Skip to main content

tv   Politics and Public Policy Today  CSPAN  February 2, 2016 3:15pm-5:16pm EST

3:15 pm
5, 5. >> the noise. >> i wonder if i could -- >> excuse me for just a minute, dear. >> just a little loud to concentrate. >> can you go back in the hallway? >> we appreciate it. all right. just stay a little quiet. it's hard for us to hear with everybody chatting. just stay a little quieter. that will really help us out. thank you. >> thanks. >> 1, 42. >> okay.
3:16 pm
>> all right. this is boone six. >> right. >> 4, 13, 4, 58, 0, 0, 6, 4, 9, 31, 1, 29. >> okay. >> three.
3:17 pm
>> okay. >> all right. 5, 15, 9, 48, 1, 0, 5, 9, 8, 42, 1, 27. >> put this away? >> is this the one? >> yes, it is the one. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> thank you. no, thank you. all right. let's do four. >> 0, 14, 6, 56, 0, 0, 10, 1,
3:18 pm
12, 29, 5, 41. >> okay. get your calculator ready. now we go to the total page. i'll let do you the calculating. >> oh, great. >> almost, folks. >> all right. okay. we have to start at the top. or do you want to do it this way? you want to do it this way? >> which way? >> like just put their names down for the total page, like jeb -- see, like this? and then i'll just run right through them. >> oh, okay. question do that. >> okay. you want to write that in?
3:19 pm
i want to get these straightened out. >> write them in the right order, too. jeb, ben, ted, chris. just put down the initials, we know who they are. >> marco? >> uh-huh.wjkñç okay. you have to write just the numbers down and then total them? >> i can do that. that's a good idea. >> all right. 3, 22, 4, 50, 2, 0, 2, 1, 2, 19,
3:20 pm
1, 13. next. 4, 8, 2, 36, 0, 0, 6, 0, 4, 15, 1, 36. we're getting there. 6, 20, 9, 44, 0, 0, 6, 4, 5, 26, 1, 42.
3:21 pm
4, 13, 4, 58, 0, 0, 6, 4, 9, 31, 1, 29. 5, 15, 9, 48, 1, 0, 5, 9, 8, 42, 1, and 27. 0, 14, sorry. 6, 56, 0, 0, 10, 1, 12, 29, 5
3:22 pm
and 41. >> tell you what. okay. why don't you add them up and i add them up. that way we can compare notes. >> all righty. >> how's that? >> that's exciting. it's like watching paint dry, isn't it? all righty. are there any central committee members out there? i do need some help on something. but okay. >> should we write them down? >> we will. but i just want to see what you have. >> yep. >> i need tape to get these up from the bin. that's what i was looking for. that's why i was looking for a
3:23 pm
central committee member. >> irene is out there. >> oh, she is? i don't see her. >> yep. same thing. >> all right. anybody have any background music to play? jeopardy. i should put it on my phone. i messed up. where am i at? >> rita? can you get me some masking tape from the plastic bag. you know where it is. thank you. to post these. thank you. where are we? that far already? >> yeah.
3:24 pm
>> all right. nailed it. we just keep matching. it's amazing. >> i can whistle this. >> oh, okay. yeah, that's what i got. next. >> add all the zeros together? >> okay. i have 35. >> 35. 5, 9, 19, 18? >> thank you very much. do you think that's okay to use on the windows or the masking tape? i had two rolls of masking tape in that ziploc bag. or find kay. she'll find it. okay. we're at rand.
3:25 pm
okay. nailed it again. >> we're good. we're really good. now the olympics must have a different scoring system. it goes faster, doesn't it? at the olympics? we're going as fast as we can. nailed it again. we need some music here. >> i know. that's all right. thanks. i would have had the next line. >> you think so? >> that's what i needed, rita. you're the best. thank you. well, you know, so we overplan. >> okay. ready? where is my total page? >> okay.
3:26 pm
all right. 22, 92, 34, 292, 3, 35 -- three. hold on a minute. zero. sorry. >> that's all right. 35. >> yeah, i agree with that. >> yeah. 19. 40. 162. 10. and 188. okay. let's walk them down, put them up. you want to take the tape? you know, one, two, three.
3:27 pm
>> what? >> i knew it would be those three. >> oh, yeah. i know know what you're saying now. i do. i do. you want to grab the tape? >> got it. >> all right. okay.
3:28 pm
>> who won? wouldn't that be great? isn't it always that?
3:29 pm
>> this was a gop caucus outside of des moines. so many people showed up that officials ran out of ballots and
3:30 pm
caucus goers got spare pieces of paper to use. you'll hear more about the democrats and how they fared in a few minutes. the road to the white house heads to new hampshire this week as the candidates crisscross the state in the first of the nation primary. coming up live at 6:00, marco rubio is an skitter takiexit ex in a town hall meeting. donald trump will speak to supporters in millford on c-span2. next, a conversation about how last night's caucuses impact next week's new hampshire primary and beyond.
3:31 pm
we are back this morning with reid wilson, morning consult, chief political correspondent to talk about the iowa caucuses last night and the new hampshire primary. give us his perspective on what we saw, what came out of iowa and where we're headed going into new hampshire next week. i want to begin, though, with you got on the democratic side the associated press yet to call it. hillary clinton says she won in iowa. bernie sanders saying it's a tie. the democratic party said hillary clinton won. >> yep. >> but whether he says it's a virtual tie, he is correct? >> it's a virtual tie. so there are somewhere around the exact numbers are around a little over 1200 what are called delegate he quif lentz. essentially what happens in the iowa caucuses is you're not electing delegates to the national convention. you're electing them to a county convention. so those people who won election as delegates last night will go from the precincts to the county
3:32 pm
convention and then on to a congressional district convention or a larger state convention and eventually, you know, way down the line iowa will elect, i think it's 33 delegates to the national convention in philadelphia later this year on the democratic side. so what has essentially happened is the clinton campaign won what looks like now about four more so-called delegate he quif lentz out of more than 1200. so this margin makes rick santorum's win over mitt romney look like a landslide over four years ago. it's very close. both candidates get to claim a win. i think it's a good thing for both candidates. clinton gets to claim that she came back after trailing sanders in a couple polls. she is, in fact, the first clinton ever to win the iowa caucuses, except for when bill was running for re-election in 1996. he lost in '92 when tom harkin was running. it wasn't really a race back
3:33 pm
then. so she's the thirst clinton to actual wlin the iowa caucuses after losing eight years ago. she is the first woman to win the caucuses. and, by the way, bernie sanders goats claim a victory because he came pretty close to knocking off a former secretary of state and, hey, they move on to new hampshire where all the polls show that sanders is leading by a significant margin. >> he is leading in new hampshire. however, after new hampshire, what happens? because the upshot and the piece in the "new york times" drills into the numbers of the, you know, the exit polls, entrance polls and makes the argument that iowa was tailor made for bernie sanders. a virtual tie is not great. the white voters, less affluent voters, younger voters are going to be harder for him to get as this season rolls on. >> i was looking at the exit polls and the republican caucuses were 97% white. i thought oh, boy. there's diversity for you. i look at the democratic caucuses and they were 92%
3:34 pm
white. iowa is a very whirt state. ham is a very white state. the two contest that's kick off are two of the most homogenous looking states in the country. then we move on to south carolina where the african-american vote is a huge part of the democratic primary. nevada with hispanic vote a huge part of the democratic caucuses out there. and as we poll, the democratic primary in morning consult, the thing that we routinely find week after week is that hillary clinton leads by huge margins among hispanic voters and african-american voters. she has a better connection to the emerging base than bernie sanders does. meanwhile, sanders has a much better connection to the sort of younger electorate that is emerging as a key part of the base. the stats are staggering. 17 to 29-year-olds, bernie sanders won will 84% of the vote. among 65 plus, hillary clinton won 69% of the vote. that tells you this is a party split by generations. >> what about getting the youth
3:35 pm
vote out after iowa? you spend a lot of months in iowa on the ground setting up an organization to get people out, motivating them, providing transportation. whatever you need to do to get them out. but that gets harder to set up as you go on. and these older voters, they vote more consistently than the younger voters do. >> the benefit of iowa and new hampshire and south carolina to a lesser extent, nevada, is not necessarily the delegates that come out. we're not talking about a lot of delegates. iowa represents something like 1% of all the delegates who are going to go to the democratic convention. it's all about momentum. so if you can build up some kind of head of steam in the first couple contests, then the voters who tune in later in florida or michigan or wherever they're going to vote later, they sort of see that momentum and that gives you a little boost in the polls. you're right, it is the older voters who tend to turn out more. it is also more difficult to
3:36 pm
build a ground operation in a lot of the states. although, i will say both sanders and clinton, their campaigns are built by organizers, built by sort of the professional folks who know how to organize and they've been in a lot of the states for a long time. these are two candidates who are consistently more popular with the democratic base than republican candidates are with the republican base. i was just looking at the morning consult put out a new poll yesterday. we found that hillary clinton's approval rating or favorable rating among democrats is 77%. bernie sanders at 70%. that is significantly higher than any of the republican candidates among republican voters. donald trump has the highest approval -- favorable rating among republican voters. ted cruz and marco rubio and ben carson are the only -- together, those four candidates are the only four whose favorable ratings among republican voters is north of 50%. i mean that tells you that one party really likes their candidates which might lead to
3:37 pm
greater turnout whether it's from older voters or younger voters. the other party, not so in love with their candidates. >> let's set up the other side of the conversation, how republicans did. cruz, rubio overperform on caucus night. >> and they did. most -- i think it was the last seven polls that came out of iowa and very glad that "morning consult" did not poll iowa. it's tough to poll. you have to figure out essentially who have the three million or so iowa residents are going to show up to caucus? it looks like 170,000 did on the republican side which sis impr s impressive. >> on the democratic side, 1 will 85,000. >> wow. 1 will 185,000. >> wow. that's remarkable. if republicans turned out more people this time, then that's a big deal. that's good for them. so what we saw though was in the last seven polls, donald trump
3:38 pm
had a consistent lead between about 2 and 10 points throughout the caucuses. the caucus night and his people didn't show up. they didn't show up as much as ted cruz's fans d i think this is a big win for cruz after sort of -- i mean we were all sort of thinking to ourselves if cruz can't win in iowa, his path to the nomination really shuts down. now he's won in iowa. and by the way, won while everybody was expecting trump to win which sort of doubles, gives him a little extra bonus. don't overlook marco rubio who came out november where. he was in the high single digits, low double digits a couple weeks ago. finished in a very strong third position. did i think better than everybody else expected as well. especially among voters who were looking for a candidate who can win an election coming up in november. rubio and cruz got a bounce. donald trump had a terrible night. everybody expected him to win. he didn't.
