tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 7, 2014 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
right now, just a little bit of momentum, who would you say? i would have to say republicans in both of those cases. it's not a prediction, they look north carolina with kay hagan -- to use a phrase i've used before, she's got small but seemingly small stable lead over tom tillis, a state senate that when a bridge too far. it has hurt the guy. it might really cost him the election. michigan, very close. it would appear gary peters, the democrat, has a very small but
stable lead. i would say organized labor is doing much more effectively in michigan. i would put a finger on the scale for democrats in michigan, and finally, jeanne shaheen, there are some conflicting calls with most showing her head by half a dozen points. there may be some closure there, but i still think she has a measurable advantage. if republicans need one, it needs to be iowa or colorado. if they simply get republican states voting republican, they don't need to win any swing
states, or, if they lose both, they need to win two out of the purple or green categories. i've put it at 60%. stu rothenberg -- he's sticking with his prediction of seven seats. one last thing and then we will bring up neil and stan. sometimes, people ask me why the heck do we need to listen to charlie cook or his team? why do we need to listen to them or stu rothenberg and his terrific colleague if we've got nate silver and "new york times" and these other models that are out there.
my analogy is the money ball analogy -- there's not a team in major league baseball it doesn't employ a team of statisticians. they all see it as all important. what they found, the optimal approach is look at the data, analyze the data, but listen to the scouts. sit in the bleachers with a speed gun. in terms of interviewing candidates and watching the races, sitting in jennifer's office, watching ads hours on end and evaluating each of these from a subjective, qualitative, as opposed to quantitative. there's value and all of those things. if i was going to look at two models boast, i would watch nate silver -- i have a lot of
respect for nate silver. i think he's smart and he's got a neat statistical toolkit and i think he is intellectually honest. it's a different approach from what i take what i think it is worth looking at. "the new york times" i think actually does a good job. they had to scramble to put something together after nate left but it's worth looking at. i'm not a huge fan of the post version and i'm not sure why a princeton biologist is doing molecular models. anyway -- that's where i am on it. what i would like to bring in two people who go through mountains and mountains of data and have the experience and intuition with stan greenberg. the work stan's firm does where they are doing some incredibly high quality both in terms of
national surveys and surveys of competitive districts, it's unlike anything else out there and it is just in are mostly invaluable. neil is one of the best around. thier firms represent enormously high quality work. they are really nice people and friends, and i want to bring them up and hopefully we can glean some things and i'm not going to put either of them on the spot to throw any of their clients under the bus, just let them tell us what they think. if you guys want to come up. [applause] >> do you want to be in the middle?
>> wherever you want. >> who wants to go first? >> i will let neil go. >> projections are seven. >> let me start with some of what charlie talked about. charlie is exactly right. the political environment is set by president obama's rating. he is about 10 to 12 points lower than he was when he beat mitt in 2012. you take that 10 or 12 points and apply it to these states that are red states that are up for grabs right now, and if the
president won that with 50% of the vote, he could be at 38% job approval, which is an incredibly difficult climb for the democratic candidate. your home state, louisiana -- >> democrats are the same way. [laughter] mary landrieu is in deep trouble there. what do you think obama's approval rating is among white voters in louisiana? >> i'm not sure, but i suspect there is a two in front of it. >> 15%. i've been employed for a long time now. we are looking at numbers we have never seen before.
along these figures -- the job approval of congress. i saw one poll the job approval rating at 6% and the margin of error was 5%. [laughter] i talk about congress in terms of the friends and family program because only friends and family approve of the job congress is doing. the environment itself is a strong anti-incumbent environment. what you did not get into is the sense from voters that washington and has let them down and we cannot fix this country until we fix washington, d.c., our politics, and politicians. that's why we've seen turnover after turnover, and there's a frustration and anger so that it used to be that voters hated congress but love their congressman. how they hate congress and don't
trust their congressman. there's a sense that member of congress has to prove him or herself again every year. there is an anger with washington's inaction and dysfunction. this is all creating a political environment that is extraordinarily negative toward both parties, not just party in power. my second point is don't kid yourself. it is very similar to the 2012 election where it was only eight states were competitive. this is the same model and this gives democrats an advantage because they can focus their resources on these minimal number of states.
the average voter -- since labor day, iowa has been the most advertised state per capita in the country. there have been 147 ads per capita since labor day. on september 23 -- just take one day -- on september 23 in des moines, there were 325 political ads in the senate race on tv and one day. 325. first of all, god bless you if you are in iowa, north carolina, michigan or colorado or kentucky and you are being besieged with all of this advertising. i'm sure you can't wait for the election to be over. but this is not a national election and there's not really a national thematic running through this election. it is the obama approval ratings kind of underpin this.
it is a state i state election and those personalities count. campaigns do matter and that's why anyone predict the republicans are going to win, guess what -- campaigns make mistakes. we've seen ago go from a republican advantage to kind o a democrats edging back -- these campaigns and candidates make mistakes. they run advertisements that are ineffective and focus on the issues. of stop new information is introduced into these these campaigns. iowa and colorado and kentucky, michigan, north carolina -- all of these states, what happens over the next month is going to make a difference. the fourth point which charlie did not raise is that terrific
republican enthusiasm advantage. republicans are significantly more enthusiastic and up for this election. you are going to have to hold them back from the polls on election day. they have a significant advantage in intensity. i did the romney campaign two years ago and i have seen those numbers before. we had the same intensity advantage in 2012. i learned a lot of valuable lessons working the romney campaign. one of the lessons was an unenthusiastic vote counts just as much as an enthusiastic vote. [laughter] and so when democrats are able, because of their ground operation, to turn out voters who are low propensity, who are unlikely, who are low interest voters, their votes count just as much as my republican, you know, 45-year-old, you know, man in the suburbs who rushes the polls on election day. they count the same. so all this you hear about the republican intensity advantage,
cautionary tale -- i saw those numbers, and we don't have president romney now, unfortunately, so we have president obama. take that with grain of salt, because on the ground does matter in these campaigns. so my fifth point here is, guys, we have a long ways to go. in political terms, we are -- well, we're five weeks out, four and a half weeks out from the election. that's several political lifetimes. a lot of stuff can happen, this race -- the senate is not yet decided. you know, i think it may change a couple of times between now and election day. and don't take, you know, don't take to heart all these, everything saying, gee, republicans have that enthusiasm advantage. you know what? if the democrats' ground game works and works well and they have unlimited number of states to do it in, six or eight states, that enthusiasm advantage may be wiped away by the democrat turnout operation. so this is -- it's a dead heat.
it's a tossup. i agree with charlie's accessment of the states. do we win colorado or iowa or both? can we? how close is north carolina going to be? all these states. it's a fascinating campaign, but we are a long ways from determining the winner of the senate. and as you know -- because this is a pretty smart audience -- election night isn't going to determine the winner of the senate any way, probably. so a final piece of advice to you, if you have any extra capital, buying a tv station in new orleans -- [laughter] be a really, really good investment. and, you know, if you want to watch political ads visit new orleans between election day and the run-up election in december. every political operative will be in town and every tv station full of ads because it could come down to the runoff election in louisiana.
