consequences of the move toward internet democracy, it's about the effective and anatomy, and and the reality of political discourse. anonymity, so you look at one of the consequences and what
enables the hateful rhetoric on mine is the fact that unlike if you are to run a television ad or something to a mass audience, now because of the and anatomy that twitter and other platforms allow you to you don't have to take responsibility for the speech as it facilitates the hateful language that we have seen. secondly, the idea of sovereignty that when we're looking at television as the way that candidates were communicating to voters, you didn't have to worry about the fact that one of them only in the manchurian candidate says that you worry that if there is foreign influence going through, now you don't know the origin of internet communication could be coming anywhere in the world. and third and it gets to the state news and others which is that virality is the political
currency. it's not about about truth, it's about what is popular. so the key fact is that you try to get your message to get as much residence and popularity as possible. this really is the problem for the platforms which is that if you listen to what facebook says, when mark zuckerberg talked about -- one purpose on facebook is to have an engaging experience to promote engaging and meaningful experience. the the truth is that has nothing to do with truth. a meaningful engaging experience could have all to do with hearing all of the kinds of signals that you want to hear. the same is true for search engines which is their currency is relevant. frigging out what the messages and the information you receive is relevant other characteristics about you. that is nothing to do about wethers true or not. that's where we come which is very different when the traditional media institutions were moderators.
>> thank you very much for that. we have time for only one question. we have another part of the program ready to go. is it because of its universal accessibility social media's use at a high rate by people with disabilities. voters with disabilities are 36 million voters, the turnout is only 42%. do you see campaigns using social media to bridge this type of voter gap in the future? since we're trying to look forward. this should be a fairly quick but i would like your best reason this. >> is an interesting niche and when i was doing social media platforms originally for obama,
it was before facebook led you to have a.edu address, you needed other things and can have a certain amount of followers, think it was $5000 for a presidential campaign. there is a platform called this a boon boon which is the disabled american social media platform. you could actually have intelligent conversations with people on these unique niches niche based platforms. we had had blackplanet was the largest african-american social media platform that had over 500,000 followers for barack obama before any the other platforms. i think that you need to organize and talk to niche based communities in unique ways. now that these platforms have done and also in facebook, facebook algorithm and figure in the stuff out or going out reaching and having a platform or showing, not telling and
doing videos that address these different communities in different niches is super important. it was almost easier when every had their own platform. nothing much easier advertising networks we talked about earlier you can engage in these communities. the biggest problem with the election is not the technology is not there, it was using the message and engage in the communities. the thing is a different a video, whether viral or engaging is that if you're trying to organize people and i will, you don't care if the video has 200,000 voters on it, you care for has 15000 views in iowa. thinking about engaging and thinking about views is more strategic then thinking about virality.
>> thank you very much. i like to express our appreciation for this panel. thank you. [applause] >> it afternoon everyone. it is great to be here today. i apologize for sitting down, it has been a long year. it has been a long year. other parts of of my body that need rest. thank you very much. it is an honor to be here and to help walk all of us through what happened on november 8 and what it means going forward. if i am a little distracted, i apologize. the only other thing that would be more important to me than would be talking about this is my daughter's middle school basketball game, they are plying right now, i am as a as a pollster i am the unofficial statistician 15. and when i told them i was not going to be there today because
i was doing this they say, oh you were the guy that said hillary clinton would win maybe we'll get someone else to do or stands. so couple of things and then i urge all of you to move to questions. the way i look at this is a couple of things, so number one i come here not to appraise polling but also not to condemn public polling. the national polls for the most part got the numbers almost right. at the end of the day, mrs. clinton will win the popular vote two points. an aggregation of all the publicly released polls, nationally, the last time before the november 8 election had the average clinton margin of 3.4%.