3:39 pm
for a guy whose brand is based on winning and success and everything that has to go right losing is tough. >> is that impact, though, him in new hampshire? >> i don't think it will impact him in new hampshire. i think he's ahead by a more significant margin. one fascinating thing that we found in our research at "morning consult" is in a as you consider the different ways polls are fayne, trump does better in some polls than does he in others. when we think about a poll, we think about somebody calling you on the phone and asking you, who do you support and that kind of stuff? when phone polls -- in phone polls, trump does less well than does he in online polls or in automated polls. that, is you know, you get a recorded message, press one for trump, press two for cruz, something like. that and that's called a social desirability bias in the sort of political science jargon. and a big -- one of the theories at least is that when a caucus comes around and you have to stand up and say that you're going to -- you support
3:40 pm
candidate x or y, obviously that didn't happen on the republican side because they had the secret ballot. at least you're sitting there with friends and neighbors. the theory is you're more likely to pick a candidate that you think your friends and neighbors are probably supporting as well. when you're in the ballot box, though, that may be better for donald trump. you're casting your ballot in the privacy of a voting booth and that -- we may see donald trump do much better in north carolina and south carolina -- sorry, in new hampshire and south carolina the next two contests coming up. and then maybe he dips down again in nevada where they have caucuses. >> okay. well, with all that, thanks for setting the table. let's go to rod in southfield, michigan. a democrat. you're up first for this conversation. good morning. >> caller: yes, good morning. i looked and checked out all of the candidates, especially hillary clinton. and i realized that hillary is the best choice to be president
3:41 pm
simply because she has experience. and she's a realist. i'm a christian realist, methodist, african-american. and our vote is one of the most important votes for presidency as well as the hispanics. and i realize that the republicans do need our votes as well as hispanics where ted cruz upsetting donald trump is a victory for the republicans because donald trump is really not prepared to be president. he's not prepared to lead our country in the way that democrats have, the way that president obama has. and we cannot allow the media to pump up trump in a sense that he has to be the change or be the example, be the forerunner because we have to stand strong. we have to keep our way of living in the sense the democrats put it out there.
3:42 pm
there's no other way that we can get the work done for our people. >> okay, rod. i'm going to leave it. there reid wilson, talking about the importance of the minority vote for hillary clinton. >> yeah. >> and by the way, we didn't really get a clear example of that last night because iowa doesn't have a huge percentage of minorities who live in the state. but one thing that rod said is he's a democrat. and one of the big divisions that we saw last night was between the sort of the establishment, if you will, and the insurge ens, the new guys. take a look at the people who showed up to caucus before. hillary clinton won 59% of the vote. for people who had never caucused before, who were showing up to participate in the process the first time, bernie sanders won 59%st vote. so among democrats, people who said they were itemly registered democrats, clinton won 56%. among independents, bernie sanders won 69% of the vote. that really tells that you people who consider themselves
3:43 pm
sort of old line democrats, they're getting behind hillary clinton. on the other side, bernie sanders is exciting the new kind of base. the reason that barack obama, then senator barack obama was successful in the caucuses eight years ago, first of all, there was actually a third candidate who performed, who qualified for a few delegates, john edwards, you'll recall. by the way, a lot of the counties if can you find a map of the results in iowa, a lot of the counties that hillary clinton won in the southern part of the state and the northern part of the state, very rural areas in both cases those were edwards' strong holds back in 2008. so what we've got here, then senator obama was able to merge that sort of outsider new interest and new excitement with the old line democrats who eventually lined up behind him. clinton, on the other hand, has yet to get those sort of new exciting, you know, new and
3:44 pm
excited voters. sanders has yet to get the old line democrats who have been around for a long time. >> i want to shoate map that you were just talking about. this is the breakdown by counties. the blue is the hillary clin supporters. the green is the bernie sanders supporters. and then these gray counties is where there was a tie. talk about that a little bit more. >> so you'll see -- you notice on the map that southern counties that went for clinton are -- they're very rural. i think there are 56 counties in the state. that have populations of less than 15,000 people. clinton won the vast majority of those. on the other hand, she also won the most populous county in the state, polk county. that is where des moines is. that's in the center of the state. and not surprisingly, bernie sanders won the counties around the university of iowa. that's -- you see cedar rapids on the east side of the state. just south of -- that is lind county, south of cedar rapids is johnson county. that's where iowa city is,
3:45 pm
that's where the university is. the county just north of des moines is where iowa state university is. no surprise at all that bernie sanders won the counties with the two largest college populations in the state. what surprised me a little bit is that sanders did very well along the western edge of the state. you see the counties in the northwest and sioux city and down south along the missouri river. those are called the los hills. if you take a look back, it's a weird gee logical feature that only exists in iowa and japan. which i just learned this the other day when i was reading about iowa geology. >> fun facts. >> got to love it. but that's where clinton did very well back in 2008. that was sort of her corner of the state whereas this time bernie sanders did better. >> sticking with the caller's question. he talked about the minority vote, on the issue of immigration, what does it say that marco rubio is part of this gang of eight that ted cruz really attacked him on that issue. in iowa, you got the base voter
3:46 pm
in iowa. and they said he deserves the third spot. >> and for voters who said that immigration is the most important issue, donald trump took 45%st vote. ted cruz took 33% of the vote and marco rubio, 9% of the vote. that tells you, this is still a third rail for republican voters. republican voters are much more interested in what -- in donald trump's vision of, you know, build a wall and make mexico pay for it which i still don't quite fwh understand how that is going to happen. whatever. then they are in a comprehensive immigration reform package like the one that marco rubio participated in when the gang of eight got together. however, now he doesn't support that because he's running for president. >> how did he get third place whether that issue only garnered him 9% of the vote? >> whether you consider, whether you take a look at the voters who said the candidate that can win in november is the most important -- was their most important consideration as they
3:47 pm
were thinking about. this marco rubio took 43% of the vote compared to 25% for trump and 22% for ted cruz. rubio is trying to emerge as the canned da candidate that appears as the most electable. ted cruz said something fascinating yesterday. he said this is a win for the grassroots. boy, the grassroots are not keen on marco rubio at the moment. >> if you look at the county map, cruz supporters -- that is the tan sort of area. donald trump the red. counties. >> and the most populous counties. he's got polk county in des moines, he has johnson county and, by the way, this is -- these maps can be a little misleading because in a lot of the counties, cruz may have won with 28 and rubio at 26 or something like that. so they're a little bit misleading. notice, cruz did very well in the rural counties. this looks a little bit like the
3:48 pm
2012 map where rick santorum narrow ll lly beat mitt romney. santorum won in iowa but they were all very rural counties. romney won polk and actually i think astoria county. so this looks similar to that map. you see that trum dp very well along those sort of western sides of the state and the eastern side of the state, too. on the other hand, northwest there, that's where the christian conservative base is the strongest and no surprise there, those were some of cruz's best counties. >> we'll go to elk heart, indiana. thanks for hanging on the line, beth. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. yes, my question is about ted cruz. how can he run for president? isn't he canadian? is there something that can make him run? i'm confused.
