tv Washington Journal CSPAN August 2, 2015 7:45am-10:01am EDT
are you there? host: i'm here, go ahead. caller: i just wanted to comment about the loan modification programs that obama had a little while back. we benefited from that. we are able to stay in our home now, even though it is still a fixer-upper because we are home for i cannot afford the repairs, but we have been blessed to stay and this home. maybe it is because we saved disability and all. we didn't have any problem. actually, we haven't modified twice because of the health crisis that we were facing. when our mortgage had gotten up well over $1000, and we could not afford that, because that is barely what our income is, they were very gracious. it was not a very hard process. .here was no upfront cost
so, what allen, will whoever else commented, he must've been looking at scam artists, or something. they do not require -- they required a lot of paperwork and proof of income and situation, but they do not require us to pay upfront money to modify the loan. unfortunately there is a balloon payment at the end of our mortgage, which scares me because if i lived past that stage, we have that to worry about. for now, we are in our home, and we live in a beautiful part of florida, near the beaches. homes around here can vary from , dependsn to $100,000 on where you are at. we are kind of in the rural area, so we got a good price. host: got you.
just a tease you about our conversation coming up, and invite from "the new york times" this morning says that vice has talkedoe biden to advisers about a possible look at a presidential run. no formal announcement yet. if you have not heard, a candidate forum is taking place, and more recent polling also taking place as well. we will com have a discussion about polling. , a democratic pollster and strategist, and a republican strategist, david winston, will join us. bloomberg reporter michael riley will join us. we tease you about our "newsmakers" program earlier.
it comes right after this program. senator richard shelby, the chairman of the banking, housing, and urban affairs commission. he spoke about squabbling as ast republican senators topic of leadership in the senate. [video clip] shelby: i think there's a lot of tension in the senate, and the house too. there is some tension in our caucus. you have witnessed some of it in recent days. we've a lot of people running for president of the night days out of the senate. that brings a different dimension to everything, and i guess a different perspective. that but you have been in the senate a long time. is this tension something you have not experienced before? can you harken back to different points when there was disagreement in the republican conference and the senate like what we're seeing right now?
it is probably more tension than i have seen and a long time. i go back to when senator dope was majority leader. he ran the senate well, i thought. people did not surprise each other. recall senators attacking each other. it is a different game today. >> why do you think that is? what has changed? that is a good question. i don't really know what has changed, other than that there are a lot of people running for president. there are a lot of people with different issues, and they want it now. they wanted to happen immediately. they want things to change immediately. people come to the senate sometimes, and they want to run the senate. it doesn't work that way. or the house. >> you said you didn't think
that anyone wanted to shut the government down, but sanders, like ted cruz, have raised the possibility of doing just that with the efforts to defund planned parenthood. do you think that is a scenario that would play out in the fall? shelby: i hope not. it is not good for the democrats, not good for the republicans, and not good for the country. it sends a message that we are ineffective. that is from art "newsmakers" program, senator richard shelby is our guest. that is right after this program. for the next hour, a discussion about the campaign in 2016. stefan hankin, democratic pollster and strategist. joining us as well, david winston, a republican pollster and strategist. how much attention should be
to polling? be paying guest: it is the most important thing. for most americans, it is a little early. for those of us in the beltway and political junkies, this is what we live and die by. look, we are still 4-5 months away from the first primary for both democrats and republicans. we have a long way to go until the general start. it is early. it is fun to look at, but what we are seeing in the polls now is not necessarily indicative of comewe will be seeing, 2016. side, on the republican polling is critical given that is how they decide who will be in the debate. it is very important for all those candidates to be able to be on that stage. in this particular situation,
but where our research is playing is critical. host: when it comes to the fox debate, and the polls will be the factor of getting in the debate, what polls are they looking at? what numbers are they looking at? how do they determine margins of error? guest: i don't think that is particular clear at this point. all of the polls will have margin of error. be a on stage,l and you have 15 candidates. the eighth twot the 13th or 14th spot, they are all within what you described as the margin of error, a range of accuracy that a poll can get to. a person could be .8 behind another person, they don't get in, and that is well within the margin of error. going to the other point, i'm
not sure what polls they're going to use at this point. there is another point, what is the methodology? percent of that poll will be independence versus republicans. there will be some open primaries, some close primaries, and how will that work out. guest: as a democrat, i'm sitting back, getting the popcorn ready. to david's point, what polls are you using -- national polls, staples? national polls are the ones that get talked about, but they are generally meaningless. candidates, it is probably clear, top three or four. there is some candidates that are pretty much at the euro, zero,ou -- pretty much at then you have the middle candidates.