>> i was in baton rouge and new orleans this past weekend, and talking to a manager of an affiliate said they are seeing their advertising getting scaled back because they are saving money for the runoff. neil's judgment. i apologize for creating suspense. you should know this is the future because my schedule that charlie palmer, but my app sent me there and i was automatically programmed and when i walked in
i said maybe the rsvp's went to a smaller room to create a sense of interest in this election. >> sorry to create the suspense. i asked for charlie cook. >> everything that neil has said about the convention wisdom, particularly partisan convention, one should step back from. we began talking like, oh, my
god, i will have one more panel where they tell me how many white males vote for obama or how well republicans are doing with independents. that is part of the spin that it cannot be possible that obama will win. neil is one of those people that recognizes the change. i'm in the 50-50 probability, slightly down from -- you sound like you are in the 50-50 or you go from 60-40 either way. >> they don't let me get away with 50-50. i got to shade it one direction or the other. >> polsters are paid to go 50-50. we are battleground poll for npr which we release tomorrow so i won't indicate the results. we will also release on monday a battleground poll and polls in four of the battleground states
for women's vote. so we will have that. we are also, as you know, both involved in actual races and actually independent efforts in many of the states, and i will try not to talk about the states. >> feel free. >> but i do spend probably twice a day going through our polls looking for what is the trend and what is emerging. just stepping back, i think it is a little hard to read what is happening from washington because the part you read from washington is the obama part. you focus on the president, he is in the news, and he's clearly the central dynamic. just noting on the obama piece, we had in the npr poll -- i won't give the number but in the previous polls we did for npr
his approval was 37% to 38%. very low in these 12 states that we poll that constitute the battleground. romney won these by eight. tough territory. we will look at the results tomorrow. but if you look at just take the last 10 polls conducted, public polls conducted, and look at obama's approval his approval has gone from 42% to 44% in the public polls. it has been stuck at 42% for a long time. i think when we look back on this next week, we will look at what happened with isis and syria and iraq and it might represent a point at which the president edged up nationally. that affects republican motivation, etc. let's go it the states. the other factor playing out is the intense unpopularity of the republican party. this is to not a vote party
issue. we have our current polling in the battleground and there is no more unpopular as mcconnell. he is as well known as harry reed and i don't want to make comparisons that will cause problems for people i work with on the house side who get attacked, but mcconnell -- >> can i mention her name? >> mcconnell has exceeded that in the senate battleground. he represents washington and gridlock, and if you want to look what in a regression model would drive the vote, views of the house republicans define the republican party. we move away from that and say we don't have gridlock -- the way the republican brand problem plays out is in the advertising and positioning of the
candidates in the states. you don't see it because it is being played out state by state. and there is a reason you went from states being fairly republicans to then moving more democratic is because they began associating those candidates with the party, with their priorities, including a whole range of issues and insensitivity to women and range of things that have become important in the state elections. there is a third piece in this, which i have come to recognize is increasingly important if you want to understand kansas and north carolina. the republican governors and republican model of governing coming out of the 2010 election is intensely unpopular. if you want to look at who has the lower ratings than louisiana look at governor jindal who is lower than the president. so, look at tillis, the republican program in north
carolina and what has happened with that association. states that have been brought into play are in play because of there is a state story, a local story, to the republican agenda and brand, which is making these races more competitive on the democratic side. we also found in the battleground we have not found in the last poll -- we did polling for a certain republican -- we found no difference on consolidation, leadership and attention to vote among democratic and republican divorce in the battleground states. they have been so bombarded with media they are kind of a
different place. you go back to 2004 election and what happened in bush's re-election there was a shift of around three points in his vote nationally. in the battleground where it was fought out, no change, not a decimal point of change from one election where you were advertising in the intense campaign. we will see what the npr poll shows tomorrow, but be alert to neil's point that the presumption of the advantage and watch the issues that have emerged. part of the republican brand problem is their problems with women and they are a factor in how people are voting. then the last piece i will add is on the affordable care act. where the presumption and strategy for republicans has been to pound that issue. initially, i think as a swing
vote to get -- and to punish democrats. but increasingly as a motivator for a reason for people to vote. you should watch for the npr poll tomorrow on this issue. when we look back and we say how come there was one more election cycle in which republicans were certain to take control and didn't? the single biggest ad they have run has been on the affordable care act. down to about a quarter, still a quarter. in our testing it is the weakest thing they are using. they are not using other things that are much stronger because i think there is an ideological determination to use the affordable care act, obamacare, as their issue. and you will see with the npr it is a much more complicated issue
than that. there is a percentage who are against it because it is big government but it is not big enough to decide elections. so the issue priorities is what they choose to run on and there is evidence that they are shifting in the states. but 50-50 means i really don't know. i am close to still 50-50. i don't see a trend either way. these things i just described are kind of going into the equation. i don't see any evidence of it breaking one way or the other. >> let me ask neil a question on affordable care, and then let's open it up. we had a top republican senate strategist suggest six months ago that they started telling their clients you need to move
away from the affordable care act, we have milked that cow for all it's got. and you can't be a one-trick pony, start to diversify and move the messaging other places because there are no more points to be scored on the affordable care act. does that reflect what you have seen in your data? >> if you look at approval ratings of the affordable care act and compare in the same survey to the approval rating of obama, they are identical. obamacare is obama and obama is obamacare. they are one and the same. the obamacare issue is one that i think it is pretty much baked in, but stan is sharp on this. it is a motivation issue to remind voters why this election is important and why they need to vote.
it is more of a base issue than necessarily a persuasion issue. it is a stimulation issue. i think you will see some campaigns go back to it late and say hey everything you didn't like about it this person voted for it to put it back in the mix a little bit, because obamacare is shorthand for big government, bureaucracy, takeover of healthcare, and tie it to the sense that policeman who have lost their health insurance or the ability to see their doctors were able to keep their plans. you go back to that and remind people. it will come back, but it is not the only issue. late in campaigns, what we try to do is interject new information in the mix. you want to tell people something new they didn't already know. because if you repeat the same stuff over and over, they are
immune to it. they need to hear new information and they want -- they are still trying to figure out their decisions and i think you will find some campaigns trending to new issues the last weeks of the campaign. >> now, stan said there were other issues that are more powerful that republicans could be using. let's just for grins, what do you think? >> stan made the comment. let's hear from him. i'm not giving you -- >> you have been beating on my client, so i was curious. >> i'm going to pass on that one, charlie. they always do well when they talk about spending. >> ok. you were more forthcoming than i expected. there are some microphones
around the room, one over here and one over here. so as my not relative david cook said wave your hands in a nonthreatening fashion and we will have a microphone come to you. there is one right over here. >> thank you. charlie, you have arkansas, louisiana, alaska as tossups. when we you discussed them you seemed to indicate you thought the republicans were more likely to win two of three. if you take the 10 tossups and distribute them 50-50 you have a three-seat democratic advantage. are those states really tossups and what does stan think about this? >> some of this is semantics and approach. "the new york times" periodically is running what each of the model are doing and what we are saying and what larry sabato and others lay out. if you notice, we tend to carry
more tossups than anybody else. to me a tossup is i don't have a really strong feel -- or we, our team -- do not have a really strong feeling that we kind of know who is going to win. if it is a lead, we think we know who is going to win. if it is a toss, there is a sufficient element of doubt that we are not going to put our reputations on the line. it is sort of like an umpire. our strike zone is a little wider than some of the other folks. our definition. >> rank those three states. >> i would say if democrats only lost one, which i think is highly unlikely, that can be arkansas. if they only lost two, i would throw in probably louisiana.
and if one survived, i think it more likely to be alaska. but i think more likely -- i think it is more likely that all three go down by far and away than only one and probably more three than two. but in my calculation though i'm kind of assuming that pat roberts comes up short. we may be surprised, but i kind of think so. so in my mind republicans need seven, not six. my hunch is going to be iowa -- if i can know two races, i would rather know iowa and colorado. >> i would bring an answer to that question. i would recommend you bring a regional cultural and historical trends blend to it.
this country is not only gridlocked in washington, we are polarized, and it's not just polarization. we have some regions that are moving more republican, more hostile of others moving in the opposite direction, and they are very different trends. when i look at these races i look at the south and i -- without doing specific races, the trends of the south are dramatic. if you look at these states, they always come out a little worse. i will say that mary landrieu works out some magic in parts of louisiana. but the south is always disappointing. north carolina is -- we know presidentially it is more partisan and a new growing coalition with post-graduates
and a diverse immigrant population is making it part of -- and that trend there is important. i think of alaska, even throw it is a democrat holding it, it is more libertarian, montana mode that does quirky things. and it is a function of how that kind of candidate wins. >> as most everybody knows, there is a lot more men in alaska than women, and there was a reality show that had the saying it was taking some alaskan women and taking them to florida that were single and kind of an interesting premise.
but the tagline was odds for women in alaska are good, but the goods are odd. i always kind of loved that. >> charlie, i don't know how i follow that comment. >> when you look at those states, i think it is likely all three may go our way. but i want to make it point. i want to reiterate what charlie opened this session in and talked about a historical perspective. if republicans fail to win majority and i think it will be very tight, you know, you know where i stand on that. i think you go back it look at delaware and indiana and nevada, missouri. i don't think is not necessarily a failure of republicans to win
because winning six or seven seats -- and beating an incumbent is tough. it is damn tough. and i think that you look at our failure in previous elections that failed to set us up to win with five seats or four seats instead of six or seven. i think we fixed some of those problems in terms of we don't have some of these wild and crazy nominees we had in the past and i think -- >> exotic. >> exotic, yes. i think we are in pretty good shape but it is still tight. >> you haven't fixed the problem. tillis represents the core of the republican party. he was the preferred candidate. the problems you are having are with the people that represent the core of the party.