3:49 pm
>> so i wish i had written this down. but there is actually a section of u.s. code and i can't recall the exact code, section x, y, z, subsection a, b, c and whatever. that lays out exactly what it means to be a natural born citizen. and ted cruz's campaign says that he qualifies as a natural born citizen under those provisions. they include -- there are provisions that include -- i'm no constitutional expert or legal scholar, but there are provisions that include sort of the what happens when one parent is a citizen but living abroad? so i'm not the guy to gift final answer on. that but there is a sectionst u.s. code and i'll try to find it during a break or something like. that. >> abilene, texas. lindsey, a republican. hi, there lindsey. >> caller: hi, how are you? >> good morning. >> caller: good morning. in my opinion, the most important issue hands down right now is our economy. and i feel like it's important
3:50 pm
that we do audit the fed. i'm for rand paul. and he has been actively trying to push the audit the fed. as being a rand paul supporter, i get very frustrated with the media. sometimes he'll be higher up in the polls than other candidates but think seem to not mention him and i think a lot of votes we saw in iowa were strategic votes to make sure that donald trump does not win and i don't think we're paying attention to who is the best candidate in my opinion. like i say, it's rand paul. he's very constitutional. he has a good financial plan. he has one of the best plans for -- in syria. i'm just -- i'm just -- i feel a little bit in twilight zone. >> he came in fifth in iowa last night. >> among the 27% of republican voters who said that jobs and the economy were the most important, paul won 4% of the vote so paul has been one of the
3:51 pm
more surprising to the downside candidate that is we have seen this year. remember, a year ago he was the most interesting person in the republican party as one washington publication put it. way back then. he was reaching out to minority voters. he was doing everything he could to sort of change the shape of the republican party. and he just hasn't caught on. he just hasn't been able to light a fire under a significant portion of the base. i'm shocked. i mean, take a look at the iowa caucus results of 2012, 2008. looking at the county maps, counties that ron paul won. rand paul won no counties last night. >> what is the future of his candidacy? >> probably not good. in kentucky it's probably strong for the senate. he is, you know, faces re-election this year. he is able to be on the ballot for both the presidency and the senate, his senate race. but it's not likely that he will
3:52 pm
continue to be, continue to run in the presidential race unless he has a shockingly upsetting result in new hampshire. >> when do you see some more republican candidates getting out of this race? mike huckabee dropped out last night. >> and martin o'malley on the democratic side. yeah, i think you can expect rick santorum out of the race pretty soon. he tried his best -- he actually spent -- rick santorum spent more time in iowa than any other candidate. something like 293 events according to "the des moines register." he must have met everybody in the whole state and didn't do terribly well. he is probably gone in the next couple of days, too. i think new hampshire is going to be the big clearinghouse sort of if you have so many candidates making the case in new hampshire, john kasich of chris christie or jeb bush or marco rubio. carly fiorina. that's a lot of people trying to -- you know, essentially vying for the top three spots. one of which goes to donald trump and the second of which is
3:53 pm
probably going to go to ted cruz who, you know, if you divide the establishment despite the fact that the christian right does not have a strong foothold in new hampshire as it does in iowa, but if you divide the establishment right, 17 ways from sunday, that christian right's small little foothold becomes pretty valuable so if two of the tickets out of new hampshire are already taken, boy, it is going to be tough for a lot of those guys to continue after next tuesday. >> the other guys not spending the night in iowa last night. many of them in new hampshire an then they're joined this morning by all the other candidates as eyes turn to the granite state who will be voting on tuesday, february 9th. ryan, michigan, good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> you're on the air, sir. question or comment? >> caller: what i would like to say is i'm surprised that bernie sanders made it this wfar. i'm a bernie sanders supporter.
3:54 pm
i appreciate you guys taking my call. >> okay. so surprised that bernie sanders made it this far. >> i am, too. he -- look. this is -- it's hard to contemplate the irony of a 70-something, you know, brooklyn accented guy who's been in the senate for, well, i guess this is his second term after being in the house for a long time and calls himself a socialist. this is not barack obama. this is not something with sort of a magnetism. and yet, he's struck a cord. it is remarkable. it's not -- in a sense, it is not -- it shouldn't be that surprising, though, at a time when people hate their politicians so much. i mean, there is a real deep anger on both the left and the right. about sort of politics as usual and how broken washington is and all that and the conclusion -- i mean, it's the same feeling that is leading to a conclusion to support donald trump or bernie sanders. obviously people are taking very
3:55 pm
different thought paths to get there. >> right. did the exit polls echo that sent snmt. >> i didn't see anything specifically in the exits that cot to that point. but, you know, i have spent a lot of time at morning consult. morning consult.com. sign up. we'll send you the news you need to know every day. we conduct polls, weekly polls of 2,000 to 4,000 people and a couple of times i have gone back and pulled the numbers of people saying they support donald trump or bernie sanders and just call them up and say why? what do you think? why are you supporting these people? this candidate. nay will say because i hate washington, i hate politicians. not like i kind of dislike. no, no. it is a strong hate-filled feeling of what's happening in washington, d.c. and, you know, kind of hard to blame people. >> reid wilson is morning consult's chief political correspondent and follow him on twitter, as well.
3:56 pm
alice, kansas city, missouri. independent. hi, alice. >> caller: hello. i got a question this morning. sometime i'm living in a twilight zone. i voted for hillary clinton when she was running for president before. and she is out there walking around debating and all this. seems like she hasn't did a thing and then i wait for the minority vote like she think that people are stupid. if we can be a -- for things that we have done, what's wrong that she cannot be touched? >> okay. we'll take that point. being held accountable. >> and as well as, you know, bernie sanders and donald trump are generating this excitement because they hate washington, if donald trump is the republican nominee, he can win a general election. i think he can win because the democratic party appears poised the nominate the single most
3:57 pm
political person in america. in hillary clinton. and, you know, while my sources and my gut tell me that the fbi investigation's not going to lead to an indictment or a conviction or anything like that, it doesn't have to. it speaks -- the e-mail issue, the e-mail server and all that speaks to the sort of nagging question that everybody has about hillary clinton, which is, does she follow the rules? does she think that the rules that apply to me apply to her? and a lot of people don't think that's the case. and if the single most political person in america goes up against, you know, a bombastic billionaire saying a bunch of crazy things and promising to blow up politics as usual, she's not a shoe-in. >> west hills, california, priscilla, a republican. go ahead, priscilla. >> caller: hi. you know, i just heard mr. reid
3:58 pm
when he mentioned bernie sanders. i've been watching this caucus thing. i never seen anything, you know, like that before. but anyways, i was watching it and i heard one of the guys from fox or cnn, one of them, ask one of the kids at the college, did he know what socialism was or socialist was. he said, oh, i don't know. probably has to do with social security or medicare. i was just amazed. i'm like, most of the college kids, most of these people that are voting for sanders, i don't think they really know what socialism is. i grew up. i'm a person of color, born again christian. very conservative. and i love my country. and i -- we learned about socialists and socialism and communism and we had to get under the desk because, you know, just for practice. because we were expecting russia to attack us. these are the communists that were going to attack us. and i just don't understand how anybody, how americans can even
3:59 pm
contemplate making this a socialist country. >> okay. who's your candidate? >> caller: donald trump. >> okay. reid wilson. >> i actually -- i do understand how sort of the thought process that leads -- i think it's a little bit ironic priscilla is a trump voter and perplexed by sanders. the thought process is the same. right? the thought process is i hate politics, i hate the way things are going. i want to blow up the system. here's somebody on the right an the left to do that. whatever your political leanings, that's the way you're going to do. i always -- whenever i give a talk to a group of republicans or something i always say, if you think that president obama's a socialist, wait until you see bernie sanders when's an actual socialist. you know, his -- he's -- he calls himself a democratic socialist. he has a pretty liberal record in the senate. it is not the most liberal record of any senator who's voting. largely because he votes with
4:00 pm
gun rights supporters. vermont is a big nra state. don't forget that howard dean used to be on the board of the nra and was -- they supported him when he was running for governor of vermont and been sort of okay with sanders, probably because they know they can't beat sanders in vermont. but the -- he's not like traditional socialist as you would think of as coming out of the soviet union or something like that. and i sort of wonder whether or not republicans have used the word socialism so much against president obama over the last seven years that it's sort of lost some of its sting, that, well, the democratic voters think it's republicans calling him a socialist or something like this. >> madison heights, michigan, david democrat watching us there. hi, david. >> caller: hi, greta. hi, reid. thank you very much for taking my call. i'm very glad that trump did
4:01 pm
lose. he guaranteed a win and i think his campaign song should be from the beetles "i'm a loser." but moving on to that here in michigan, we're dealing with a terrible republican governor that has poisoned the people that he serves. and i think that bernie sanders being a socialist quote/unquote i'm glad hilary took it. i would be glad with bernie sanders, also. it's better than being a communist like donald trump. that's why putin loves him so much. so all you trump supporters out there, you would vote for a communist. >> okay, david. let me just tell you that donald trump is not supposed to be using adele for his music and reliable says she reacted to front-runner donald trump use of such hits as "rolling in the
4:02 pm
deep requests and "skyfall" during campaign events said they have not given permission for any political campaigning. >> music at a political campaign is so dangerous. right? it is like -- first of all, candidates apparently never listen to the lyrics. everybody plays "born in the usa" and don't understand it's an anti-vietnam war ballad. guys, listen to the music. the one candidate this year who has listened to the music and actually put out what i thought has been the best ad, maybe just because i'm a simon and garfunkel ad is bernie sanders. the use of the song "america" and i just thought that was a great ad. i really loved it. the one problem was they very clearly filmed it in iowa and new hampshire because there were no people of color until about the second half and some filmmaker must have realized, oh boy, we need a little bit of diversity here but yeah. the music is always a
4:03 pm
treacherous path for candidates. >> let's go to the republican side and talk about jeb bush's candidacy. here's the headline of "weekly standard." spent $2,884 per iowa vote. he received 5,161 votes in iowa, sixth place. >> yeah. and to be fair, his campaign didn't spend that money. it was his superpac. the superpac could have written a check for $1,000 to every iowa republican and probably gotten double the votes or something like that. but i mean, here we are in the age of superpac spending and for all of those worried about citizens united and those, you know, sort of big, new, secret money flowing into politics, i would point out that president obama won re-election in 2012, of course, with the help of his superpac. the -- you know, i don't think money played a huge role in 2014. that was a sort of republican wave that was coming anyway.