i'm glad i don't have to deal with any of this fund. even these polls, and though we may not be specific about which polls, are they by colleague people and nothing questions? are they done by computer? how does that factor in? guest: i will defer to my colleague on this one. i have not pay that close attention to the role. my understanding is that they , three ora handful four of the major polls, and take the average of that. guest: there are five of them. they will be major network polls journal, nbc. they will be national. what is unclear is is that will just be a survey of primary which represents the universe of 1000, or will it be a subset of a national poll.
the margin of error increases significantly when the polling size gets smaller. host: if you have questions for them, you can call the numbers on the screen. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. for independents, (202) 745-8002 . don't forget, we talked about the fox debate, but c-span is participating in a form this week of presidential candidates, alongside the new hampshire union leader. you can see that tomorrow at 7:00 in the evening. not only on c-span, but also c-span radio and c-span.org. let's take a call. it is mike up first on the democrats line. go ahead. caller: i want to talk a little bit about the arrangement. i think it would make sense to
,end the time for the debate and have everybody on that, but , ory half hour scramble rotate, who is on the stage. they don't as the same question to all 10 candidates anyway. debate, with everybody on the stage for three hours, instead of two, and ask questions of all the different hours, andover three have them all out there. that is basically all i have to say. host: a question about format. both of you can weigh in. guest: what i would say to that -- i agree with the caller in the sense that there should be some way to work out to get everybody on stage. they are all candidates. you're looking at some people
who may not get in who are twice elected governors from major states. it's not like they are minor players. i think there should have been some arrangement, some level of creativity, applied here to make sure that everybody had their chance in terms of participating. host: being in ohio, could governor kasich not make the time spot? guest: right now he is on the bubble. i feel it you are doing the ncaa -- who is on the bubble? he is one of the candidates on the bubble. when you think about it, picking he did verykasich, well last time, and the fact that he may not even be on stage is sort of not a positive sense in terms of what this debate should be try to capture. i agree with everything that david said.
it is incredibly tough because if you did something where you will have some subset of the candidates for one hour, and the next, and the next, how you pick which candidates go when. clearly there are some personalities in the race. donalddouble chop -- if trump, if you are in the group with him, it will be a completely different dynamic. if you mix people at the top of the list with people polling at .ne or zero there are a lot of questions why do not think there is a perfect answer, but i think it is a johne ridiculous that kasich, for example, to your point, governor of ohio, has run very well there, is very popular according to polls, and it will be in his home state, and he might not be on stage. a little strange. ohio is up next on the end that line.
go ahead. caller: first of all, i live in ohio, and people think that case as rottenkasich is as can be. here is the truth here. we are a police state. you can watch tv. we are a police state, a military state, where funds are taken from the good of the people i get into the military so they can go with the illegal workers. the way that this breaks down -- this ism from ohio -- regions of the country, certain groups of people. the last five wars were started by texans. my freedom of speech here is on the play right now. collar, to the point of polling or the topic right now? caller: the polling is taking place out of the state of texas.
now my freedom of speech here, you are going to hang up on me. don't hang up on me. freedom of speech -- all of the media is controlled out of the south -- texas, georgia, florida. part it is the jews and millionaires on the east coast. four holes are taken from. if that factors in into any of your experiences. guest: bob koehler's are based in d.c., california, new york, all over the place. the major media polls. the methodology is solid. it is getting representative samples of regionally and demographically. if you do not like the results your right, that is to not like, but in general these are tried and true methods and when you see pretty similar
results come out of every single poll, it is eye-opening. guest: there are all centers all around the country, and what you're trying to do is your trying to get a neutral voice. do you mean -- guest: the person on the phone is no idea where they are calling from, in terms of accident or region of the country. not to create any bias. that is for a reason, because you're trying to make sure that you get the best response from the individual you're calling you can get. host: from gettysburg, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning.