number two, those same polls had the average for johnson and stein at 7%. they ended up getting 4.2% in real life. then the third factor that was part of life in polling is that the national polls, even the ones at the end had an average undecided a 5%. now, that is the one advantage that an actual election has over polls. his when you go to the polling booth or when you fill out the ballots at home you have two options, voting for a candidate or not voting in that race. in polls, because because of the nature polls we offer the undecided option so whereas on election day and to vote for president there is no undecided,
there is 5% undecided in the national polls which if you take that, plus the 3% or more that johnson stein got on election day, add it to the volatility of the national polls and in particular if you take it one level down because obviously we do not elect presidents by the popular vote, they are elected by electoral college. if you think about those dynamics of the national polls there even more prevalent in the battleground polls, especially in wisconsin, michigan, and pennsylvania. bottom line, there is a lot of volatility. number two, when you look in particular at the three states where the presidential campaign was one, or if on the other side, lost, wisconsin, michigan,
and pennsylvania, in addition to the volatility in public opinion research, there was volatility in real life. one statistic among the many i've tried to remember is in the exit polls in the state of wisconsin, 10% of voters surveyed in the exit polls said they made up their minds on who to for president in the last couple of days of the election. so last couple of days of the election could've been tuesday, could've been monday, could've been sunday, could've been saturday. you know the days of the week. the second call me letter hit on friday afternoon. so afternoon. so in the state of wisconsin, among the 10% who said they voted in the last couple of days of the election, i would wager most of those people were after the second call me letter, trump was ahead of clinton by 27 points.
so one of the young stated questions i am answering, what happened with the polling? what happened with the polling is the margin of error, they undecided, the fact that johnson and stein got 7% make up 4% real life. so a is the normal volatility in a public opinion survey. b, is the the volatility and fluidity in real life. we would be having a slightly different conversation regardless of what party you are for it 52000 or so boats had switched between wisconsin, michigan, pennsylvania. mrs. clinton lost those three states by roughly 106 votes total. so if 53000 had changed hands maybe we would talk about how close the election was, but an election that she would've been ahead. a couple couple of the
things about how to read what happened on election day, i will argue that analyst, and i think analysts from both parties will spend time going through the numbers and the results, because i really believe that what happened on november 8 is it something that was short-term, it did not happen the last three or four days, to not happen since september or in 2016, arguably a lot of what happened or did not happen on november eighth, 2016 as a result of a result of long-term trends. our nbc news, we also do and part of the polling team for wall street journal, our national surveys in which we deal with the republican polling firm show that the track was not 70% range, that when asked do you want to elect a president
who will make major changes, even if you don't quite know what those changes might be, or would you like to elect someone who will make steady progress? by 5 - 4 in the last poll, the electric wanted major changes. we asked a question on the agree disagree the social economic systems of this country are biased against people like me? toward the end we are getting 60 and 65% of american saying basically the system doesn't represent me anymore. so, through the same surveys that suggested that mrs. clinton had the advantage elect harley, you could also see signs of discontent within the electorate. one of the things, i'll speak for myself and not in us early surly for my republican colleagues, one of the things we are really trying to reckon with is that i believe there are some
things the polls got right and one of the things they got right was i think donald trump was the most unpopular person to run for president as a major party nominee. i believe that is true. exit polls will show that a lot of trump voters voted for him, not because they're voting for him, but were voting against somebody. but that's the thing. how could someone with numbers and negatives in our nbc wall street journal polling, his negatives were 58, 59 and 60. those are tremendous negatives. the fact that he could win despite that is something we are still trying to figure out. you want to give the trump campaign and donald trump there do. this is not just people voting against something, there is clearly something they may have been voting for.
i think that is one of the things are trying to figure out. the other interesting thing about this election is that there are some states where it is not clear that there is a so-called trump phenomenon. the state of california, nevada, nevada, where we picked up a u.s. senate seat into congressional seats. my home state of maryland. in maryland and 2016 christie and holland won that senate seat by 25 points. there are areas in maryland where a lot of blue-collar voters live, for example baltimore county. baltimore county in the 2014 governor's race voted for the republican candidate for governor by 20 points.