4:04 pm
and then here we are in 2016 and the wealthiest candidate who has raised $100 million, supposed to have raised so much money that everybody else was scared to run came in, what, sixth? way back. and he's not looking terribly good in new hampshire either. so bush's campaign -- i just crunched the numbers on how much every candidate raised yesterday. raised in the fourth quarter of the year and, you know, ted cruz raised about $20 million and ben carson raised about 20 million bucks and i think rubio was 16 million or 18 million. something like that. significant quarters and jeb bush's campaign raised $7 million which is a great quarter for 1996 or maybe 2000. it's very clear that not only has bush's money not won him any votes but the spigot is closing. >> going elsewhere? >> apparently. i haven't crunched the number of
4:05 pm
donors giving to both but a fascinating split of the conor class about sort of who's next. and there are -- this gets back to this campaign is a great illustration of the ipillars of the republican party. the do for a class that writes the checks. the come sulation class and then "weekly standard" and "national review." and then the activist class, the people that get to vote. and this time, this -- in this particular election, it's very clear that the activist class is the one that matters. >> this is what ted cruz said last night. sandy in mckinleyville, california, independent. >> caller: hi! well, my grandma, she registered
4:06 pm
to vote in the early '20s. and anyway, she was republican. i'm not. she was -- i'm democrat or independent. something like that. and i just really feel sorry for heidi. heidi cruz. you know? >> why is that, sandy? >> caller: well, it's just like i don't think she's being treated right by ted. >> okay. i'm not sure where you're going with that, sandy. i'll say reid wilson talk about the role that heidi cruz played in iowa. she was campaigning just as hard as her husband. >> she's a political campaign. she knows what she is doing on the stump. she's been campaigning well beyond iowa. i saw a clip the other day of her campaigning in missouri i
4:07 pm
think it was which doesn't have a primary for quite a while. hey, this's the benefit of having a really talented political spouse like heidi cruz is the ability to sort of have the candidate in two places at once, if you will. we -- in 2008, you can recall bill clinton sort of being rusty on the stump. michelle obama was a great -- did a great job campaigning for her husband and some of the early states. this time around, heidi cruz has been probably the most outspoken, most visible spouse trail. >> brenda's in tallahassee, florida, on the line for republicans. hi there, brenda. >> caller: hi. i just want to say i'm probably going to vote for trump. and it would be great to see trump run against sanders because that would be capitalism against socialism.
4:08 pm
>> reid wilson. sorry. i thought you were fin initialled. >> that would be an incredible race. and i mean, it wouldn't be pure capitalism. let's be very clear here. donald trump is no free market capitalist. he is all about messing with the markets, especially in things like trade deals. he wants to put a bunch of tariffs on some of the international goods coming in. which is not -- that's not free market principle. it just is not. it would be a fascinating contrast of two most people you can imagine running for the highest office in the land. that being said, you know, every four years there's always the people that say something to the effect of well, if so and so wins i'll move to canada. whatever. you would have a lot of people on both sides packing bags. >> con way, missouri, delano, democrat. is that right? >> caller: yeah. i hope i can articulate this problem. 83-year-old korean vet.
4:09 pm
i have two elephants in the room, our congress, walmart or not walmart but that's another problem. our federal reserve. that's what bernie sanders is talking about. and our stock market. those people are like one. congress does insider trading. that's what martha stewart went to prison for. and here's the other thing. there's a quarter of a million undocumented work earls in las vegas taking up jobs. they come in with no inspection, health inspection or nothing. and that's where i agree with donald trump. he's the only guy that's brought up building a wall, stopping the flow of illegals coming in to this country. >> reid wilson? >> let me talk about the -- go back to the stools that the republicans -- of the republican party. there is a fascinating disconnect that i don't think we talk about enough on the
4:10 pm
immigration issue. the activist class feels a lot like delano does that there are too many people coming over the borders. the country isn't secure. they're taking our jobs. things like that. then there's the -- not really the consultants. chamber of commerce class if you will. business republican establishment. i'm from washington state originally and in washington a couple of years ago you never see an immigration hard liner come out of washington because 40% of the apple production, the largest crop we grow out there stayed on the trees because there were not enough workers to actually pick the apples. this was at the height of the recession. the -- you know, immigration is -- has a benefit for business. this is why the -- sort of chamber of commerce class is interested in hv-1 visas and comprehensive reform and people need the employers in las vegas and washington sit and elsewhere
4:11 pm
need actual workers. there is a divide within the republican class. but at least in iowa only 9% of people who said immigration was the most important issue voted for marco rubio. the one guy who tried to do something about it. >> victoria, texas, stan independent caller, hi, stan. >> caller: hi. good morning. thank you. i think right off the bat that trump is my man and barney's my man. they ought to go on the ticket and run. they could do it if they wanted to. just get both of them in there and vote for president and vice president. and iowa, i tell you what. i've never seen such an archaic way of voting. bow beating. bullied. they're talked to real sweet to go to the other side. we when we go in the voting booth down here in texas, nobody messes with you. you go in there and you vote the way you want to. >> stan -- let me ask you. i mean, have you participated in
4:12 pm
a caucus, do you think anybody could sway you? >> caller: no. >> there you go. iowans are just as tough. >> there's even coin tosses as we saw last night. >> there are coin tosses. i was not aware of that until just now. >> newspapers reporting that's allowed. democratic party rules if there's a tie they can do a coin toss. >> the caucus process, though, is fascinating. i was throughout a couple of years ago for a caucus and i actually sat in and watched one and it's fun. i mean, it is -- you know, it is the old sort of new england town hall sort of meeting style and not something that happens a lot in the west. it's not something that happens a lot in the south. but it is a style of voting and a part of our democracy. every four years iowa and new hampshire start to worry about their place in the nominating process. the fact that iowa went for ted cruz i think will mollify a lot of the members of the republican national committee that make the
4:13 pm
decision of who goes first and who goes second and things like that. i think if those republicans had seen donald trump win then the state of iowa would have been in a little bit of jeopardy of losing their first in the nation status. >> i thought they were nervous about ted cruz, as well. >> they're nervous about everything. they're perpetually nervous of whether or not they can keep this process that alternately either lends something like $10 million to the state economy or $100 million depending on the economist you talked to and the general scheme of things, not a huge part of the gdp. they like going first. >> mickey, an independent. hi. >> caller: hi. thank you for caking my calls. 43-year registered democrat that turned republican because of donald trump. >> okay. >> caller: and basically, i've got some big issues. i like some of the other republican candidates than carson. it's not about race. it's about creating full-time jobs. i've been out of work for two
4:14 pm
years. i want the defense for our country. i want the stopping of illegal immigration. i want to protect our second amendment rights. i didn't like obama's deal with iran. you don't give $150 billion to terrorists nation. and, you know, letting go all these terrorists out of guantanamo and then hearing what hilary said after she thought that she won in iowa, the way i believe america should be and what does that mean? you know? what's her idea of what america should be? that scares me. >> okay, mickey. i'm going to leave it there. reid wilson, who are donald trump's supporters and what's that mean in a general election? >> donald trump supporters are a fascinating group of people. they are republicans who hate their party. hate their own party and a significant number of those, by the way. small side note.