if the election occurred today one outcome would take place but it is 33 days from now. that is a long way to go. campaigns make a lot of mistakes in 30 days. >> to amplify neil's earlier point and i will put my colleague jennifer on the spot, in the last 10 years five elections democrats have unseated 11 republican senate -- 12 -- you are saying 12 republican senate incumbents republicans have unseated three. so, for some reason there's been some resistance in the last decade or inability for republicans to knock off
democratic incumbents even in 2010 it was a great year for republicans. so, they have to overcome that to get the majority. where is the next question? who has the mike, and are you next to somebody with a question? >> i guess a tactical question. a lot of money is sunk into television advertising, and my impression is that is going to the near dead rather than the living because most -- my children really don't watch television commercials. yet it is almost like we are heading into world war ii with a strong cavalry. what are your thoughts on the effectiveness of television advertising and who is it hitting, which voters is it reaching, and what is it achieving? is it motivational or trying to
create noise? >> your point is exactly what we have seen in the data. we did a national survey with targeting and we found fewer than half american voters say they get their news from live tv every day. that they watch live tv every day. and among 18- to 44-year-olds just 1/3 say they watch live tv every day. you have to be kidding. it is extraordinarily difficult. if 2/3 of americans have smart phones, including the blackberries, which i don't consider a smart phone -- >> but it has a better key board. >> yes. how you communicate with voters is extraordiinarily difficult, and right now you have a ton of money spent on tv advertising that is hitting people who have
already decided, and that is why all of our campaigns are spending much more money on digital and trying to reach out and doing targeted communications, personal communications with voters so that what you are seeing is -- everybody knows they are hitting the tv, but what you are not seeing is the amount of money going to digital and individual contact and even mail and personal contact. so you are not seeing how the money is spent, but that doesn't mean you leave tv uncovered. >> to illustrate your point, i like to use an example. our daughter, who in 2012 was 26 living in cleveland, ohio -- she did not -- their tv set was not wired to cable, it didn't have rabbit ears, and she watched something called apple tv, which i don't know what that
is, and she would generally listen to her ipod or iphone music or npr on the way to and from work. so, reaching her -- she was not a swing voter, but reaching her would have been a challenge for a campaign. that says exactly what neil is saying. >> let me speak both sides of this. we still have selection. >> we still have campaigns this cycle where advertising can shift a race in a major way. look at pennsylvania and the governor's race and what happened there. somebody is watching tv, so races are still impacted by the tv. i remember after super pac's became legalized by the court, i remember in the last cycle
watching surprise million dollar buys coming from outside and impacting the races. that seems to be much less of an issue. people know it is coming. therefore, the fund-raising has balanced it, and you know it is coming, and i also think you have reached not so much a lack of penetration in the market, saturation in the market in which people roll their eyes on ads. they are getting hurt on negative ads right now. i don't think any of these will be shifted by a killer sudden buy ad that i think it is locked in that people have taken in a lot of advertising. >> who has a question with a microphone? >> over the last month there have been significant shifts in
iowa and colorado. can you discuss why there have been shifts there? and obviously candidates do matter, and is that what is happening in those two states? thank you. >> iowa first. i think a very competitive race. the democrats did a nice job of beginning to define the republican, but i think what has happened there is brailey failed to define himself and failed to give voters a reason to vote for him. it was all about joining us -- we did some focus groups among wal-mart moms which is a fascinating group and we did one of these groups in des moines. and they knew a lot about ernst.
what brailey failed to define himself and once republican money caught up with the democratic money and began to focus on his record, it caught up to him. so i think voters accepted joni for who she was and she focused on who bruce is and i think those numbers have changed. that is one, iowa, but still a tight race. colorado? i think the attacks against cory gardner as being an extreme republican tea party candidate have fallen a little short and not really rung all that true, and it is combined with the overwhelming focus by the udall campaign on birth control
abortion, and i think there is a sense that udall is running a single issue focus campaign and i think they -- i would guess they went too far and there was a backlash, not just among women voters, but among men. we are seeing that in the denver suburbs. you are seeing some shifts there. colorado is still a tough state. we did polls in colorado and iowa in the presidential and they both fell flat. i always saw in the presidential campaign we thought of iowa as a state that had the greatest sense of kind of, you know, voter remorse after the 2008 election, between 2008 and 2012. these are voters in iowa who believe they put obama into
office and there was more disappointment, more -- betrayal is too strong -- but he was not what they expected. i think that is why the obama campaign spent so much time in iowa in september of 2012 and they ended up beating us pretty well, but you have that sense in that state and i think that is part of what may be getting more energy behind joni's campaign. >> there's somebody over here. do you have a mike? let's get mikes to hands. there is one hand there and one hand here. >> i have two questions. the first is about georgia, about their 12th district, and i was wondering how do you
think -- what do you think is the -- sorry -- how is the race looking for the incumbent john farrow, and there are a lot of candidates that go out actively seeking women's votes but what about the male vote and particularly younger votes? >> do any of you have a unique feeling on barrow? >> no. i wish david were here. but i will jump in. barrow seems to -- he's got a decent edge in a district that is just absolutely ugly. for a democrat, really, really ugly. you just sort of sometimes see people that are survivors and --but you know when there person steps aside, boom, that seat is gone. gone, gone, gone. at the same time, and everybody up here has seen candidates that were able to survive in really tough races then there was a
really ugly year and the trap door opens and they are gone. i think barrow will survive. mike mcintyre in north carolina was able to survive a long time and then decided to pull the plug. as i remember the district has a voting index that is seven or eight points more republican than the rest of the country. but barrow has a bond, a connection, and so far this year it looks like he's working. so, if you told me that democrats were going to lose 10 seats nationwide, i don't think barrow's would be in there. now, if this thing got into the house -- the difference between the louse and senate there are
technical reasons why the senate will be, gosh, the best case for democrats no matter what would be losing four seats and five, six, seven is more likely, and eight is less likely and that is kind of the bell curve. but in the house there are not that many vulnerable democratic seats left. when you lose 63 seats in one election and get eight back the next one, you are already the low to mid-hanging fruit for republicans is already picked and it is sort of a mop-up operation. after florida i think that barrow is going to be ok. and if you saw early on -- and georgia is not one of the first, if you saw barrow going down democrats may be having an even worse night than we thought. and i say that despite the fact that the environment is pretty tough for democratis year. >> charlie, what about west virginia, three?
>> i wouldn't necessarily say that. i think -- stan alluded to this earlier if you were going to do a profile of where in the last 10 years have democratic, has the democratic party struggled so much, i would say borders south, small town, rural, lots of disproportionate number of older white voters and a state that is with a heavy fossil fuel. so, west virginia, kentucky, that is sort of where it all comes together. and i think ray has a good
campaign, but ray can survive it would be kind of pretty surprising because he's got sort of all -- it is like all the risk factors for a heart attack -- i shouldn't use that metaphor but that is a lot tougher. >> and your question about men, there is a lot of focus on the gender gap and problems republicans have with women. the flip side of that is obvious the democrats have a huge problem among men voters and the gender gap cuts both ways and you see that all states now where republicans are doing much better among amend not women and you are seeing it in the approval ratings of the president and across the board. we have seen that since the
ronald reagan election in 1980 and it expands and contracts but it is a significant gap. we need to do better among women voters no question, but the democrats have significant challenges among males. >> not to disagree at all with neil, but there is one partially mitigating factor and this is one of the great inequitities. women live longer than men, so their 53% went female and 47% male so -- >> that comes out of balance a little bit. >> but with everything neil said was right. >> the filter for this ought to be what is happening in the republican conservative heartland in all the places you talked about, deep south, border states, and more r and evangelical. those are all trending heavily
for democrats, but if you look at white noncollege and white noncollege men there's been no trend against democrats outside of the republican party. >> while we are on the gender thing and i'm not going to put either of you on the spot even though i suspect you both have done some work in louisiana there cycle, but there was a cnn poll a couple of weeks ago that showed effect in the mary landrieu and bill cassidy race that showed effectively no gender gap whatsoever. i have not seen cross tabs and in any other surveys in the state, so i don't know whether that was an anomaly in that poll or there was a pattern and some reason why she was not doing a lot better among women than men. >> that is an anomaly.
>> ok. >> that is a good warning. take every poll you look at with a grain of salt. when you start looking in terms of independent voters or women or white women or african-american or hispanics, the margin of error of them can vary dramatically and how the sampling is done can vary. if something doesn't seem right it is probably not right. it is probably wrong. you think it can't be true. i have redone, i think, a handful of polls the last few weeks because i didn't believe the data. it is like if i can't explain it to the client, if there's not a rational explanation, i have to redo it. what is happening here. so, if the numbers change for no apparent reason, it is probably not right.