in terms of the polling, the 17 , if i had candidates to select one i would have a great difficulty doing so because there are eight or 10 that i would support. why don't you poll in terms of reading each candidate one to 10 -- isget a strength of the strength really lies instead of the skewing. guest: that is not a completely unreasonable here. that this point there are a lot of people who are looking at potentially having 45 be they are interested in. would or's to choose, they will choose, but the idea of potentially giving readings is not a reasonable way to look at the selection at this point. guest: i agree completely. understanding with media polls, they tend to -- i do not want to disparage them, but a lot of
them are for getting attention and eyeballs on websites. they do not go to a great deal of depth. all of these campaigns, especially on the republican side are factoring in all these different types of what if this person drops a move what if this person comes in, what does that mean for us. that is the internal poll for the campaign. .ost: questions to our guest both talked about how which attention to pay to early polls. a lot of numbers would again to hillary clinton. likability of things came out. clinton was seen as not honest, trustworthy, or to the
problems of the people. guest: it is not great. in the big picture, our view of what is happening on presidential level is that the shiftstic -- demographic , this is hillary's race to lose. these things are smaller stories of the big picture. certainly do need to address this. if you're 57% think she is not trustworthy they need to be going out and doing something about that. they do not want that number floating out there for but i do not look at the number is a she had trouble. host: do you think that number will change? guest: probably not. she is a well-known commodity, from 1992 when bill was called she has been in the
public. this is not a new person for the american public wants someone makes up their mind about someone, they do not see numbers shift radically. host: would you question the source, the methodology? guest: it is pretty sound. strangee somewhat -- 36% coming out, which of undecided and colorado is not true. there are not that many people up in the air. people consistently putting donald trump on top of polls? guest: there is a group of people, and this exists across
the spectrum, republicans, independents, and democrats, there are a group of people who are unhappy about the direction of the country and have been unhappy about the direction of the country for a while. we do not think the political discourses addressing those concerns. so the people supporting donald ones playing 52 card pickup at this point. they just want to make a statement of that they are unhappy about the discourse that is not addressing their concerns. for the moment we're just going to shake things up. host: do not never stay consistent, do you think? guest: because it is being driven by something else -- we were talking about this earlier. herman cain led for five or six weeks, newt gingrich led for her six weeks, it gave the people time to work through a mindset and the issues they are dealing with. this goes last for four or five weeks. the debate coming up in terms of
thursday will go a long way in terms of speeding that process of. up. we did a national holocaust will of weeks ago and a couple of -- poll weeks ago and we broke the groups down to three major ones. we were shocked to see that trump was leading in all three groups. we were expecting people who say they are to the right of the republican party, that was where he was going to get his support, but we found them in all three groups. my gut is that it is in war , and he has pan the ability to blow this up with
one great statements that him way down. but the difference between this and 2012 was romney had the establishment wing of the party to himself. this go around you have rubio, you have bush, you will a few other people who are in that who up.splitting that group we had a lot of people in 2012 running, but this year it is definitely showing different colors. matt, independent line. caller: thank you. c-span because the program you were to run monday night is probably going to be the very best of any room full of wiccans will be able to see from all of their potential very best for the
republicans that they will be able to see from all of their potential candidates. we are looking at this thing, it will be trumps show. in one people will be watching thursday night because they see what trump has said, and the see how the other people up on stage react to him. hats off to c-span for really giving the republicans a look monday night. i also heard earlier that the i enjoy their -- comments. of thehat is the four c-span is participating in for me could watch it live and listen in on c-span radio. mr. winston, this could change perspective because the host or to try to nail them down on specific policy positions.
guest: one thing that he has done is being very good of provocative statement. that gets review attention. to give you a sense of automatic that was, john kasich was announcing last week and cnn rather than send somebody to cover the case sick announcement and covered a donald trump speech in south carolina in the and he a train one provided one by heading out lindsey graham cell phone number. as he goes and to this debate his assets in terms of generating news has been a provocative statement. ultimately the electorate will decide based on policy. he has this tough transition and how you take those statements and turn it into covert policy. we will see what he does, because i think the panelists will be clearly trying to push him in that direction. the problem for all candidates -- can young
remember -- generically in terms of the audience, can you remember any other statement that any other candidate made? guest: that is what gets him a lot of attention. and this is not a democrat or republican thing. all it takes,k of they are sick of the usual politicians. i believe every candidate is underwater in their favorability rating for unfavorables are higher than their favorable on both sides. a lot of this is just coming out of people tired of the single signal. -- she isnt in different, there is no arguing he sticks out with the challenge for both the moderators of the debate and the other candidate is how you handle this?