4:15 pm
if you've ever seen gallup does an annual survey where they talk about who says they're registered to vote with either party, independents at a all-time high an they're conservative voters. they're voting republican but they're calling themselves independents because they think the republican party is too far to the left which -- so those are some of trump supporters. others are people like mickey who are -- who feel economically detached. who feel like the country is moving ahead without them. and that the recovery probably left them behind. there are a lot of those people. they're very real feelings. and feelings that a lot of people are sort of that's motivating people to get involved in politics in a way they haven't before. the real question is, does that involvement extend beyond just showing up at a trump rally or calling in to c-span or putting a bumper sticker on their car or something like that? does it -- >> buying the hat. >> got to love the hat. he spent something like 1 in 6
4:16 pm
of his campaign dollars on hats which is great. good for him. but does that extend to actually voting or to knocking on a door and trying to convince your neighbor to vote for trump or something like that? it did not at the caucuses last night. a lot of people who said they were for trump, people showing up at the mega rallies didn't end up voting for him. does that mean he's a paper tiger? not quiet. let's watch the other primaries evolve but in the long run donald trump supporters had the chance to show up and they didn't. >> the other primaries happen on the first one being new hampshire next week, tuesday, february 9th. let's show you the list of where the attention goes after that. on february 20th you have got democrats voting in nevada. and then republicans in south carolina on the same date. february 234rd republicans in nevada vote on the 27th, south carolinan democrats go and then march 1st, talk about march 1st,
4:17 pm
reid wilson. >> march 1st is a big and busy day. supertuesday. first day any -- i mentioned, by the way, the rnc and dnc two groups that set the calendar. they can do things like sanction candidates or sanction states if they hold their contests earlier. when they're not allowed to, things like that. march 1st is first day that every state is allowed to hold their nominating contests if they want to. those states that will hold their contests have to allocate delegates proportionately which means that if, you know, ted cruz hypothetically gets 25% and everybody else gets 20%, cruz gets 25% of the delegates whereas in later states there are some states the 25% can get you 100% of the delegates and winner take all contests but these are largely state that is will do well for conservatives, states that typically elect conservative candidates in republican primaries, states
4:18 pm
like alabama, mississippi, georgia. they call them the s.e.c. conference. secretaries of state got together and decided to hold this primary to become a little more important. there are some other states going that day, too. i think massachusetts, wyoming. other states like that that will hold their contest that day so it's a lot of delegates. a lot of delegates are available. >> march 15th, florida, illinois, missouri, north carolina and ohio. >> march 15th, the first day that states can hold winner take all elections and florida will be the winner take all contest. this gets into sort of marco rubio's path to the white house. rubio is banking on winning florida. you only need a small plu ralty to win that state and get 100% of the delegates. big state. they send a lot of delegates to the convention. i have not seen a poll showing marco rubio leading. i haven't seen a poll of marco rubio with donald trump leading
4:19 pm
ted cruz. >> florida, jane is a democrat. welcome to the conversation here with reid wilson. go ahead. >> caller: hi. yeah. well, the conversation, since i called in has gotten a little tacet. one of the things -- i called in because everybody was talking about socialists. and thinking about them as they were 100 years ago. an entirely different world. and i'm just wondering when if ever the media will stop just using names of things and do their research and learn what it means. if you go to democratic socialist countries like in scandinavia, you see people taken care of, students being able to study. people nicely dressed and enough money to buy food. doesn't mean they're not democratic and holding democratic elections. and nobody seems to talk about those things. >> jane, are you -- are you
4:20 pm
concerned, though, as a democrat if bernie sanders is the nominee republicans would be able to frame him -- >> caller: no. bernie sanders. i've been a democrat. i'm -- i'm going to turn 71 next week. and i became a democrat at age 7. handing out campaign literature for adelaide stevenson. >> mill valley, my favorite teacher in high school was from mill valley. sorry. the point you raise about sort of the labels that we all use, bernie sanders himself calls himself a democratic socialist. it's not like we invented the title when bernie sanders ran for his very first office for mayor of burlington, vermont, back in 1980, he ran as a socialist. not a democrat or a republican or an independent. he was a socialist at his own urging. we are using the titles that they give us. >> nashville, tennessee, byron, independent.
4:21 pm
>> caller: hi, folks. >> good morning. >> caller: thank you very much for your talk. it's really great. i've really learned a lot from this. i just want to make a point. i'm a bernie supporter. and i'll make a point about the similarities between bernie and touch from what i can see. very interesting that bernie sanders and both independent types and when you showed up that map of i with and you showed some of the mountain areas, it is interestingly geographically that the mountain areas are going for trump and for sanders. and i think that one of the big dynamics of this election is the independents -- you talk about bernie and getting the youth vote. but he's also getting a lot of independents. and confiscating a lot of independents, as well. and it seems to me that all of this -- one of the reasons that all this is happening is that
4:22 pm
we're not getting the change that obama promised. and people are just -- he -- obama is a great politician but he tried to be an accommodator. and both of these trump and bernie sanders are not accommodators. >> okay. reid wilson. >> that's going to be a problem if they get to washington. i think one thing we saw with the obama administration, the president tried to engage with congress a little bit, a lot of folks up on capitol hill will say they didn't try hard enough. but, you know, if a bernie sanders or a donald trump comes to washington, there is still probably going to be a republican house of representatives and there is still probably going to be if sanders wins there will be a democratic senate. you can't imagine a scenario of sanders to win and the democrats wouldn't take back the senate. so, we're going to have divided government and divided government doesn't always work
4:23 pm
so well when you have somebody in the white house who's demanding they get it their way because there are 535 people up there who get a say in these things, too. >> napa, idaho, dan, a republican. good morning. welcome to the conversation. >> caller: good morning, greta. good morning to you, reid. >> hi. >> caller: aloha. as i like to say. it was kind of interesting that someone in the media interviewed a young millennial and asked her what a socialist was. and she responded, someone who believes in social media. >> someone who believes -- that's awesome. >> caller: yeah. yeah. and they were having a big laugh about it in the media when they were talking about this person that was interviewed. but going forward, my problem is some of the voter fraud and the voter registration issues that we have and during the democratic caucus there was a lady named josie who stood up --
4:24 pm
i mean, who took up a person from the audience there who responded, a male, an older male, to the 33 illegals that had been found in the process of voting during this caucus. she said, well, if they were found out about they'd be prosecuted later for voter fraud. what system is in place here when we have 33 people voting and there's no vetting process for them? >> okay, dan. >> okay. so, let me first say i don't know about this particular precinct or anything like that. but the second thing is, let's remember that this is not -- this whole process of choosing a nominee is not an election in the way we think of elections. i mean, the caucuses are not run
4:25 pm
by the state of iowa they're run by the iowa democratic party and the iowa republican party which means you can have anybody voting as much as you want. or as -- you know, the parties themselves get to set the rules. the supreme court has ruled in a case called -- i think it's davis v. california democratic party or california democratic party v. davis, whichever way it is, that the parties themselves have what's called the first amendment right of association. they get to set up this primary process and that means that if the democratic party wants to allow only left-handed people to vote, then they can do that. why not? supreme court says they can. >> explain the caucusing or the democrats in iowa versus how it works and how they're declared the winner and delegates versus republicans. >> it is a little confusing because the process did not end last night in iowa. the process will continue for literally months down the road until what is it?
4:26 pm
40 delegates they send to the convention. until those 40 people are elected at a state convention. you start with the precinct caucuses last night and then the people elected delegates, you know, joe shmoe of bernie sanders delegate and then a county convention at which, you know, all of the delegates from those bring sikts come together and then elect delegates to the next level, the congressional district conventions and then from the congressional district on to the state convention. and so you essentially winnow the field down. >> how can the democratic party declare hillary clinton the winner? >> because she won what are delegate equivalents essentially those people to go to the county convention in the next step. >> she won more of them? >> and by the way, those people still have to show up at the county convention or at the congressional d district and the state convention. remember back in 2008 when president obama -- then senator
4:27 pm
obama beat senator john edwards and senator hillary clinton in the iowa caucuses and he was supposed to get one more delegate than edwards and two more than clinton. his people kept showing up and the edwards and clinton people sort of dropped off and by the end, before clinton had dropped out, when he got to the state convention, obama had like a nine or ten-delegate advantage because his people stuck through the actual contest. even if clinton wins, essentially we are at a tie. call it a tie. if they are tied as of last night, you could still see, you know, bernie sanders winning the delegates, the ultimate delegates out of the iowa by 10 or 15 delegates because maybe his people show up or vice versa. >> on the republican side, how's it different? >> so on the republican side they don't -- the votes that were cast last night will go towards electing delegates but instead of caucusing and electing a delegate to the next level and measuring support that
4:28 pm
way, they -- the republicans measured their support by a secret ballot so everybody sat there and wrote down their choice and put it in a hat and counted the ballots and that's why you see cruz winning with what was it? 20,000 votes. >> yeah. 28%. >> yeah. thousands of votes versus hillary clinton getting 655. they're not counting the same thing. one is counting delegates. one is counting actual votes. >> hope it clears up. >> probably makes it more confusing. >> so let geese to new hampshire. what are you watching for? >> i am watching to see a couple of things. first of all, is losing in iowa and sort of having the sheen of inevitability ripped off send donald trump's poll numbers cratering? i suspect it might. i suspect his poll numbers will not be as strong in new hampshire tomorrow as they were yesterday. or the day before. on the democratic side, can hillary clinton do anything to make up what looks like a pretty significant gap here? pretty significant deficit to bernie sanders.