i was thinking that if there is a trump phenomenon nationally, you might see it in a place like baltimore county which voted for the republican candidate for governor by 20 points in 2014. a month ago baltimore county, the same place that voted for republican governor for 20 points voted for hillary clinton over donald trump 17 points. the presidential election. so as analysts, as people who are interested in politics, you want to see uniformity or you want to see a trend, i do think it is one thing to look at the numbers nationally, but you really do need to look at individual localities. again, there is not a uniform trend as to what happened in
november. one of the things that is something to look for is one a lot of the analysts and pundits have noticed since november is the increase or higher turnout in small-town, rural america, in essence, red america getting redder. during the mine when he said a second ago, we need to be careful about applying a uniform theory to the entire country. there are parts of the country were areas that romney, mccain, other republicans did well, trumped it even better. turnout in those areas were if not the same as 2012, may be a little higher. one of the areas like that that comes to mind to
me and i think i'll close by saying this really to me speaks to what happened to democrats in 2016 is that elliott county kentucky. l elliott county kentucky is in eastern kentucky and its democratic. some some states don't have party registration. for everyone republican, there are 10.5 democrats. third fat, elliott county kentucky had voted for every democratic candidate for president from 1868 until 2012. so every single election, elliott county kentucky had voted for the democratic candidate for president. in 2008, barack obama defeated john mccain and elliott county
kentucky, 61 - 39 - 39%. in 2012 barack obama defeated mitt romney in elliott county kentucky 50, 47. in 2016 donald trump defeated hillary clinton in elliott county by 70 - 26%. and that is run interesting things about numbers, and elliott county kentucky feels like montgomery county, maryland. there's 4800 registered voters so it is a small sample size, but closing people asked me in particular as the democratic strategists what happened in pennsylvania, what happened in michigan, what happened in wisconsin? and i would argue against hursley we're still looking through all the results. i think the anecdote of elliott county kentucky, and i know it
because i started pennsylvania and it was replicated in the elliott county, kentucky is a michigan and wisconsin a 480000 votes by itself doesn't sound like a lot, but there are 30 counties like that. it does make does make a difference. but i would argue again was a historically close election. one of the things at least on our side of the l democrats will look at is not only the lower turnout in some of the urban areas of the country which hurt democrats but also the issue of a place that voted for barack obama by 33 points just eight years ago, what happened to make them turn around of over donald trump by 44 points one month ago? thank you very much.
[applause] >> we have time for a few questions before the reception. i thought perhaps if you would like to put a question we have students here on the side they can take the questions and bring them to us. i will start by asking if i could and i also encourage anybody along the same line the question, you said i understood you correctly that that's the analysis that has to take place, how how could a flip like that occur? not necessarily a don't want to hold you to your own theory about that, but what are some of the competing theories about how a flip like that may have occurred? >> now are talking specifically about elliott county, kentucky? >> were talking about elliott county in places like that that have showed such a dramatic switch by those margarines what might've driven the politics of
that kind of electric? >> elliott county kentucky is in eastern kentucky, it is not close to, but it but it is in the region that borders west virginia, a lot of this was economic. a lot of this was job loss over the last few decades. jobs that had not come back. and i think there is a famous saying from the 1992 campaign that the economy stupid. i think part of what happened in the elliott county, kentucky's of the world was the economy. but that's not the only thing. one of the interesting questions from the national exit polls is the exit pollsters asked on the electorate, on four issues what was the most important issue for you? then they looked at how
people voted who pick those issues. so the top issue in 2016 nationally was the economy. 52% of americans have the the economy is most important issue. among those people who pick the economy, they voted voted for hillary clinton by 52 - 42. that's a good margin. but if the economy is the number one issue, you kind of had obviously since she did win the popular vote but she needed to win the economy more. we would have hoped that the advantage on the economy would have been greater. they asked another set of questions, which one of the following characteristics or approaches do you want the next president of united states to have? the number one answer, 39% plurality, number trim majority