>> i hope there if there are cable show bookers watching this that when there is a poll that shows something different from every other poll, rather considering it hot news, as neil says, the odds are it is probably just wrong. so putting a huge spotlight on it you are probably doing your viewers a disservice. >> that's right. we should note there is a difference between campaign polls and all the polls that are done publicly and for the newspapers. all of our polls are voter polls where we are sampling people we know voted in 2010 or 2006. we are dealing with likely voters, and that is true of every campaign in the states. and that means the campaigns are dealing i think with polls that
are much more real and not subject to these -- >> let me throw one thing out and if either of you wants to respond but you can't say this yourself because it would sound self-serving, one of the things you hear in the poll aggregators is that independent polls are more reliable than polls by partisan organizations. the idea is that the partisan sponsored polls are somehow really biased as if a campaign would spend a whole lot of money on getting numbers that were wrong would be a good idea. and i think what a lot of people miss out is that if stan does a poll with really lousy numbers for a democrat, the odds that you are ever going to hear those
numbers are almost nonexistent. the same for neil. >> if we have lousy numbers for democrats we would release them. >> yes. this assessment is being made and a free-standing poll in a state that you would do, not a benchmark, but something that you would have done, pick one in the last week or two, what would it cost? >> i will let you price it. $28,000 or more. >> i submit to you that there are no newspapers in america, no radio station, and none of the -- that are releasing numbers from a survey with a fair market value of $28,000. it would be probably closer to $3,000. so, this is sort of a mythology that has built up that the
academics kind of dwell on. >> i think you are right. i think we ought to take it as a fact in the modeling. with democracy corps, which is the most accurate of the national polls, we release every poll and we announce in advance we are releasing it so away don't have the option of getting a result we don't like. >> why don't you discuss a blanket policy. >> i will speak in iowa. i trust that one. he has it even. i think he is right about that being very close. but they won't release the polls and there is random variation, some of their other states probably had a poll where the democrat wasn't doing very well so you have to be careful saying
there is a house effect or bias. >> we have done 1,400 polls this year, 1,400. we have released 20, maybe? >> your party is having a good year. we are doing a ton of surveys. we don't want to release this stuff. yet we are graded by 538 and we have c-pluses. it is based on like 20 polls, you are kidding me. but take it with a grain of salt. the grimes campaign released data, 1,800 survey done over i think eight days in the field starting on friday night and ending on saturday. my takeaway of that is they did
tracking 1,800 in nine days and cherrypicked those days because they were the days that showed grimes up by two points. if they did it a day later or day earlier, the numbers were down. they cherrypick -- take it with a grain of salt. >> not specifically, but really good. take that with a grain of salt. when you look at some of the polls they go to likely voter samples after labor day and the numbers get crazy, it is because they are not doing it right. it is flawed. it is just flawed. >> where are the mikes? get one over to jeff. he gave me a plug with my newsletter 30 years ago that i'm not biased at all.
>> you never have been. one comment and then a question. the comment is about georgia. i think neil said it might not be settled into december. is it possible it could go to january? >> yeah. i mean, i keep saying louisiana in december, but there is the runoff provision in georgia -- >> georgia, same thing. >> pushes it to january 5th? >> 6th. >> 6th. >> it's november 4, december 6th for louisiana, january 6 for georgia. >> and it's absolutely certain that louisiana will go runoff. it's entirely possible it could be georgia as well. so what does that do to, if orrman gets elected in kansas? what does he do? he's in limbo until -- he doesn't know which way to go. >> and until he decides, he can't get any committee assignments. [laughter] >> exactly. >> but that was not my question. >> sorry.
i thought it was interesting. [laughter] >> if you look, if i listen to everything that's been said, this is not going to be a wave election. the races are very, very close. and if we look forward to 2016, what's the takeaway right now in terms of the strategizing since it's not a wave? where do the parties go in the next two years given the fact the presidential's going to start shortly after this election ends? >> good question. let me, yeah, it's not a wave election for congress and for senate, but one thing i would like you to take a look at is state legislatures. republicans are going to make senate gains. if you -- significant gains. if you think it's going to be lower level campaigns, not on the federal level. what does it mean for 2016? number one, i think it means we haven't, as republicans, we haven't addressed the issues
that cost us the election in 2012. and i think we still, you know, just like 2010 -- the great success we had in 2010 didn't mean squat for 2012. we didn't take that and run with it in the 2012 election, and it was -- that was a challenge for us, and i don't think we as republicans have addressed that challenge going forward, 2016. we face still significant obstacles going into the '16 presidential election regardless of running against hillary, elizabeth warren or anybody else. >> let me jump in. on the senate a lot of the factors that are working against democrats that i talked about this time flip over and work against republicans. there are 24 republican seats up in 2016. there are only ten democratic seats up. seven -- i've been saying six and went back and counted, it was actually seven -- seven of the republican seats are up in obama states, and there are no democratic seats up in romney states.
second, because as neil alluded, it's a presidential election so instead of a midterm like we have now where there's a turnout thumb on the scale for republicans, that thumb's a not on the scale for republicans. so there's a real, you know, -- republicans really, really, really need to not only win a majority this time, but if they could put an extra seat or two on the scoreboard, they might find that real handy if they have as ugly a year in '16 in the senate as is entirely possible. but to me, the sort of nightmare scenario for republicans is this, that their party was so, so pumped up and optimistic about 2012 both in terms of the presidential race and in terms of winning a majority of the senate. and so they were bitterly, bitterly disappointed. and they came out of it wondering, you know, did we get lied to or was our money not
well spent? i'm talking macro, the whole thing top to bottom, you know? and as a result there hasn't been nearly as much money going into republican committees, super pacs as last time or you might expect because the donor community was so down on the republican side. and we had a strategy -- i think i may have mentioned this earlier, you know, a republican who said, you know, if it weren't for the koch brothers, we'd be getting blown away financially right now. they're keeping republicans in the game. so the thing is let's say if republicans only picked up four seats or five this year, so they're sitting at 49/50, they've had with all these amazing factors working in republicans' favor, if they don't get a majority, a, their donors are going to be absolutely in a state of enormous depression, it's going to make it harder to raise money
in 2016, and if they're going into 2016 with only 49 or 50 states in an election where they could lose umpteen seats themselves, that's how you get to see democrats up -- they're not going to be at 59, 60 where they were in 2009-'10, but 53, 54. i mean, that would be the worst case scenario for republicans. and so '16, you know, it's just really huge which is why all of you, as soon as the election's over, take a vacation, relax a bit. but this next one, you know, stay tuned. anyway, we have -- >> looks like -- [inaudible] >> the context of the implications for the presidential. as neil indicated, republicans have a base strategy. they believe if they win this, it'll be because their base has turned out in bigger numbers, they've been excited about other
issues. they are running on the affordable care act. but they have taken irretrievable positions on off-year election, they have moved for repealing the executive order for the dreamers. every one of the presidential candidates now is lined up against the idea of legalization of the dreamers. they come out of this election with that being a defining issue if you're a republican, where you stand on immigration, for the hispanic, growing hispanic population. the dreamers is the most important, powerful symbol of whether you understand us. i've, you know, polled it for "l.a. times", a bipartisan poll for "l.a. times" there's more important than dreamers for nothing the hispanic party. there's a lot of states that are going to be out of play with that. >> okay. last question let's go to jeff, right here.