4:29 pm
>> in the polls in new hampshire. >> in the polls in new hampshire. last one i saw add sanders up 57-35. that's a big, big margin. new hampshire is a state that's prone to the big margins. senator kelly ayotte won with more than 60% of the vote. in a swing state. she has a tough race this year. but neither here nor there. will hillary clinton give up and say bernie sanders gets to have new hampshire? his neighboring state and i'll move on to south carolina where she has a huge advantage. >> we have to leave it there. again, go to morning consult.com to sign up for the news from morning consult. chief political correspondent reid wilson, always appreciate your insight. thank you. >> thank you, greta. candidates crisscross the state ahead of the first in the nation primary. coming up live at 6:00, senator marco rubio will be in exter for a town hall meeting. at 7:00, donald trump speaks to
4:30 pm
support earls in milford live on c-span2. if you're interested in the process, it all has to begin in iowa and then in new hampshire. we don't set the rules in terms of which state is first or second. we certainly have to cover the candidates where they are. there are a lot of people interested in this election. every four years, the american people make a decision to say who should be the leader of the free world. who should be our president. and so, for those who want to follow the process, and do it in a way that's completely unfiltered, we're the only place that does that. the other thing to keep in mind, though, as you look at this campaign and you look at these candidates, you're able to see how they're able to try to close the deal and during the final days of any campaign there's a lot of attention on every nuance, every news story, every speech, every ad.
4:31 pm
how's one candidate trying to rebut the other. how are you trying to respond to those? you know? in this day and age of social media and twitter. news cycle is constant. we're the one place that can allow you to take a step back and watch it. you can get the analysis on other networks. you can certainly hear viewer calls and weigh in on the programming but we're the one place that just allows you to see it as it happens and make up your own decision. next, a report on modernizing the u.s. army from the national commission on the future of the army. it was released as defense secretary ashton carter announced proposals of his own to modernize the military as a whole. one of those proposals calls for more parental leave. >> the commission, as you know, was formed by the congress and the national defense authorization act of 2015, and it was charged with a number of
4:32 pm
tasks, two of them at the forefront were how should the army be organized in a period of challenging resources and seemingly expanding threats. and secondly, a specific charge to address the army's proposal as advanced through the aviation restructure initiative endorsed by the department of defense to transfer all apache aircraft from the army national guard to the regular army. there are several other tasks that you're all familiar with. but those were the guiding, the two foundational tasks charged to the commission. over the time that the commission has been in existence, we have engaged more than 320 individual units, regular army, army national guard and army reserve across the force. we have visited 17 states and the district of columbia. we have met or corresponded with each of the 54 adjutants general
4:33 pm
who lead the national guard across the nation. 30 governors, nearly 80 members of congress. we met with all six geographic combatant commanders, several sub unified commanders and some of the functional combatant commanders. all of that in an effort to make sure we clearly understood, particularly from the governors and from the geographic combat and commands, what their demands were for army forces. we met with the associations who have represent so many of our soldiers of all three components with think tanks, with subject matter experts, academics and others who have studied the army and national security and defense policy, some within the government and many without, and we did all of that in an effort to meet the requirement of the law that we conduct a comprehensive assessment. we felt for the eight of us that it was important to receive as
4:34 pm
many varied and informed inputs as we could to make sure that we were balancing our assessments to the degree possible. we also asked each of the eight commissioners and each member of the staff, frankly, to check their predispositions at the door when they joined this commission and say let's go where the facts take us rather than what your predispositions might be. and i'm glad to report that that was certainly the case as we conducted our work. to me, the single most important event that we conducted was the thing called the comprehensive analytical review. a couple of days at the institutes for defense analysis but that were months in preparation by the staff and many other analysts who helped us, and it was in that classified session that we were able to conduct a number of modeling exercises varying the
4:35 pm
inputs, for example, varying the mix of regular army, army national guard, army reserve forces, varying the number of apache battalions, varying the duration of boots on the ground or deployment times, varying the periods at home either dwell time or periods where reserve component units were not activated or mobilized. all of that yielded to us some informed decisions that led to our findings and recommendations. you'll see throughout the report 63 individual recommendations. i'll address just one and the other commissioners will address the others. what we found will not be a surprise to you. america has the strongest army in the world. it is made so by the women and men who every day choose to serve this nation when they have many, many other opportunities. the nation must sustain and
4:36 pm
maintain the all-volunteer force. it's the collective judgment of the commissioners that a return to anything other than the all-volunteer force will not yield the quality army that the nation requires now, nor in the future. with that, let me turn to the vice chairman, secretary lamont. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good afternoon, everyone. as vice chairman of the commission i want to second the chairman's comments on the tremendous effort put forth by my fellow commissioners and staff.d it was a pleasure most of the time serving on this commission. no, it was, it really was. a pleasure. >> it says that because the chairman beat us periodically. >> let me pick up where the chairman left off talking about the army budget and the critical budgetary recommendations. this commission would never have existed if not for the severe budget cuts imposed by the budget control act.
4:37 pm
making matters worse, since at least 2011, military budget projections have been on a roller coaster, changing substantially most every year. from the budget control act of 2011, as we know as the sequester to the bipartisan budget act of 2015, you can only imagine the challenges that the army has gone through. the army and d.o.d. operated under continuing resolutions in each of the last eight years. had to plan for government shutdowns at least half a dozen times and, in fact, did have to endure a 16-day shutdown in 2013. with this kind of turmoil, the budgetary operating environment severely and adversely impacted the army in terms of readiness, modernization and in strength.
4:38 pm
budgetary turmoil has sadly become the norm. but even if we managed to return to regular order, the army still faces huge problems created by lower defense spending. from fiscal years 2010 to 2015, d.o.d. funding declined 7%. but army funding declined 14%. now part of your mandate was to determine anticipated future resources. after considering several alternatives, the commission strongly recommends future funding at the president's fy-'16 level, which would provide the army with the minimum resources necessary to meet requirements at acceptable risk. now, recall that was the charge of this commission, to look at acceptable risk and anticipated future resources. however, given recent changes in
4:39 pm
the strategic environment, even that may prove inadequate. let me turn to the army's limited investment in modernization, a source of significant long-term concern to the commission. the army responded to lower budgets by prioritizing manpower and readiness to support near-term demands. that's entirely understandable. but this left a gaping hole in the modernization program, which in that same time period fy-'10 to '15 saw a funding decline in investment and modernization of 35% in the army. soldiers are only as good as the training they receive and the equipment they have. after all, an army of 1 million perfectly trained soldiers provides little capability if they're carrying muskets. the army made difficult choices to cancel several important programs, including the ground
4:40 pm
combat vehicle and the armed aerial scout. what primary goal is to achieve decisive overmatch. in other words, never send soldiers into a fair fight. modernization ensures our soldiers maintain a decisive advantage on the battlefield. current funding levels risk squandering this overmatch capability. so funding at the president's level, fy-'16 would allow the army to achieve a balance between readiness and modernization. but just barely. so again, the commission strongly recommends administration and congress commit to providing spending bills that are on time and contain reasonable level of funding. all right.
4:41 pm
i'm going to turn the page here. lastly, on a little bit of a lighter note, as the only commissioner from the national guard, i wanted to briefly touch on the allocation of guard forces to the states and territories, which is a consideration congress specifically asked us to evaluate. after thorough review, we found that the regulations covering the allocation process are too complicated and sometimes do not reflect the way the process has evolved. however, the processes are sound and use objective, quantified metrics verified by the states and territories. so the commission, therefore, recommends the army update regulations and policy to clarify and codify the allocation processes in use. and lastly, just one comment about the overall theme throughout this report. and it is, we are one army. one army acting under the integrated and operational total force policy.