but a plurality said they wanted someone who could bring change to washington. among those voters who said the top quality for the next president was bringing change to washington, they will do for for donald trump by 84 - 14%. there were competing variables out there. i think on issuance it was about the economy and jobs and a particular job loss. there was another strain strain out there that i was referencing at the beginning that what happened on november 8 i believe wasn't just november 8. it was a combination of things. every poll shows this in the subs dissatisfaction with washington, not just democrats or republicans but both parties. the political political and economic system was not working for people like them. look, if i said and i believe this is true, donald trump was the most on popular person to run for president, he also he also clearly was one of the most
unique people to run for president. if there is a strain strain out there voters, americans wanting dramatic change, what better way to express the the voting for someone who is as different from anybody else who had ran for president regardless of how popular or unpopular he was. >> thank you. were getting a lot of questions. we will be here until about 10:00 p.m. [laughter] i know that's not a problem if you so i appreciate it. without knowing what particular order to begin with let's start with this. assuming the polls were more or less close, there was an impression that people received through, this is a broad term, the media, that secretary clinton was on the road to a certain victory by whatever margin one might imagine. is there an issue, concerned that you have another pollsters would have about how polling data is communicated to the
public? >> that's a great question. and since i've been relieved of my duties of an unofficial statistician to the middle school team i have a lot of time to think about it. look i think this is which came first, the chicken or the egg, it is true that if you are a political analyst, if any either party, cable, broadcast, print whatever, you you look at a lot of different factors to help you understand what is going on and look ahead to what will happen. polling clearly plays a role in that. i think, the ten national polls that i looked at to come up with the number of 7% average for johnson stein, the 5% undecided, those ten national polls i am
referring to, only one had trump ahead. so if you are political analyst and looking at the preponderance of national polls, if of the last ten polls released nine show hillary clinton ahead, you're going to say hillary clinton is probably going to win. there is one pole that had trump ahead, but again, i'm not say reread the election, russ a list to a do over, but but the pole that had trump ahead was actually wrong. mrs. clinton did win the popular vote. i think bob and everyone, the one critique i would make up polling and those who analyze polls is that when people see a
number that is 44 - 40, to think that 44 - 40 means 44 - 40 and not taking into account the undecided, what% are johnson and stein getting, the margin of error, i think -- so the other way of asking that question is what if we had no polls. so don't everyone clap. but if we did not have any polling, where would that leave us? i'm not as old as i like but i have been doing this for 30 years, it's amazing when i started out with peter and jeff 30 years ago, when there was a poll, and remember i'm the poster, i got excited because unlike there's a poll in
illinois, let's look at it. in 2016 there was literally dozens of polls every day and i think not treating every poll the same will help. what are are the polls and the track record in various states? do the polls do likely voters, how long long were they in the field? again, to believe that most, i believe the fact that there was volatility with voters even till the end. and that that some of the reason why the polls miss the election. most of the major polls stopped pulling saturday, and sunday of the election. that is late. i know people are thinking well saturday, and sunday the election was tuesday.
as we know, public opinions can move very quickly and i think, i don't think it's the only reason why, but i do think the fact that the second coming letter came out on friday afternoon and there is a saturday, sunday, monday, tuesday, i tuesday, i did think that had some impact in changing, i bet you if we pulled tuesday morning we would've found a slightly different result. >> it turns out that's the next question about the coming letter. the question here is, how do you see the impact of that letter, and then without saying what about trumps strengths that might account for the outcome, if i could just attend a friendly amendment here, the second coming later -- so explain how you see that potentially working against her over the last four days of the election if that's what you want
to see before the votes was cast. >> i think there are going to be lots of theories about what happened and some of them may even be true. even in we did the wall street journal poll, we had mrs. clinton ahead by four points if i'm recalling correctly as if we got out of the field on saturday and this was sunday morning. it looks like she was the internals, the subgroups it was a national poll not a poll of all 50 states. you look like she did not have it locked up, but look like she was headed to win. even in that poll, she had