they're giving us the five minute warning. >> charlie, thanks. i was glad to endorse your newsletter back in the '80s. i'll give you my new address, because the commission check got lost in the mail somewhere. [laughter] we're giving up our landlines and moving to cell phones. i know it's something that's always been discussed, but can you talk about exactly how you figure out to make sure you get a good demographic cut? i think the landline people are older and white males, things like that. how do you figure it out? >> that would be the predead. >> yeah, the predead. how do you get to that cell phone group? >> money. i'm serious about this. the democracy corps, you know, does 50% cell phones and rising. but the cost of a national poll with cell phones, $10,000 more just dealing with the cell phone portion. now, in a bigger since it has
dave's, -- it has saved -- there's a cost, but it's actually saved polling. i thought we'd be gone by now. i thought we -- we were so badly, you know, had polls that were so underrepresentative of the country that -- but what's happened is increasingly you can get cell phones. they do cost less. people are increasingly able to be gotten via cell phones. but that means you are able to reach young people and minority voters who are particularly high with cell phones. i thought people would not do long surveys on cell phones, and i was wrong. the dropoff rate on our polls on cell phones is no greater than on landlines. and so i think the it's saved polling. i think we're still here pontificating because that
transition has happened. >> remember eight to ten years ago, nobody gave out their cell phone number. that was private. are you kidding me? no. no way. and now it's just automatic. of course you give out your cell phone. i mean, that's where you can be reached. how many -- i mean, i can't remember the last time the phone rang at home with a personal phone call, you know? it doesn't happen. so it's what stan said. ten years ago we never would have dreamed we would make a living by calling people with cell phones. but we do, but, boy, that increases costs. at least 30% of every survey we do is you need to make sure we have another younger voters. i mean, you set quotas so that we make sure we have younger voters in our samples. it is much more expensive, more difficult, more time consuming. i mean, when i first started this business we did volunteer survey research at the republican national committee in the late 1970's. i ran these phone banks, and for every interview we wanted to complete, we polled five telephone numbers. it's probably up to 150 numbers
now for every interview you want to complete. it's extraordinary. that's why, you know, it costs so much. that's why, you know, these media outlets are unwilling to kind of spend the kind of money that they should be spending on this to do it right. there's also, you can do polling by internet, but you know what? in the stuff that stan and i do, we're testing messages. we're testing tough messages pro and against candidates. that allows people -- if we test that over the internet, people take screen shots of that. you don't want your message on the front page of "the louisville courier journal" -- journal." or "the kansas city star yuriko -- star." you can't afford to have that happen, so that's why we stick to telephones rather than internet. >> let me ask one more question, and the question i ask of each of you is first of all, pretend the c-span camera is not there. if you had to give some advice to your party in the 2016, 2017, 2018 -- in other words, pass
this election -- if you had to give candid advice to your party on what they ought to be thinking about and what direction they need to be shifting, where would you go with that candid advice to your party? and forget the cameras. >> i know what is tough, but i think that a seasoned woman presidential candidate is really the right -- [laughter] >> short of 60, you know, that kind of -- >> tough medicine, but, you know -- >> your grandmother. [laughter] >> is that your wife you're talking about? >> i think, look, i think the tough advice is on the economy. the president spoke at the united nations where america stands in the world, but the economy has fundamentally
changed and people know it's structurally changed in fundamental ways. there's not been a mature discussion from democratic leaders about the economy and what you have to do to end the conversation needs to start. >> i think i read that in the book. a couple years ago that you and some fellow named carville wrote. it was actually very insightful. ok, neil, your advice? >> we have a demographic that we need to address in the post obama era among the african-americans and latinos. and unless we address that, we are going to have a tough time winning the presidency. >> well, i've treasured my relationship with "the national journal" since 1998 and it's been great collaboration of
right here, live coverage of the west virginia senate debate. virginia senate debate between the mark warner and ed gillespie. democrat martha coakley and republican charlie baker. coming up tonight, a north carolina senate debate between kay hagan and republican thom tillis. this would be the second meeting between the candidates and here is a look from some of the recent ads from the campaigns. >> i am kay hagan and you have seen a lot of me lately. millionss spending distorting my record. i am tough enough to keep taking the buttons -- punches. i am fighting to great jobs and build an economy that works for everyone, standing up for our troops and protecting medicare and social security. thosext time you see
false attack ads, ask yourself, whose side are they on? >> my first job was a paper route. by 15, i was a short order. i got my degree. 25 years in business, partner at ibm. my story is not special. it happens all the time. the train wreck in washington puts that all at risk. i am thom tillis. i approve this message. washington has it wrong but america can make it right. out buttion was my way i worry it will not be for my kids. leadership,illis's they have cut textbook funding so much i cannot help my son with his homework. i think it is clear thom tillis only want a certain class of people to have opportunities. i am a middle-class mom. his agenda is tax cuts for the
wealthy and that is not working for my family. >> i am kay hagan and i approve this message. >> the ads attacking thom tillis are false. harry reid is trying to for republican voters, meddling in the primary to get a weak opponent for kay hagan. the press said that the democrats fear thom tillis the most. that is why we need him in washington. do not be full by harry reid. >> i am thom tillis and i approve this message. >> this race until the democrat. tonight's debate is courtesy of the north carolina associations of broadcasters and we will show to you. it is an arizona house debate for the second district. campaign.of the 2012 the second district includes a tucson and other surrounding
areas in southeast arizona. you can see it live at 9:00 eastern. right now, a colorado senate debate between the incumbent and gop representative. they discussed a range of issues during this 45 minute debate from denver last night. recent polling listed this race as a tossup. you for being here today. i would like to remind you all that we are live filming today, so we ask that you please hold your applause. today the candidates will speak in random order which was determined via coin toss immediately before the program began. candidate one is congressman gardner and candidate two is senator udall. how today will work, i will ask a question and candidate one will have 60 seconds to respond. candidate two will have 60 seconds to respond as well. following that 60-second response, there is an option for a 30-second rebuttal and a 15-second rebuttal to continue the conversation. we will continue the sequence
until the debate ends. there will be no official opening remarks, however we will have closing statements for each candidate which you can speak two minutes each. candidate one will begin followed by candidate two. so with that, any questions, candidates? ok. ready to go. ok, great. thank you again. congressman gardner, i would like to ask you about some of your recent ads, you call yourself "a new kind of republican." yet according to some ratings, your voting record has been ranked as one of the mow conservative in the house. why should voters she you are a new kind of republican when your voting record suggests you align with conservatives in the senate republican conference. >> thank you for hosting this debate. it's great to be with you to talk about colorado business issues, things that matter. i focus on a debate to get this
country back to work. that is what my voting record has represented. it's about the four corners of this state, it's a voting record that is about helping small businesses, 97% of the employers in colorado are small businesses. it's about creating a tax environment that creates an opportunity for people to hire, to invest. the four corners plan that i have put together is about growing jobs. it's about the economy. it's about north american energy security and independence. it's about making sure we have chances for our children to be educated and the gray informs our education system and making sure that we protect our environment. the policies of this campaign that are at issue that are on debate right now, the president just said it yesterday. his policies are on the ballot. that's what we are going to be discussing today, the policies of the president and the fact that mark udall has voted with him 99% of the time. >> senator udall, i would like you to respond to that as well when you respond, address this, this congress has been one of the most historically
dysfunctional and unproductive in history and if you are re-elected shall the chances that a democrat keep control of the senate will increase significantly. why should voters here think anything will be different for them and their economic security if the senate main stays democrat? >> let me start as well by thanking the chamber for hosting this important event. we have worked together during my tenure in the senate on all kinds of ways in which we have moved the state forward. we have an aerospace consortium part of the chamber. we work to protect and enhance the presence of the military in our state which plays a key role in our national security needs. we worked on a best of the above energy approach together and just on the drive in seeing what we have done with union station is so uplifting and inspiring. i remember working with you all to make sure we have a patent office here, that the fast tracks initiative is underway, that we together proposed and brought to the ballot successfully c and d back when
the state was beginning to languish. we have a great clean tech community. i look forward to working with you going forward because this is the best chamber in the country and this is the best state in the country, we want to welcome you here. i have used all my time, i think. let me say that congressman gardner didn't answer the question. he has the 10th most partisan record in the house of representatives. his record is out of the mainstream. it's in the extreme. that's the contrast that you have in this race. i look forward to the debate going forward because i know congressman gardner and i will have different points of view of where the state is heading. >> you can certainly rebut that. if you do that, can you name a couple of issues where you break from your party in washington to suggest that you are a different kind of republican? >> certainly, i'm glad the senator brought up aerospace. we were the second highest aerospace jobs in the country. the national defense authorization act has a provision in it that senator udall failed to strip out of the bill that could cost thousands of jobs here in colorado. this is about business. this is about opportunities for colorado businesses and
employment opportunities. that language could potentially devastate united launch alliance in colorado. i was one of 33 republicans to vote against the house violence against women act because i believed that was watered down, i voted for the senate version, one of a handful of republicans to vote for that piece of legislation. >> do you want to respond? >> there is no better champion of aerospace, not only in this state but the country. i sit on the intelligence committee and steer the strategic forces subcommittee. colorado's aerospace committee has been well supported by me and will continue to be well supported by me. we are playing in a very important role in three crucial areas, in civilian space, in special spares, and in military space. congressman gardner knows that i have been a big supporter of aerospace in colorado and continue to do so. >> except the thousands of job because of the language you
failed to stand up against. >> we have language that is going to protect u.l.a. and protect, this is a part of how to build new rocket engines and colorado will lead the way, a sure you. >> if the jobs are here. >> move on to the next question and get back to that. senator udall, to you. you have called for putting a price on carbon pollution, enacting cap and trade legislation and you lauded recent e.p.a. proposals to slash carbon dioxide emissions from coal producing power plants. the action would dramatically increase prices for consumers and cost jobs. why shouldn't the e.p.a. in washington consider the economic burden on your home state's energy industry when moving forward with these policies? >> this is an exciting time because colorado is leading the way. we have the best of the above energy community here, everything from the clean burning coal in the northwestern part of the state to the natural gas that we're producing here on the eastern plains to abundant wind and sun which you see
today. we were ready for the e.p.a. regulations. carbon pollution is real. coloradans know the climate science, a lot that is generated here show we have to act. we see this as an opportunity. we are prepared to put a price on carbon. the last time we put a price on pollutants was under the leadership of the first president bush. there were a host of horrible things described as going to occur. they didn't occur. we developed new technologies. we moved this country forward. we have the lowest energy prices in the country right now in colorado. we're up to this challenge. congressman gardner, on the other hand, doesn't think climate change is occurring. he doesn't think we should have an across the board best of the above approach. he opposed our renewable electricity standard on three different occasions when we could move the state forward. thank god the voters and legislature understood this is the way we should be going. >> you do still support cap and trade legislation? >> i support putting a price on carbons. do it in a way that americans are lifted by it.