4:42 pm
and we will strive to maintain that with whatever we do. in all these recommendations. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thanks. dr. hicks? >> thank you very much to general ham and to secretary lamont, to my fellow commissioners and, of course, to the staff for all their hard work. as the chairman said in his opening remarks, the army has a supply and demand problem. the supply-ready army forces is struggling to keep up with the demand of the future and the future doesn't look much better than today. it's not a sustainable situation from the viewpoint of the commission. one of the commission's two primary tasks was to answer this basic question -- how should the army best organize and employ the total force in the time of declining resources and diverse threats. the commission spent an enormous amount of time on this question. we used contingency planning assessments, scenario, intelligence estimates, all to evaluate army capacity and capabilities as part of the joint force. we applied data within simple and complex models, and we used
4:43 pm
our own judgment to examine plausible relationships between supply and demand for forces over time. after all we've heard, read, seen and analyzed, we find that an army of 980,000 soldiers is the minimally sufficient force to meet current and anticipated missions at an acceptable risk. of national risk. within that army of 980,000, the commission finds a regular army of 450,000, an army national guard of 335,000 and an army reserve of 195,000 represent the right mix of forces, and again, the absolute minimum personnel levels to meet america's national security objectives. this includes sufficient disaster response and homeland defense capabilities to support current and anticipated requirements, accepting certain key enablers, i'll discuss momentarily. let me add an important caveat. these forces must be maintained at current planned readiness levels and every effort should be made to increase modernization funding as
4:44 pm
secretary lamont pointed to. this cannot be done on the cheap. maintaining a 980,000 force with adequate readiness and modernization requires funding for the army at or above the levels proposed in the president's fy-'16 budget request. funding at the budget control act level is simply not sufficient. even assuming full access to all army components, this force size provides only limited ability to react to unforeseen circumstances. of note, under current strategic guidance, the army and other defense components are directed no the to size for large scale, long duration stability operations. the commission concludes that the army has complied with this guidance and is, in fact, neither sized nor shaped for conducting such large scale long duration missions at acceptable risk. but the current guidance to the force may be inadequate in light of the evolving security environment. this includes ongoing missions in afghanistan and iraq, the global challenge posed by isil and russia's actions in ukraine
4:45 pm
and beyond. the commission recommends review to clare if i the environment of this strategy to environment mismatch. the commission's analysis did point to improve given the emerging world environment. we draw particular attention to aviation, which commissioners hale and thurman will discus in more detail, armored brigade combat team capacity, air defense artillery and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear countering capability. remedying these shortfalls within a 980,000 soldier army would require difficult but necessary tradeoffs. if army and strength cannot increase, our assessment indicates that the army could consider reducing up to two infantry brigade combat teams in the regular army to provide the manning necessary to strengthen aviation, short range air defense and other capabilities that i discussed. doing so, we believe, would reduce overall risk to mission.
4:46 pm
however, even if end strength targets can be met through such reductions, it would not produce the additional funding needed to mitigate these shortfalls. let me end there. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thanks, dr. hicks. general ellis? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to all of my fellow commissioners for their tremendous effort in helping to produce this report. i love the army, and i think we all love the army, and we believe the recommendations that we have made will in this report make the army even better. i also want to echo the comments of chairman ham concerning the all-voluntary force. i am personally very concerned about the future of what we call the all-voluntary force. i believe we may be reaching a breaking point. so we have to do all that we can to sustain this vital piece of our defense architecture. as the commission traveled
4:47 pm
around the country, soldiers and leaders in the guard and the reserves told us that they were not being used to levels they expected. those who joined the national guard and the reserves fully expect to be deployed, and they indicated that they were disappointed when they weren't used. now, this is a bit of an eye-opener for me, and i think for the commission. this gets at the heart of the all-voluntary force. our soldiers are all just volunteers. they have freely made up their minds to serve this great country. then we heard that they are becoming disappointed about what they volunteered to do in the first place. this is what concerns me. this is what makes the whole thing fragile and a little delicate piece of our defense architecture. so this leads to the obvious question. what happens when we can't get
4:48 pm
enough volunteers? currently, the d.o.d. goal for the guard and reserve is one year mobilized followed by five years at home. and this is known as dwell time. guard and reserve members and many employers repeatedly told the commission that they could meet a 1 to 4 mobilization to dwell ratio. the governors agreed and promoted even greater use of the guard and reserve in federal missions. the governors and employers only ask that deployments be predictable. the commission overwhelmingly agrees that giving the guard and reserve personnel better predictability not only makes them better soldiers, but also, help make them better in their day-to-day civilian lives. and again, this gets at the
4:49 pm
heart of why they volunteered to start with. commissioner stultz will shortly discuss important recommendations on making better use of 12304 bravo authority which could help with this predictability issue. as for the current 1 to 5 ratio, the commissioners does not recommend a change. but we do advocate for greater flexibility in the use of this authority. the commission also found that a significant source of friction between the components was an inconsistency in deployment policies. by that, i mean the duration of time actually spent in a deployed status, known as boots on the ground or b.o.g. while the secretary of the army move active guard and reserve to a nine-month boots on the ground
4:50 pm
policy, that could easily be undone as soon as the next contingency is on the horizon. the commission concluded that making boots on the ground times guard and the reserve would go a long way to achieving this important priority. that is, fostering an integrated total force culture. so this commission recommends that the secretary of defense update the utilization of the total force memo to allow for more flexible and voluntary mobilization periods necessary to maintain a common boots on the ground times in all three components. additionally, the commission found that personnel from the active, guard and reserve must find ways to better understand each other. by having them serve together in
4:51 pm
all levels will improve readiness and break down the cultural barriers we found. another means to help break down cultural barriers between the components would be to cross -- do cross component assignments. the commission offers recommendations in to that regard in this report. lastly, a word about training centers or ctcs as we refer to them. the ctc is a culminating event to determine if units are ready to deploy. if we want to train and fight as one army, all army units need to benefit from this critical training. the commission found that the number of brigade combat teams, or the bcts, exceed the ctcs through-put capacity. some bcts, particularly guard
4:52 pm
bcts, do not gain the full benefit from this training during their projected readiness cycles. we found examples of more than a decade between ctc rotations for some of our national guard bcts. so the commission recommends the army increase the number of annual ctc rotations for national guard bcts. but not at the expense of the regular army rotations. this would enhance total army readiness and build inner -- interoperability between the components. details will found in the one army chapter in the report. i will end there. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. general stultz? >> thank you.
4:53 pm
let me personally say how much i really appreciate all of your leadership. all that you've done to keep us on track and allow us to produce a first-class professional product. as you've heard, one theme oning throughout this commission has been, we are one army. and if we're going to be one army the commission concluded that we've got to do more to integrate many programs across the three components. for this report, i'm just going to focus on three of those. making better use of reserve component through the 12304-b authority, improving one army administration and consolidating army marketing and recruiting. 12304-b, can get very complicated, but simply, in 2012 congress gave the authority,
4:54 pm
call 12304-b, which allows the activation of reserve component personnel for planned missions. think of missions like kosovo, sinai, theatre engagement. those type of missions. as general ellis just pointed out, one of the things we heard back from the governors, from the soldiers was predictability. 12304 bravo allows predictability by having preplanned missions. however, to use 12304 bravo, the missions have to be planned two years in advance. and this really limits how we can use that authority. also forces command every year has repeatedly requested funding for 3,000 man years. not 3,000 men.
4:55 pm
3,000 man years for funding of 12304 bravo missions and the army has continued to fund one third of that request. consequently, regular army units are using short dwell time when you have active, army reserve, national guard units available that are same type units but can't do it because 12304 bravo funding is not available. the army must program 3,000 man years annually for 12304 bravo missions. congress needs to expand the authority and flexibility so 12304 bravo can be used for more near term, immediate and near emerging missions, allowing more flexibility there. next, since we train and fight as one army, we have to manage the army as one army. the three army components operate separate personnel and
4:56 pm
pay systems. this is wasteful, harder for soldiers to transition between components and the commission believes a single personnel and pay system is the most important step toward implementing a total force policy. the good news is the army's ipsa program offers a solution. it's a web-based self service 24/7 service that integrates personnel and pay for a soldier's entire career. the first elements of ipse have been fielded. and more are scheduled for 2018 and beyond. the commission strongly recommends that army and congress continue to adequately fund the program and maintain the current schedule. we would caution, however, that accelerated implementation or adding more requirements could create problems similar to those we have experienced in past failed software programs.
4:57 pm
and then lastly in 2014 the army -- the army, recruited 115,000 soldiers. using about 11,000 recruiters. but this was done with the regular army, national guard and the army reserve all vying for the same potential recruits. and in some case, competing against each other for a shrinking pool of qualified candidates. we have to recruit as one army. to integrate recruiting, congress should authorize and fund a pilot program to allow the recruiters of all three components to work together and be able to recruit for all three components. matching applicants to the component best suited for to improve overall effectiveness in recruiting. the army agent spends about $280 million annually for the regular
4:58 pm
army and the guard. multiple marketing efforts weaken the branding. and less efficient. so the commission therefore recommends that the army consolidate all marketing under the army marketing and research group. more information on these are in the chapters in the report called developing one army. thank you for your time and, mr. chairman, i'll yield back to you. >> thanks. >> thank you, sir. it's a great day to be a soldier. and to be able a retired soldier soldiers. but i'd like to echo the comments of the rest of the commissioners to this point. it's been a fabulous opportunity to serve. we have had a phenomenal staff
4:59 pm
who are sprinkled amongst the audience here who have really made it easy for the eight of us to do our job or relatively speaking easily. i'd like to thank you, mr. chairman, for your leadership and the focus that you helped us to focus on as we move forward. this afternoon i'm going to talk about some issues that are clearly part of what i did as -- for the last 35 years and that i hope will be taken into account and to help our army get better than it is today which is the best army in the world. part after what makes our army what it is is the huge investment in leader development and training. i think it's easy to prove we are the envy of the world by how many international students that attend our schools and education and the immense interest on how we develop leaders. we also do a phenomenal job on training but we have some issues and i would like to talk about that. the operational tempo over the last 13-plus years made our leader development and training suffer. for many different reasons. and all of them are good.