how do you not turn this into the donald trump show? host: how you prepare? again, i am completely glad i'm not on that side because you need to build up even bush and rubio are floating .round 15% you have a long way to go, you have to get peoples attention on you as a person and what you stand for, and how do you do that with this going on on stage? you did have to say some crazy stuff, and you're going to want to react to it, but that is not helping or brand. to be ultimately it has what is your compelling idea that overwhelms the provocative statement that trump is making . electorate is engaged with the provocative statement because
there is the sense of frustration, but they has to be a where is this going to move the country? that is not a simple thing to do. host: caller from indiana. caller: i wanted to make the comment that all of these polls are skewed. are you there? host: go ahead. you never have the polls at the right positions. or places. he will call metropolitan annapolis, metropolitan chicago. you never take one county in arizona arkansas and go through them. pay any attached to these polls because they mean nothing. in the last two or three pollsons we had all the say this, and then we had a landslide that we never see
n. donald trump has more brains and know-how when it comes to running this country or anything if you wanted to put his mind to it than all of them together. what have they done? the community activist? i do not understand why everybody gets so enamored with the person. as for john mccain, and his state in arizona, does it bother him at all the screen door? host: a lot of people on twitter this morning briefing up the skewing question including one viewer who says you can get any answer you want, is all how you ask the question. guest: intervu of our you asked -- in terms of how
you ask the question, that is true. we try to make the question is addressed possible because we want the actual opinion. we want them to understand the real context in which they are trying to engaged people. if we do not understand them properly cannot engage them in the best way. how you are the question is incredibly important. hopefully we bring that skill set to people trying to move forward with that. urge: i would certainly people to look at who is releasing the old. -- poll. a poll from a major media source has no interest in pushing one candidate over another, or any bias. if a campaign releases a result, that is being done for best purpose. understand the narrative they are trying to address, and that is wendy's these numbers are
coming out. but there really is no reason for why a major media source would want to have bad numbers. of there have been some major polling getting things getting things incorrect. but what it really comes down to -- whatis the electric does the electorate look like? in general i will put the against history in its accuracy. host: two people who deal with , stefan hankinng and david winston joining us. go ahead. caller: i agree with the accuracy of the polls. it is because the majority of
people nowadays do not have a landline. they have a cell phone. and there's no way for your holsters to defeat cell phone numbers. who are they polling is the question. disagree respectfully with the caller, more and more people are getting cell phones and are getting rid of their land lines is aching our job is more difficult but we have the ability to get peoples cell phone numbers if you put your cell phone number on the voter file registration. it is available on voter file list. there are other ways of getting this data. when people aren't comfortable with is the amount data and information that is out there. this is the diversity good polling and bad polling. they are randomly calling that is why people
hire us to do the work. we create a methodology that is going to get a representative sample. notge people, you might like the results of a poll, but that does not necessarily mean you should dismiss it. we should not be blatantly saying polling is terrible. host: to highlight what she was , one of the challenges that we face as people are theirng particularly phone usage but also the way to reach voters in terms of getting their opinion is dramatically changing. phones, youf cell have some entities that use many are0% to 50% of their calls cell phone calls. some of them are doing online. what you're seeing is a mixture of them being put together as you try to make sure that your sampling across the american electorate. the new york times wrote a
polls.n the averages.ust polling would you grew without, and how danger that? -- do you do that? guest: yes and no. they talk about house or they are when they get it right, when it is wrong, how the rolling with terrible. you're either smart or you are not common you cannot take credit for being smart and then say to someone else's. that aside, a holistic view, looking at everything. when you saw it coming out in 2012, if you see a state where obama was winning in every poll, regardless of whether was three 1, 5 points, for paints, that is
going to be a state where he wins. that is how the margin of error works, the closer you get to 50-50, the larger the margin of error. i'm getting into the weeds. the it in the aggregate in sense that what are we seeing out of the consistent picture? 54%, butot 55% versus one candidate winning consistently. and that will give you an indication of what is likely to happen. guest: i look at it as the rage results. what am i seeing in terms of the best result, what is the worst result, because when you're looking at all of those surveys, every entity has a different methodology. for example, some people wait by gender and race and age. jewish by region, some by party. there are different
methodologies. that is one of the challenges when you're looking at the surveys it is not simply what the result is. it is how do they get there and what is their methodology. back to the fox dynamic in terms of the service for this debate, what is the transparency going to be in terms of us understanding how these polls were conducted so that people can agree or disagree in terms of if this was the right group of people on stage? host: steve on our democrat line. caller: how are you? i've old enough that i have watched through a number of campaigns with substantial from a third-party candidacy. -- i am surprised by how much traction bernie sanders has gotten on the democratic side, because he is shaking things up.
is, is there any possibility that bernie sanders, who has tapped into a real ,, elizabeth so forth in the country, that if he does not win the right mary's that he goes third-party. file other side of the there are those speculating donald trump go third party. i'm wondering with the panel has to say. guest: bernie sanders say i will run as an independent candidate, that will just help the republican get elected. that is completely right. sanders came in as an independent candidate, do not even bother paying attention to it, it is over. the other side will win.