dropped from a previous poultry and the other thing in polls is not just what are the results now, but what are the results previously. the tran-04 her was up in a race was narrowing. at that point it was more not that trump was gaining some of her vote was going to johnson and steiner undecided. the second coming letter, i thinking campaigns especially if you are a candidate with a strong head wind, 70% the wrong direction, the majority wanting the president who would make major changes, two thirds or so saying the political system was biased against people like then. it conditions that would favor
an insurgent candidate. she wasn't the incumbent per se but she was in trump, for a lot of reasons, not just because he was they out of powder party, he was insurgent but you can see that making life difficult for the campaign. i would argue in this is something all of us will be thinking about and analyzing in the weeks to come. i think the second coming letter but they whole issue back on the public consciousness. if you think about it, it's like a courtroom. the last argument that voters heard from both sides was email, she didn't do anything wrong but the e-mail once again for trump -- again this is something where people should check the record. one of the things i noticed was
how someone and seem to taken away his twitter account in the last couple of days of the election. i don't think that he commented personally on the second coming letter. and and that instead the narrative for the trump campaign was that he was gonna go to michigan, he was going to was anson in pennsylvania and that was his closing argument. look, i think that's one theory about what happened. i think there's a couple other theories and all of those could be equally true. again when you have an election like this that was a surprise, it's really not one thing you can point to, it's a combination of things. i know that's not assistance hundred 40 character answer but i happen to think that is the reality of what happened. >> thank you. the next question about kentucky, how would you estimate
the potential role of sexism? the person first presidential nominee who was a woman, how does that figure into this and norma's reversal of sentiment in the county? >> i believe that at some level it had to be a factor but i don't think it was the number one issue for you and i think there were a whole lot of strengths and weaknesses that hillary clinton brought to the campaign. if her gender had been reversed what what happened in l.a. county kentucky? again, i really think the result probably would've been the same.
battleground states, there were higher proportions of those groups plus look, i think the numbers might change a little bit since i paid attention to this. but in the state of wisconsin, which mrs. clinton lost by 11,000 votes there were roughly 30,000 or fewer votes in the city of milwaukee. into one a 16 there were less than their were in 2012. so i think the proportions in wisconsin of that last group, bob it was 17% nationally. i think it was maybe 20 or 21% in wisconsin. if you take that, you take the lower turnout in a strong democratic area like milwaukee and all those small things add up to 11,000 votes.
again remember when you have a situation like this in which 104,000 votes out of 12 or 14 million cast in pennsylvania, michigan and wisconsin, i don't think it's just one thing you can point to. yeah it's not like i'm 100% for wisconsinites were rural non-college-educated white voters but to say one out of five lower turnout in urban areas, that adds up again to a narrow defeat. >> thank you. i have two questions not entirely unrelated and they don't want to hold you longer than i think it's fair. do you think the general population shift to urban areas will in the future make it less likely for this kind of result
to occur and related to that is what about the apparent absence from the participation among young people i mean look, i think one of the disappointments on the democratic side of things was how we were hoping and expecting more robust turnout, for example with millennials and it just didn't happen. i guess the thing is we know they are out there. we know that when they vote they vote democratic. one of the challenges of 2016 was they just didn't vote in numbers that we had hoped for. is it a message issue for the democrats? was that a candidate issues for
the democrats? was an organizational or logistic? i don't know. i mean again we talk about a lot of the analysis on national terms because that is where most of the data is available but i do think you know in california which again if you look at the california results you would not know that donald trump had been elected president of the united states. latino and young people turn out was fairly high so look, i think as evidenced by the press both parties but particularly democratic parties have gone through a period of self introspection and analysis. i think one of the things as we know we have the votes to win the elections, especially national elections.