colorado is incredibly well positioned to take the leadership. there are a lot of people in this room that want to take that-lap. the e.p.a. rules are a start. we are leading the country and dare say leading the world when it comes to new energy technologies. >> one of the things that senator udall mentioned, you expressed skepticism as to whether humans are causing the climate to change. do you believe that humans are causing climate change? >> i have said all along that i believe the climate is changing. what i'm not willing to do is destroy the economy for policies to address that. that's why i have supported natural gas, a strong supporter of colorado renewable energy opportunities. that's why i have as part of my four corners plan to grow jobs to make sure that we have renewable and natural gas energies as part of our future. i help lead the way for natural gas, liquified natural gas opportunities to help our allies creating 45,000 jobs lifting him off the unemployment roles throughout the state. let me tell you what some of these new regulations would do. this is part of the policies
that the president said will be on the ballot this election, part of the policies that senator udall has stood with hook, line, and sinker, $1,700 per family, and 250,000 jobs will be lost as a result, our own study by i.h.s. in this state said it could cost as much as $50 billion, the economic impact that senator udall has embraced. i would ask this question, what is the price that you would put on carbon? >> congressman, the price i would put on -- the opportunity that we're going to miss if we don't go all in. we have had floods, fires, droughts, we have the leading climate scientists in this state telling us it's happening. we know it's happening. the farmers know it's happening. we all know it's happening. let's lean forward. let's create our future. congressman gardner is looking backwards, let's look forwards and embrace the future and these
technologies. they're right there for the taking. >> i have 15 seconds if i could. i'm looking forward to the next energy bill, what is the cost that you will put on carbon with your tax? >> you want to respond? >> congressman, the point is that we have shown that we can a price on pollution. >> how much? why when we send those signals to the market, a lot of market-oriented people here today. when we send the signals to the marketplace, our systems respond. we're going to innovate, that's how we make the future. we innovate. we're in a global economic race and you innovate to create jobs and grow your economy. >> i want to pin you down, congressman, who is causing climate change? it's so important in determining the solution to it. are humans causing climate change? >> no doubt that pollution contributes to the climate change around us. i refuse to support a tax bill that was put in place that would have cost farmers and ranchers in this state over $5,000 per sprinkler, that would cost small businesses the opportunity to grow, that would increase the
bills that families pay $1,700 a year. we hear people talk about putting a price on carbon, but they won't talk about how much that price of carbon is. let's just have an answer on what is the price, is it $5 a month, $10, $20. senator udall, am i not going high enough? >> congressman, again, i have answered your question. >> we'll move on to the similar energy question that i want to stay with you, senator udall, about the keystone pipeline. >> yes. >> you had reservations about moving forward, your votes in the senate suggest just that. this issue has been studied for years and even the state department on analysis said it will not alter global greenhouse glass emission. why is this not the time to move forward on this? >> we have developed our energy sources here in safe and responsible manner, whether it's been our coal resources, our natural gas, we are producing some shale oil, we have abundant sun and wind, geothermal energy
potential here in colorado. i think that's the screen and the measurement by which the keystone pipeline ought to be considered. the science is underway and i think it's not too much to ask if the keystone pipeline is going to be built that it's done in a safe and responsible way. i would also suggest that if the keystone pipeline were built through eastern colorado, that the farmers and the ranchers and the businesspeople who live in eastern colorado would want to make sure that their soils and the air and the water in those regions were protected. that's all the people of nebraska are asking for. that's where this started. that's where the concerns are expressed most notably. for us to weigh in and tell people in nebraska that the pipeline is driven through the center of their state without having their say, it doesn't make sense. it is not respectful and honor local control. >> you are a republican who believes in local control, does it conflict with your ideology. >> part of my four corners plan, i talk about energy independence.
it means we build the keystone pipeline. we have had studies, the department of state has study after study forward talking about this. the senator has voted against the keystone pipeline four times. i, too, want to put a colorado face to the keystone pipeline. thousands of jobs could be created right here in this state if we move forward with the keystone pipeline. you know what? overwhelming support for the state of colorado for the keystone pipeline. they believe we should move forward because it creates jobs and opportunity, it creates north american energy security. two companies in denver, colorado, this is about denver business and creating jobs. an engineering firm could create jobs because of the keystone pipeline. a copy in long monitor, the alberta oil sands would expand if the pipeline were to be built. they could add jobs and create opportunity. this is about doing what is right for the public. it's not standing up for special interests. it's creating jobs for people who desperately need a $20 an
hour job welding on the keystone pipeline that they don't have today because of the failed policies of this administration. >> do you want to respond? >> there are jobs created when the keystone pipeline is built. the long term jobs in the hundreds, the congressman is overstating the economic effect of this pipeline. the process has been politicized. my focus has been on making sure that colorado continues to lead. we truly are best of the above energy state. we have remarkable leaders here. we have remarkable technology. i would ask congressman gardner why isn't he supporting the governor's blue ribbon commission to find the right balance between local control and protecting jobs. he is missing in action. we join together to make sure we don't have this facing us a month from now. the congressman is not present in this discussion. he should be. it's too important too colorado >> what did you mean when hydraulic fracturing keeps us trapped in the old system? >> as you know, that was a right-wing blog approach that
the mainstream media disregarded. i didn't say it. i don't believe it. >> moving on, the issue of immigration, congressman gardner, first to you. you voted against a republican bill in august that would have stopped the president's deferred action for children arrivals or the program that allows certain people who came to the country illegally to stay in the united states. you're critics say this is an election year conversion after you have taken the opposite approach on this subject. given your vote in august, does that mean that you now would vote to enact the dream act if it came up for a vote in the senate and you're elected in november? >> ultimately i think the dream act is going to be part of the solution of immigration reform, it has to be. i believe in immigration reform. over a year and a half ago, i testified before the house judiciary committee on the need for immigration reform. i believe it should start with border security, we can have a meaningful guest worker program that has to go part and parcel of that border security. entry exit system, i believe the dream act will be part of it. i believe we should have a
solution for the people of this state. the executive order process which the president has decided he wants to pursue, even the president has said he lacked the legal authority to go around congress and now he is trying to go around it. he is also stringing people along, he'll issue an executive order and then saying he won't. we need to work with the congress, the house, the senate, the president to pass meaningful immigration reform. i certainly will continue to support that. my opponent senator udall has voted to make undocumented individuals felons. even those people who assist them including what could be their school teacher. when he had a chance in 2010 to pass immigration reform, he actually said that, no, let's move forward on climate change legislation first, cap and trade legislation first before pursuing immigration reform. if that went first, he was afraid he wouldn't be able to pass his cap and trade legislation. >> why did you change your vote
on this bill in august? >> again, this vote was about a bill that i think had unintended consequences, it would be further than just addressing the issue of deferred action participants. it could have affected other work visa holders and ended in a spot that is unacceptable for children. >> let's talk about today. they're sitting in the house of representatives, a comprehensive immigration reform bill package that passed almost 70 points in the united states senate. it has the bipartisan report. has the support of people in the room. you know that when we fix a broken system, which by the way what congressman gardner supporting a broken system, he is for de facto amnesty. we'll see labor market certainty. he hasn't lifted a finger to move it in the house of representatives. >> congressman, you do still
oppose a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million memory who are here illegally? >> some form of earned status is going to be the ultimate status, i believe an earned status is ultimately part of the solution. here is the thing. the senate, believe it or not, doesn't have a monopoly on good ideas. andrew romanoff said that as speaker of the house. i would like to know from senator udall, why did you vote to make undocumented individuals felons? >> you want to respond? >> i want to respond to what is languishing in the house of representatives. he hasn't taken a single step to move immigration reform to the goal line. it's time to pass immigration reform. this is a clear contrast between congressman gardner and me in this race. this race is the most obvious race in the country when it comes to contrasts between the two candidates. this is one prime example. you know the importance of getting comprehensive immigration reform passed. >> moving forward, another
immigration question to you, senator udall. i would like to talk to you about the president acting unilaterally on immigration. you said you were disappointed with the decision not to move forward before the elections on this issue. why is it ok and constitutional for the president to circumvent congress as he has done time and time again and he may now on immigration? >> look, i reject your premise, the president of the united states like many of the c.e.o.s in this room as the responsibility to move u.s.a. inc. forward. the congress has been missing in action in a number of respects. it's been more the house of representatives than not, the graveyard of a lot of great ideas. the president is frustrated that the congress isn't acting. he doesn't relish moving to a set of actions whereby families won't be prone up. right now we are deporting families, we're splitting up members of families rather than focusing on criminals and people who are public safety. the president has failed to act.