5:00 pm
but the challenge has been how do you generate the next generation of leaders while you're simultaneously conducting operations around the world? we've had to make some short cuts. we had one course that originally started off as six weeks long. it's the initial leader development course for the army. now called the basic leader course. and that was eroded over time to about a two-week course. still the same content, still the same learning outcome. if you're an educator or understand a little bit of education, you really can't smash six weeks into two and expect the same level of leadership development and education. we also saw a lot of issues that had to do with overcapacity. you know, across the army, we have a tremendous amount of learning institutions. some would say too much. for example, there are 54 regional training institutions spread across the states and
5:01 pm
territories along with the active component education opportunities and those in the army reserve. what we need to do is take a hard look at those and determine whether or not we have an overcapacity challenge and whether or not we can combine some of these institutions and the students which will help to break down some of the cultural myths that are across the three components. i would say that this is a great opportunity to make a concrete total force policy impact when you have students in the same classroom from different components that are sharing their own experiences about what it means to be a guard or a reservist or someone on active duty. if you take that and spread it across the life cycle of a soldier from private and many case to sergeant major or from lieutenant to general officer, learning will occur and the ability to work together as a team will grow.
5:02 pm
we also need to take a hard look at training. the commission strongly believes a force of 980,000 soldiers will require increased rhee license -- reliance on the reserve component to meet the decommand. given that reality, the army needs a quantifiable readiness training. the army has not yet fully implemented the t-level assessment methodology for for those of who don't know, the highest training level is called t-1. thus the objective "t" name. the commissioner found it's a big improvement on current assessment methods based on quantity final measurements and strongly recommends the army implement it quickly. for more information on these topics, they can be found in developing one army chapter of the report.
5:03 pm
thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. thank you very much. secretary hale? >> thank you. i spent 12 years as a department of defense, the air force and then d.o.d. comptroller have a motto. we're not happy until you're not happy. we don't get invited on a lot of dates. i appreciate the chance to serve. one primary assignment of this commission was to look at the apache transfer issue. it's part of the structure. we focused on the transfers in accord dance with the law. the commission gathered extensive information. i won't go through it again. i'll save in the aviation area, we use that information to evaluate options based on four criteria. wartime capacity. another was wartime surge capability. how well can you build up quickly if threats change? peacetime deployments, stress was a concern.
5:04 pm
as, of course, were costs and we measured costs relative to the ahi. -- ari. we look first at the restructure initiative. it has 20 battalions of apaches with 24 aircraft and no apaches in the guard or the reserve. the ari is a well crafted initiative. designed to hold down cost, to free up money for modernization. it offers substantial wartime capacity though there are some shortfalls in that key scenario, early and slightly larger shortfalls later in the scenario. and there's no surge capacity under the ari since there's no apaches in the guard or reserve. finally, ari works count tore the one army goal of the commission. apaches would be one more area without a connective tissue between if you will the regular army and the guard. we looked at the national guard
5:05 pm
brew row option, as well. substantial surge capability but s ari and it does add to costs. the commission then looked at wide variety of other options. more battalions than the guard. in the end we recommend that the army maintain 24 battalions of apaches, 20 of them in the regular army, they would each be equipped with 24 aircraft. that's the same as the ari and modify ari to keep four battalions of apaches in the national guard. each equipped with 18 aircraft or helicopters. in you need 24 to fight. what they would do during a mobilization is borrow helicopters from another unit and it works call it cross living. it's something the guard does fairly routinely and works. not all deploying at the same time.
5:06 pm
the commission option provides more wartime capacity than the ari. yet also provides some surge capability. it does add to costs and that's a potential disadvantage. we estimated operating costs go up $165 million a year under the commission proposal. and it would be one time procurement costs of $400 million. we did offer offsets to pay for these added costs. we felt we should in light of the budget tear situation. if those costs have to be offset, we recommend that the army look at the black hawk fleet. they're very important to the army's war fighting capability but it is a big fleet and so you could reduce slightly the size of that fleet under ari, the four black hawk battalions transferred to the guard. the commission would transfer only two battalions, the same under the national guard proposal. they transferred two, also.
5:07 pm
and we would modestly slow the modernization of the black hawk fleet buying 5 to 10 fewer newer a year and pay for the option. there are disadvantages to this without question but we felt that they were outweighed by the advantages of keeping some apaches in the guard. i should say while we spent time on the costs and they're important, there are other important factors. i have mentioned two. wartime capacity and surge capability. keeping apaches in the guard integrate it is regular army and the guard and that's a commission's overarching goal. under the proposal, the apaches and the guard, another area where the regular army and the guard trade together in peacetime and if necessary fight together in war. that completes the very brief discussion of the transfers.
5:08 pm
more detail, of course, in the report and glad to take questions when that time comes. mr. chairman. >> thank you, secretary. lastly, general thurman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to tell you it's been an honor for me to serve with all of these great professionals and particularly under your leadership. i think we can all take pride in what we have accomplished. i think we did due diligence with this report and, number one, we answered what the congress and the administration asked us to do. i want to focus my remarks on some important aviation issues outside the apache question which mr. hale just outlined. and also, discuss putting an armored brigade combat team permanently back in europe. first, the commission recommends keeping a forge station in korea.
5:09 pm
right now, the regular army plans to remove a cab from korea as it goes from a 11 to 10 cabs. to mitigate the risk given terrain and the complexities of that commission, and the importance of fight tonight readiness on that peninsula, we believe that it is necessary to leave a regular army cab forward stationed in korea. the commission also believes that even at ten cabs one should be left there and not be rotated. the army currently meets that by rotating that force over but we think that's taking on undue risk that needs to be mitigated. the commission also strongly recommends that the regular army retain 11 combat aviation brigades. that's what the demand is. yes, sir. that is costly. it costs about $1.9 billion but
5:10 pm
when you look at the capabilities that are being asked for by the combatant commands, aviation is right at the top of the list. 11 cabs would help meet the ongoing high demands for aviation and provide more capacity for contingencies and help the regular army coming to one year deployed for every two years at home. right now they don't meet that. retaining a 11th cab, again, would require buying necessary additional 48 aircraft, ah-64s costing $1.9 billion. that's going to require a greater aloe case across the defense budget to fulfill this need. second, i want to address a concern about aviation flight training hours. the current level of flying
5:11 pm
hours for the regular army aviators only allows units to maintain proficiency at platoon and maybe company level. that is simply not good enough. we should be at battalion level proficiency with the regular army. aviation units in the reserve componentless also have training shortfalls. without additional flying hours, individual and collective training proficiency will decline. contributing to further shortfalls in readiness and could lead to higher accident rates. the commission therefore recommends the army determine the amount and aloe case in flight training hours per pilot per month across the army. however, we believe an increase of two hours may be appropriate. again, this would increase cost between $250 million and $300
5:12 pm
million a year. but the commission believes this training is critical and i got to tell you, it needs to be about proficiency. not currency. to meet the requirements that these formations are being asked to perform around the globe by combatant commands. third, we think the army should expand the use of multicomponent aviation units to improve readiness and better integrate the regular army and reserve components. they should be co-located so they can routinely train together. that would be an observation we saw as we traveled around. we're recommending that there be a pilot to -- that we're asking the -- recommending that the army conduct a pilot to work on this integration and see how that might work for them to improve readiness. the united states air force
5:13 pm
makes substantial use of multicomponent approaches and the army could learn from its experience. i'm not saying the army and the air force are is t same. there's a huge difference with collective train. we know that. at the end of the day they do some things that may very well help ease some of the friction that could be associated with multicomponent units. the army is already experimenting with multicomponent fixed wing aircraft. units and we believe, again, a pilot program is necessary. lastly, let me address europe. the army is now rotating armored brigade combat teams around the globe. rotating in korea an they're rotating in europe. in the regular army there are nine armored brigade combat teams. there's also one in the middle east. so you can do the math. you have somebody in motion all
5:14 pm
the time. so we believe the security environment in europe is increasingly unstable and an armored brigade combat team will help increase deterrence in europe. given some of the latest activities that we have seen from the russians and what ms. hicks addressed. nato allies like sufficient units. it could be used for potential contingencies in the middle east. and fourth, deploying from the united states takes time that we may not have. the commission, again, believes that forward stationing a bct team in europe would require minimal additional staffing. the details on all these issues can be found in the army of the future and in the apache transfer chapter. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. over the past two days the commission's had the opportunity to brief senior leaders at did department of defense, the national security council, uniformed and civilian leaders at did department of the army, chief of the national guard bureau and this morning with
5:15 pm
congressional leaders and their staffs. going forward from this point, i suspect we'll see some of you tomorrow at the defense writers group and a think tank session kindly hosted by csis tomorrow, as well. the following week there are commissioners will travel to the united states army sergeants major academy. you might guess who might lead that team. also, to the united states military academy, the command and general staff college and a bit later in the month to the army war college. there are also scheduled sessions with the governors' council, later with the adjutant general schedule and a hearing

21 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on