what was the miski was the miski 12016 that we can avoid in 2018 and especially 2020 bucks b thank you. question the exit poll suggested 30% of latinos voted for trump. do you have confidence that number is within the ballpark or higher relative to predictions in being fair and electric? >> yeah, i think we are not quite sure yet of a 30 the 30% number of latinos is quite right you know but i mean look i think that they are the growing demographic of american politics 30% which seems to be a high number to me especially given the things he said during the campaign but look i do know for example i was fortunate enough
to work on catherine cortez masto's campaign in nevada and i'm pretty sure since senator cortez masto one the senate race for nevada and hillary clinton won nevada that at least nevada he didn't get 30% of latinos. he didn't do that well in california and florida is a different issue. texas is a different issue but 30% would seem kind to me that we really have to look at it. >> there's combining to more and one after that but they you for hanging in there with us. the question is about whether in fact the issue that people have had with polling within what we have is a problem with numbers and you have partly answered this question before. with the way the numbers are read and i suppose your answer to that is interpretation is a lot to do with it. >> i think again the last 10
national polls have a clinton advantage of plus 3.4%. i think as of a couple of days she was ahead in the national popular vote about 1.8 or 1.9%. that's not that far off but look , there was a sense i think from the polls and analysts that it was an election that mrs. clinton was very likely to win. look, if you are a normal human being and you see a nine out of 10 polls she is ahead you are going to draw the obvious conclusion that she's going to win the election. i also think the other sort of intangible and i hate to keep going back to this but a good
pollster like a good candidate stays on message. i think one of the things that look, i think if you hook all of us up to a lie detector we would have said yes we believe she is going to win but it's going to be difficult and there are things you can see where donald trump could win with the headwinds that she was facing. but i think the big sticking point in going over to the other side ultimately is where we are now is that he could win with how unpopular he was. and i think one of the things, i think one of the things we underestimated as analysts and maybe i should say me and not we because i do want to give them everybody else, we also said this and analysis but obviously it's not as provocative and
saying he was the most unpopular person to run for president. mrs. clinton was the second-most unpopular person to run for president. i think at the end of the day the analysts probably, obviously should have given out more weight. it really is a flip of the coin for voters. were there other things in the polling that should have been looked at. beyond 3.4% ahead, two points ahead in all those things the right direction in the wrong track. the fact that a lot of americans still believe that they hadn't recovered from the recession. again, the strong majority who said the economic and political systems of this country are biased against them. i think maybe if we had paid more attention to the signs that were plainly in view but that we were distracted by not only the
most unusual person to run for president but the most unpopular we could have given the clear view of what ultimately could happen. >> this is the last one which is a follow-up combining two. in responding to the experience whether it's in structuring turnout are trying to decide for example how did compensate for the number of voters who are harder to reach out the shift from landlines to cell phones not necessarily omit this election but more generally we need a polling in -- industry to adjust for those issues? >> first of all this is the last question nine feel like i need to couch to lie down on. the short answer is yes. honestly, the polling industry goes through this. in 2012 it was more that the
republican pollsters had quote unquote got in the race wrong. if one side or the other gets a wrong we are professionals. we don't like it honestly if anyone gets it wrong because our job is to get it right whether you are a democrat or republican pollster. we did self reflection after that. it wasn't just a republican thing. it was a polling industry. and i think, look, i think, i know some people may not believe this but every pollster out there whether democrat or republican we really want to try to get this right and i think one of the challenges for our industry is a a good poll tries to eliminate bias and in particular bias in his being selected to take the poll. it was a heck of a lot easier in
the good old days 10 or 20 years ago when the predominant communication device of the american public was landlines. it's just obviously gotten a lot more complicated now, a lot more diverse. i think, look, i think polling still has a role. it's important to know what people think but i do think we are not just starting on november 9. we started two, four, six years ago. what is going to be the best, and also let's not forget the most efficient and effective way to charlie get a random sample of people that insurers that someone from the national poll has as much chance of being contacted if they live in anchorage alaska if they lived in maryland. the really good old days when my mentor and your friend peter hart was doing this, i won't
embarrass peter and say how long ago that was, a lot of the polls were door-to-door, face-to-face. clearly if you think about trying to reach people that's probably quote unquote the best way of conducting research because even if you don't have a landline someone can get you and reach out to you. you've got to go somewhere. the issue with that is when i look back at our old polls and we were considered state-of-the-art, a typical statewide survey would take 30 days because if bob bauer is not home i've got to schlep five blocks over to talk to someone else and maybe they're not home and it's obviously a time-consuming process.
again polling, the number one polling -- polling meets the effect meets the effective employee needs to be efficient. a 30-day field. not for 15 days or 20 days just isn't practical given where we are now in society. again, we have technology. it sounds like a line from the 6 million-dollar man. we have the technology. we just have to figure out what this new polling world looks like. if it's a blend of different technologies. maybe it's something else but you know we are all striving to figure out how to do our jobs better. >> on behalf of everybody here you are one of the nation's premier pollsters and you have a really great -- thank you very much. [applause]