we have a number of immigrant communities. they expect that we're going to step up and reform our system. we're going to secure the borders, we're going to make sure you have the tools. we're going to hold you responsible and we are going to provide a way for people to earn citizenship over a long time frame, some 13 years. this is too important for it to be left on the sidelines. >> why shouldn't the president move forward and prevent deportations which are clearly tearing apart families here in colorado? >> the president himself admitted over a year ago that he lacked the legal authority to do this. now he is saying that he wants to do this. i don't know what legal authority he has and he said he didn't have it before. look, we ought to work with the house and the senate and the president. we are in this mess because of failed leadership from the white house, because of failed leadership in 2010 from senator
udall and others when they had a chance to pass immigration reform decided to pursue a carbon tax legislation instead of immigration reform. we are a better stronger country because of our nation of immigrants. most of us come here from somewhere else. that is what made our country stronger. i look forward to pursuing and fighting for immigration reform. on the ballot in just a few weeks will be the president's policies. mark udall has voted for the president's policies 99% of the time. that's what we're voting on. the president admitted that the other day and in the newspaper over the weekend, the senator votes with the president when he agrees with him, which means i guess he disagrees with him only 1% of the time. >> senator udall. >> look, there is a clear choice here. the president is taking a look at his legal options as to what he should and can do to make sure we don't break families apart. this is too important to leave it on the sidelines. this is too important an opportunity for us. you have supported the
comprehensive immigration reform. you know the benefits it will bring to our state of colorado. look at congressman gardner's record. he has voted to deport dreamers. we should provide citizenship for those who serve in the military. there are many, by the way. we ought to grant them citizenship. he has proposed deporting his family members. you can't have it both ways. we need to move forward. maintain the status quo, he certainly in some ways would move us backwards. let's move forwards, that's the colorado way. >> respond in 15 seconds, why did you support deporting -- >> i want to thank the senator for acknowledging that i have supported efforts on immigration reform after spending self minutes saying i haven't supported immigration form. i'm grateful for it, thank you. >> thank you. we'll move on to the next topic on health care. december 24, 2009, senator udall, you were one of 60 senate democrats to vote on final passage in the senate of the
affordable care act. given the problems that have occurred with the implementation of the law and the insurance companies threatening to can sal coverage of 250,000 coloradans, would you still have voted to pass that bill, or would you have voted no and made more changes before moving forward? >> we had a broken system. many of you in this room knew it was broken. insurance companies were in charge. if you were a woman, you paid more for your coverage. if you had a family member that suddenly became sick, you could be dropped overnight from your policy. insurance companies could jack up your rights at a moment's notice. many of you this in room know this is the situation that you faced. i voted for a series of steps that we're going to provide more coverage to more americans. we're seeing the benefits of that here in colorado. the governor in a bipartisan group in the state legislature created the colorado exchange. we have over 400,000 coloradans in that exchange have quality health care they didn't have a year ago.
the premium increases are being projected at 2%, we have seen the uninsured raid from 17% to 11% here in colorado. this is a difference between congressman gardner and me again. he has voted some 50 times to repeal the affordable care act and take us back to the old system without a proposal how to cover the people that are now covered. that's the difference between the two of us. i want to move us forward. we can make the affordable care act work, it's not perfect, but we'll make it work for the small, medium and long term. >> you would have voted? >> yes, hindsight is 20/20, there are changes i would have made. i'm happy to share those with you today or on the campaign trail. >> you have called for the laws repealed. what would you say to those 263,000 coloradans who have signed up for medicaid through the medicaid expansion, would you appeal the medicaid expansion as well? >> i agree, we not go back to the old systems. a small business background
myself understood what we had wasn't working. costs increased dramatically. that was in our small business, the family implement dealership. it doesn't take 20/20 to see problems. he had the opportunity to vote for an amendment that would have prevented the 340,000 coloradans who had their insurance plans from being cancelled. he had a chance to vote to keep them from being cancelled. he voted against that. as a result, 340,000 coloradans had their health insurance plans cancelled. the people who are hurt the most by obama care are the people they made the promises to. if you like your health care flan, you can keep it. not true. the fact if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. not true. this would reduce the cost of health showers, not true. 2.5 million fewer workers in this country, 18% of small businesses, many of you this in -- in this room aren't hiring because of the impact of obama care. the little corporations are hurt, the little businesses, the small businesses, those that
started in a small garage. they can't afford high-priced lawyers and accountants to figure out how to get around, how to make the books look like it worked so they can afford the kind of regulation and mandates. >> wouldn't people lose their health care coverage, people that are relying on medicaid? >> we can make sure we have treatment for people with preexisting conditions and pay for medicaid. i haven't seen a plan yet of how the state of colorado is going to pay for the medicate expansion once the federal government is no longer paying. once we have this in place, how on earth will this be paid for, adding millions of dollars in debt to this country that we simply can't afford. the primary promises made in obamacare and senator udall reported every single one. if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. 340,000 coloradans found out, he
didn't say if i like your health care plan, he said if you, you could keep it. turned out not to be true. >> let me respond quickly. the amendment that gardner mentions and it looked great on paper. when you investigated what it would is done, we would have gone to the old system, women discriminated against, and preexisting conditions couldn't get coverage. that was 2010. we're in 2014. how do we make the affordable care act work. mentioned the 350,000 letters that had cancellation notices in them. most of those letters had a renewal option as well. when i found out that the insurance companies weren't keeping faith with the intent, i was as angry as anybody. i offered a piece of legislation so people could keep their plans. find every measure to give the insurance companies the
flexibility and let them know this isn't appropriate and we worked with the state governor hicken looper and the legislature to make the division of insurance could give that kind of flexibility to coloradans here. nine out of 10 have called the insurance and 10-10 have access to insurance coverage which they didn't have before this law was passed. what do you say to kim, self-employed in a beauty salon. her daughter is paying $100 a month for the coverage. $1,000 a year you would strip away. >> what about the person sitting in this room who had their business health care cancelled an not able to renew it? what about them? i know a small business owner who owns a bakery, a female-owned business, minority owned business and they can't keep their insurance.
if you would let me fill it, i will. they can't keep their insurance. did you break your word when you said you could keep your insurance and now they can't? did you break your word? >> congressman, you didn't answer my question. you know that we're going to continue working so that every coloradan has affordable health care coverage. that's the challenge for us. this state is such a wonderful state. i have such pride when i'm in washington, d.c., get to brag about this state. we are rugged collaborators here. we're leading the nation. that's how we make sure the affordable care act continues to improve and evove and do its initial intent. we're a long ways meeting that goal. let's work together. that's how we roll as coloradans. >> he had plenty of time, if you don't mind. i think this dose to the very heart of many of the contrasts between the senator and i. i have introduced legislation that would allow people with preexisting conditions to be covered. i believe that we should allow insurance to be sold across state lines, health savings
accounts, undo obama care that allows people to have insurance cancelled in the first place, the -- and to the woman that we were talking about, we can provide and should and have an obligation to provide low coast health insurance. we need to make sure we have opportunities for people regardless of income, regardless of where they are, where they work, that they should have the opportunity to have affordable insurance. the 2,700-page partisan bill of obama care was not the solution. in 2010, senator udall had an opportunity to vote on an amendment that would keep his word. and he voted against it. >> do you want to respond briefly? >> congressman, that all sounds great. when you vote some 50 times to repeal the affordable care act and your only response is how you're going to replace it, some ideas that make sense but wouldn't meet the goal to make sure ever coloradan has coverage, i don't know how that
stands up to scrutiny. i will also remind everybody in this room that a year ago right now, we were in the throes of a government shutdown that congressman gardner supported, when we were trying to recover from the floods, biblical floods. congressman gardner out of a misplaced ideology to the tea party, i don't know to who or to what, voted to shut down the government. he wanted to show everyone, i don't know what. at our greatest time of need, an ideology took the whole of congressman gardner when we needed all hands on break. congressman that was irresponsible. you delayed the recovery. you put additional emotional weight on the people affected by the blood. it's reckless and irresponsible to have done so. >> that is one of my questions later. i guess we can talk about it now. the government shutdown last year, we were shut down at this
time last year, house republicans included that provision that would have defunded and delayed the affordable care act. looking back at it one year later, did house republicans make the right decision in starting that? >> i never supported the government shutdown, never did. i was roundly criticized by conservative outlets when i refused to sign letters demanding that the government be shut down. i worked closely with senator udall during the government shutdown to make sure we take care of the people in colorado who had needs from the flood. there were significant needs. i was proud of the work that senator udall and i went on together. we went on a blackhawk helicopter together in the days following the flood together. i had a picture of a cat on his lap that made it into some of the local media coverage on this moment. we worked together. there wasn't a moment of partisan politics then. i'm saddened that there is now as he politicized a tragedy where lives were lost, thousands of coloradans lost their homes.