look at 1992, bill clinton would not have been elected in not for ross perot. happen, ifhing would bernie sanders gets in, the republican nominee is going to be in. howard clay even have to run a .ampaign, she would win he ityst: there's a sensitiv to third-party candidates ross perot, ralph nader. he decided that race. my sense is these two individuals, i do not know bernie sanders has the resources to be that important. how has made some noises, and in terms of the washington post
poll that really showed the majority of trumps both would bush and a bush clinton matchup. talk about joe biden possibly getting involved. if he decided to run it would be shocking, and this would be the strangest thing i have ever seen. you are the vice president of the united states. you have infinite resources at your disposal. he can fly anywhere on the government time. have been out there to or three years ago starting this campaign. i think this is a little bit of wishful thinking coming from people in the media because it is a little boring on the democratic side and this would shake exempt. actually goingis to happen.
if it does, that it becomes interesting of the democratic side without a question. but i do not think he will ultimately get to the race. host: how do they prepare for this? that, if i was advising would say there's nothing we can do right now. just make sure your supporters are locked up and let let the vice president make this decision. keep moving forward. interesting is that he does not represent a natural constituency that clinton does our already have. they would be going after the same set of voters. it is not like left or right, just doing what they are doing and dealing with it when it happens. but i do not see anything that they could do differently right now that making phone calls to people who have been rumored to have been reached out to and see
where they are at. one of biden's closest advisers has offered to help tell you a debate prep, and if that is happening i think this is just media chatter. host: how will this impact than campaign overall? guest: they are assessing what upporternie sanders' s mean.is this just a core group of that want to see change, or is it dissatisfaction with her because she cannot pull together as tightly she would like? latter, she may get in. it puts everything up in the air for a short time reading, and
what she needs to be doing this mailing down everything she can. she does not want him to get it. host: the national poll we did the same thing on the democratic side where we brought in. left of the democratic party to people who were in line, two people who are more moderate than where the democratic hardy is. and hillary clinton is winning a majority in all those groups. i'm not diminishing what bernie sanders is doing. he represents a view that is within the democratic tent, but fineoters are generally with voting for clinton if bernie sanders got out of the race and there are some people behind further left and him and would like to see a president like him. i think he is about as high as he is going to go ve. he's getting a lot of some word and small donors, he could even get ohio and new hampshire.
narrative which he feels as if is important and certainly is a voice that some americans hold and should be heard. but i think it's as far as he goes. and biden is not good come in t bernieto outlef sanders. host: our guest in alabama, steve. i think i have already been on. host: thank you for telling me that. joe, georgia. caller: thanking us for c-span. question is for the democratic pollster. five factorstop that drive hillary clinton's unfavorables? we have hit a point in
time where he was going to be incredibly difficult for any politician to hold a verbal just favorable rating of 50% or higher for any length of time. it is where everyone is sick of everyone. it has become a very it is in question. you could like the person, but not grew their policies and give them a favorable rating. i think that is what is driving a lot of this rate it is good to be very hard to get above that 40% favorable except for right after an election or if you are not in elected office. waswas 60% when she secretary of state. would you became candidate, is dropped into the 40%. it is partisanship, and is the nature of the beast of how people are sick of politics. taking more for candidates, when you look at the parties, i think
you to go back to 2005 where both political parties had a favorable view. ,ow the latest average democrats are 32% and republicans are 27%. slightly maybe have a better ask, but we are both f 's. host: david from new jersey, hi. good morning c-span. the best channel on television. good morning, gentlemen. i am a world war ii veteran and i have voted in every federal, state, and most municipal elections since president harry truman. i feel what is wrong with our country is our look at representatives, 90% of them, do
not represent the american people. the represent themselves as they represent the party, they represent special interests. if they had the time, they would represent the voter. what i propose, and i would like to ask your opinion, i propose that part of the next election in november of 2016, we have a 2016,gn called grain which stands for get rid of all incumbents in november of 2016. represent we the people and not them. would you think of that? represents thehe massive dissatisfaction with the little discourse under the direction of the country. he may be an example of a 52 card pickup donald trump, bernie
sanders kind of move and the sense of when are people going to start focusing of the problems i care about? both parties have voters like him who are not really -- who are really concerned about what are they going to focus on the direction of the country as opposed to parties and partisanship. for both of us, in terms of what we going to do to drive this political discourse in a way that matters to people. guest: i agree completely. to the caller, thank you for your service, thank you for voting in every election. he is not alone. this is not an outlier view of things. about polling we see only 20% of the american public feel that they have home in one of the parties. everyone else is to the left or
the right of one. that is a very low number. given the fact that we are in a two-party system. there are a couple of other things happening where we were talking about being down to maybe 15 congressional districts that are actually tossups. thee six or seven senate this year will really be contested and are down to six or eight swing states. there's not a lot of competition outside of primaries. certainly the elected officials are not doing a lot of favors when they are in the building behind you and you have things like they cannot transfer location -- cannot pass the transportation bill anymore. he is to be a given, the farm bill and the transportation bill. phenolic caso three-month extension and then go on. and americans as i get my job
and i get firefox abilities, i have to get it done by working late, pushing hard. i cannot put it off for three months and go home. this tends to lead to more and more voter apathy. host: st. petersburg, florida. democratic line. caller: good morning. this is sarah. couple weeks ago our local pundit and tv show had a list of polls that indicated that over the percent of our voting population are unhappy with the direction the country is going. what kind of pull list that? of worksure what kind is that pollster. serves.poll guest: that is a pretty standard
question, if you think the country is headed in the right direction, or if you think things have gone a whole the wrong track. what it is supposed to represent is an optimism or pessimism in terms of the country. in 2005, when the favorable shifted in terms of both -- in terms of both parties, that is this dramatic shift in terms of the direction of the country. that got heightened by the financial collapse in 2008. what it represents is if this is optimistic or pessimistic. one key thing that has evolved is that people are beginning to say for the first time the next generation will not be as well off. and there was always a sense of optimism that things would improve them and this is the first time where we've seen on a consistent basis where they have been they will not be has a lot.