i remember traveling to weld county in the days after the flood trying to make sure that we beat the floods, that i could actually cross highway 34 to get to the weld county emergency center, in long monitor, congratulations for the incredible work that you did for your community rebuilding. i have proud to stand with you then and proud to stand with senator udall. together we worked on legislation that would provide emergency transportation relief dollars, $350 million of relief money that we passed, senator udall, i was in your office working together with you on that. >> we can keep our answers to the time limit here. we're running short on time. if you want 30 seconds to respond, you can. >> we did spend a half a day in a blackhawk helicopter in the devastation was stunning. we had a chance to rescue a couple of families that had been stranded. when we got off that helicopter, we were unified. when congressman gardner got off an airplane a week later in d.c., his actions belied that unified feeling we had that day. this was unacceptable.
it hurt our state and economy. the government shutdown nationwide cost our competent $24 billion. you in this room know it was reckless and irresponsible. talk to the people in estes park, they needed rocky mountain national park open so people could get there. it cost estes park consecutively half a million dollars. talk to people at the gateway communities of mesa verde national park. this is a fundamental difference between us. we worked together later in the year because we needed to do it. he wants to represent the entire state of colorado in the u.s. senate, you have to stand up for the state of colorado. >> you will have a chance to respond to that. >> senator udall, i don't think it's appropriate to politicize tragedy. >> congressman, you politicize --
>> you have plenty of time to talk, we worked together. we should take great pride in the fact that we worked together. what i think the state of colorado also needs is a vision for the state that is based on growing jobs in this room, what we can do to get this economy back on track. i know you want to play politics. i know that you want to politicize things that are simply i believe out of bounds. >> one of the issues that you have to deal with in the next congress, congressman gardner is taxes. the business community is concerned about that issue. in 2009, you also signed no tax increase pledge. while you have advocated for tax reform, would you oppose any tax reform that includes a dime of a net revenue increase from taxes? >> i don't think increasing taxes is the answer. i think the federal government has police department of money. we ought to focus on ways that we can actually reduce spending, make the federal government balance its own books, make sure the government is spending it's money wisely the way it should be doing before it turns around and asks the people of colorado for one more dime of their
hard-earned dollars. if you look at the bill i introduced on wasteful spending, $200 billion could be saved because we eliminated overlapping programs. we must make sure that we are reducing spending. reforming taxes, we have to reform taxes. we have to make sure that small businesses can keep their dollars in their own pocket to invest in job creation. i support comprehensive tax reform. that's why i believe we can have coloradans to vest more money in their own families to keep that money. senator udall has voted for the largest estate tax in the history of our country. he has voted for higher taxes time and time again. he had a balanced budget amendment that exempted a great degree of spending. he lines to call himself a fiscal hawk. senator udall, i think you plucked the fiscal hawk when you voted for the stimulus bill. >> one minute to respond. >> you don't know and i have worked with you and many in this room, i'm a long time proponent of the proposal, it's one of the
major mistakes that this president made not fully addressing it in 2010. there is corporate tax reform that i support. we should start a goal of getting ourselves to the 25%. we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. we're higher than japan of all things. we ought to do it in a way that doesn't balance the budget on the back of the middle class and working americans. this is a contrast between congressman gardner's record and mine. he has voted for budgets to gut social security, turn medicare into a program. you know who is going to win that exchange. congressman gardner has voted to lift tax rates on billionaires and millionaires while increasing tax rates on middle class and working people. i am the proud author of the first democrat balanced budget
amendment in 20 years. in that amendment, we're going to work hard to get our deficits under control and -- >> we're running short on time -- >> we're going to protect social secured, medicare and medicaid. those are earned benefits important to our seniors and society, stability. >> congressman, would you vote -- respond, would you vote for the paul ryan plan to overhaul medicare again if you were in the senate? >> i would vote for a bill that allows us to balance the budget, that protects medicare. that's what i did. senator udall voted for a bill that protects medicare, protects retirees and their social safety nets. we will fight hard to protect them. your plan is bankruptcy for those programs because you haven't come up with a solution. you cut medicare when you voted for the affordable care act. >> you need to wrap up. we -- >> i would like to end very quickly. >> 15 seconds. >> voted for $800 million in tax
cuts. i voted for cuts to medicare advantage that went to shoring up medicare and extending the solvency of it. there is a contrast, how do we move colorado forward. congressman gardner will take us backwards. >> we have ran out of time. 90 seconds for closing statements. congressman gardner, since you won the draw, you go first. >> thanks for the opportunity to share this contrast of ideas. growing up in yuma, colorado, going to that hometown today, there is a cornerstone that says j.a.s. and son, 1910. that was a business that was started by my great-great grandmother, 100 years later my great-grandfather took over the business, a farmer implement company, it's there today. my wife who is here, we walk by that cornerstone and wonder will they have the same kind of opportunities that they're great great great grandparents did to
create a better way of life, to create a business, to create opportunities for themselves and families. the answer is no. when senator udall, unless we do something different and change direction of this country. when senator udall was elected to congress, our national debt was over $5 trillion. today it's over $17 trillion. over the last several years median household income in this state has declined by over $4,000. it's been since 1999 that middle class wages have stayed the same. that's under the leadership of mark udall. and the president made it very clear in his statements this year that his policies are on the ballot. what we are voting on are his policies. if we elect mark udall who has voted 99% of the time for these policies, one more time, what makes any of us think that things will be different than they were over the last 16 as we watched median household income
decline as the labor participation rate is lower than in 36 years. my four corners plan, we will grow jobs, energy independence, get our education on track, make sure it's stronger and make sure that we protect our environment. >> senator udall. >> thanks again to the chamber. it's been the most amazing privilege of my life to represent in the united states senate, the wonderful state of colorado. we have accomplished a lot over the last six years. i alluded to some of those accomplishments. we recovered from biblical floods, we turned up the capacity to fight fires. we have the best of the above energy regime that is the envy of the nation. we see our economy coming back. all of us are excited about what we're seeing and doing in these numbers. we need to make sure that college are affordable and women are paid the same as men in the workplace. we need to invest in infrastructure, all of the things that the chamber knows are crucial. congressman gardner and i love colorado, both. i'm a fourth generation
coloradan as well on my mother's side. there is real contrast in this race. elections ought to be about competition. they ought to be about the future. congressman gardner talks about being a member of the next generation and a new republican. the next generation doesn't want to shut off science. the next generation doesn't want to shut out immigrants. the next generation doesn't want to shut down the government. the next generation and i should say all generations frankly see the world my way. they see colorado moving forward. i therefore ask for your vote. working together, we can keep colorado moving forward. >> thank you both, thank you all. thank you both candidates, congressman gardner and senator udall. [applause] >> our campaign 2014 coverage continues with a week full of debates. full of debates. tonight at 7:00 p.m. eastern, live coverage of the west virginia u.s. senate debate between republican shelley capital and secretary of state democrat natalie tennant.
live coverage of the u.s. senate debate between democratic senator mark warner a republican andand gillaspy -- gillespie.and gillased then a 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, the north carolina u.s. senate debate with incumbent senator democrat kay hagan speaker of the house thom til lis. live coverage of the pennsylvania governors debate between tom corbett and democrat tom wolfe. and live coverage of the illinois u.s. house debate the 17th district between u.s. representative cheri bustos and former congressman bobby schilling. illinoisrage of the governors debate with incumbent governor democrat pat quind