guest: the one challenge with the national numbers is what we see is this becomes a stand-in for partisanship. in 2000 eight a majority of republicans said the country was heading in the right direction, democratsjority of said it was not. change thatt dramatically over a two day time. it is all about who is in the white house. right now republicans are very pessimistic. if a republican were to win 2016, it will feel very good and democrats will feel the opposite . there's a lot of partisanship mingled into it, but we have gone from an optimistic country to people feeling more pessimistic and that does not bode well for the future. host: wisconsin caller. have some frustration
going on, and people are always saying that someone coming in as an independent would not be able do anything but just rocked the boat a little bit on either side of the democrat or republican vote. my biggest frustration is someone like bernie sanders coming in on the democratic side, possibly deciding to go independent. i have heard many people say that hillary is the of one that can win the democratic vote. guest: it comes down to numbers and math. this is a sentiment that a lot of people hold a would we have this level of dissatisfaction with the two parties. there is clamoring more choice and the problem is, it is not 80% in one camp. some people worry canada further to the right, to the left, some
want in the middle, some want an establishment candidate. there is a great range of what independent candidates would mean. the numbers just are not there. you look at ross perot in 1992, things have not changed much. and independent candidate could win a couple of states, but there is not half-mast to get you to the electoral college. the democrats and republicans an not going to vote independent candidate in. viable third party candidate, i would say you have to start going at the state level in building up. it is evolving process. these parties did not just gay created overnight. this takes a long time. somebody has to be serious about that and build the infrastructure they want to have a chance of that again new party
into place and having our ability to win a white house seat. guest: i made a distinction between ross perot and bernie sanders. ross perot had no alignment within a party. cannot build majority coalitions within their own party, they are not going to be able to do it at the national level outside of their own party as well. basically the reason those two might go independent because they cannot get their majority coalition internally. that is not a good first step. host: republican line, this is john. caller: thank you for c-span. very interesting. college -- the electron or a call is in the states that all of the winner, when you come up with your polls, do you wait these states differently? and also, does this not say some
having a president who represents everybody? i want to know what you think about a popular vote as opposed to the electoral college. , atas it not also speak least to some extent, of having possibly ending up with the republican president and a democratic vice president? be thrown out. for college is the thing i'm most interested in. would we dry sample, we draw based on what the population is. what that distribution is roam the country. that is going to pretty much the reflect the electoral college and they end up matching up because the population distribution is that way.
going to a direct vote or elect carl -- electoral college, there are pros and cause on each side that could take up a couple of shows. if your state has 20% of the population, roughly 20% of polling is going to be done that date. the biggest spread around the state. it is not just california, which has a lot of people aware not just interviewing in los angeles route it is spread out around the entire states are we're getting a representative sample of a viewpoint. personally, i would be if it go to a popular vote. just sixs away from key states deciding this rate it gets more people involved in the process. i think it also stars participating the effect that money has. -- participating the effect that money has. disappating the effect that
money has reviewed to run smarter campaigns right now you know what you need to do it if you go national, you need different things. areas,g on urban focusing on perhaps idaho that has never had a presidential candidate. it would make the candidates more interesting. host: one or call. i am a even though democrat, one of the most appealing things to me about donald trump is when he said i'm a billionaire, i am a wealthy man, i do not have to accept money lobbyists and the other fatcats.ical i am my own man.
i think that is very up newly to a lot of people in both parties because in my opinion the american people are finally that their elected officials are bought and sold. also shown, i think you gentlemen will agree, that at least on the national level that 80% of the fund raised, talking about totals, billions of dollars, come from the wealthiest 5% and the top corporations. theefore, the zone of people, these are the organizations that political elected officials are beholden to. not the average american. how can we straighten that out? some people talk about a constitutional amendment, which is a very heavy lift.
getonly thing we can do is and say im notun taking in the call from anybody. i'm going to get and work with volunteers in summary, i am just just thing that i think the american people have finally awakened to the game. clearly representing a sentiment that is out there. this is not just one person saying this view. the problem with the trump model of not raising any money is that allows only rich people to run for office. that sounds pretty silly when you look at pagan network of the u.s. senate. not a lot of poppers. -- apaupers.
know you're on a when youmpaign, it is just say you are bringing the message to the people. i do not say that it is perfect, but it is the nature of the .east more money comes from rich people because those who has disposable income to give to campaigns. certainly, there are a lot of to make our democracy matter of what i would say that we're stuck with what we have. what of the reasons we are seeing all of this money is because we have the system called super pac's. i think it is doing an interesting thing that is not positive for the electoral process. these candidates have their super pac's were most of the money is. that candidate cannot talk to anybody, and integrated from there cannot talk to the candidate. of $10n you have a ratio
for one dollar that they have, what this does is it just management in the candidate voice to the super pac is overwhelming what the candidate is trying to say. do not forget, as part of our discussion today are voters -- c-span is as being again in tomorrow. our guests today joining us to talk about polls. you are for the conversation. -- thank you for the conversation and coming up we will speak with bloomberg about theichael riley weormation being taken, and will be exploring the history and literary life of augusta, georgia. coming up at 2:00 p.m. we will
be feared all of our guests a history programs on c-span3's american history tv, including a a canal in use for its original purpose. the only one in the united states. >> the aggressor canal is a man-made waterway. the water comes from the savannah river. our main river here. it travels to town, about 7.5 cummings, thery son of the first mayor of augusta had seen lowell massachusetts. and what they had on there with the canal, and how they help built textile mills. growthstine is economic had come to somewhat of a standstill, and westward o
expansion has started, he said we have to do something. and saidt of lowell, we can do that here. we can build a canal and all that savannah river water in and and itt to town of high will fall on the river wheels. that gave augustine growth and jobs. host: that is augustine georgia, part of our coverage on book tv and american history tv. go to our website at c-span.org. it is part of our cities tourl. joining us now is michael riley from bloomberg news good morning. a recent story of yours took a look at breaches and data at opm and made connections to a couple of other data breaches. what were you hoping for in this
story? guest: opm, which has bearing a huge pack in terms of the losses of dana by the federal government was not the only hack of hackers.p they are casting a wide worldwide net, gathering information of all kinds. they have hacked insurance companies, hospitals, and the latest hack was airlines. they had united airlines break the idea seems to be there is a collection effort on the part of china to collect a lot of data points. interested in small population, which is people with national security clearances, travel patterns, health records, you can put together a cross-section of information about these guys. including potentially blackmail recruitment. host: all this information would come from polls that were taken over -- data that was taken over
weeks and months. what those questionnaires are about, they are trying to identify vulnerabilities of people who are very sensitive and he could information. the ideas the government wants to know there are any reasons you could be blackmailed, any reasons why you have vulnerabilities. china, another states that has an interest to those groups stole been information. they have the exact information that the u.s. government did not want them to have. host: what is the concluding evidence? guest: the way this works, the forensics investigation that it ises to make an attribution complicated. they have tools that they find in the network when hackers hack into the system. they believe behind a piece of malware. told to do something,
it is a digital fingerprint. can create, they fingerprints that say this collection of infrastructure and tools represents this thread actor in this case. the u.s. government can go much further than that. get very for retribution on who is sitting at the computer, and who do they work for. , not just tightened security companies, but the rest intelligence agencies went much further. responset has been the by the federal government to not only the opm breach, but the pooled data? what is the response plan by the government? concern.ere is a huge
what goes on behind closed doors. the us government has a public you identified china is the author of this attack. that is not unusual. re has only been one time that the u.s. government has come out and that a public attribution. when they integrated attacks to north korea. senator reinsert the chinese government was behind is, the director of national intelligence something suspect was china. they have dropped a lot of hits. -- hi the questionn ist, what is the garlic whats to do about it.. that entails a lot of issues with the government. they are still wrestling with the idea of how can you determine these -- deter these future attacks? to talkr guest here about cyber security issues in
light of these recent events you've been hearing them talk ,bout it if you have questions call in. us. can also tweet as it is surprising that the chinese foreign ministry put out a statement saying way which the united states would not be catching wind and shadows, but have a larger measure of trust and cooperation. industry that has been caught spying say it is not us in china as a long history of setting we do not support cyberattacks, despite the fact that there's a growing body of evidence and in fact they have a very aggressive cyber operation. we've seen a lot of data on u.s. companies and the u.s. government. to be fair, we do the same thing.
we steal a lot of data from in the act ofs what we consider a legitimate spy. when you try to make a distinction between stealing data that helps commercial interest. we say we do not do that. in the case of opm and the personnel records, it falls on what we would consider legitimate spies. the focus is on us to stop them. host: what is the reaction of those who have had data compromised? guest: heaven for people who is dana was taken. the last number they put out was 22.5 million people. in theot just people federal government. it is anybody who has security clearance call reservoir of five for security clearance and all of that data was taken. you can vacuum of huge amounts of data very quickly. things in thed
process of fine people. -- notifying people. the question is, what else can you do? they are offering basic protections in terms of identity theft, but that is not a problem here. what is opm doing to make sure does not happen again? guest: the white house has launched what it calls a cyber sprint. very a breach of this we're going to bring in the resources of the federal government and we're going to try to identify vulnerabilities and fix those vulnerabilities in they have brought in super
hackers to see if they can get into u.s. systems. if they can, what vulnerabilities are the using? the u.s. government is a very large thing to protect from a cyber point of view and there are lots of ways in. there is a lot of instructional fault all over the country. but the white house is saying we will slow fire intentions. our first call comes from larry and alabama. go ahead. caller: hello. i have a question is a covenant. chinast question, since is the biggest hacker in the country -- in the whole country,
why is u.s. still giving him a chance. also, i would like to make my which is on president george w. bush junior. they shot down the cia plan. i collected a lot of data from , whenia when back in 2003 george junior was in. i would just like to hear his comments related to those? i do not have a lot of , butmation on the ci plane i will address your other question was using very interesting one.
data,has seen all this why are we dealing with them as a major trading partner with a very important in life agenda? it is a cluster problem that the white house is struggled with. china is a major player in the world economy and a major trading partner of the unit date. when you have a breach like this, how can you deal with that when you're dealing with southern allies. they have not come up with a very good set of principles. this is happened in the past, especially when we are dealing with intellectual property from companies, they roll out in your strategy where the u.s. officials begin calling china out of the even change kind of thing. they're using it for their own means, and should not be doing that. they try to take it to the next level. last year there was a area
the u.s. courtf where they indicted five individuals. expect to get any of those people in a courtroom, but it was a legal document that weighed out what china was doing. this release introduces the question of how do deterrence work in cyberspace? the third thing you can do to not destroy the relationship with china, but also prevent them from stopping these -- continuing these cyberattacks? at the same time, we collect intelligence this way. it is a very complicated problem. the white house decided it needed to step up. some sort of deterrence here.
it is reviewing a lot of possibilities, but they're not really good or social answers. theof the big fears, if u.s. took aggressive counteraction, and would create escalation. the possibility caller: what is being done about it? tornadoes,f privacy, mind control. anything electronic. caller: guest:you can do a lot of intersing things that look like malfuncitons hackers ah hat that showed you could hack
into a chrysler jeep and they takeetwork protocals to control scary possibilities on how they could be used. they are also being by the military. there is no question it is considered a military domain because all sorts of things inside with that can help a military campaign. for example, you could clog the difficult since to be able to get out of court. you can . one of the target watch has been companies like fedex a lot of material with you government anything because that potential adversaries are looking at the ability to shut those things down. a for allng into
sorts of very interesting trip for both intelligence operation and military. host: a recent way about an infusion pump involved in the hacking at all. we are becoming an internet of things and i think the term is what you have the capability for a lot of devices. what does that mean for the cyber security world? guest: that is the thing we recognize. more and more of our lives are becoming connect did and only are there secrets, company secret personal secret, but all of our refrigerators, are medicalcars, devices and anything connected to the internet had the potential of the enables to be regulated by hackers that is a set ofkind of scary possibilities. i think one of the concerns about security expert is that, especially as refrigerators or
other kinds of things, online, those companies that build those things did not have the very taking of security or testing the name so they will be more ofnerable than those areas internet with a happy with this for years. that means all of these manipulation. -- all of these are open for manipulations. (202)-784-8000 for democrats. (202)-784-8001 for republicans. (202)-748-8002 for independents. caller: interesting discussion. my healing is that we are more. we need to remember that china, i do not care what the reason is for engaging in this act of the the, the fact is that they do. we need to do something. we do not have to announce it. my preferred option would be to do kind of what the israelis have done in the past situations .here they have taken out asset
we go and we take out asset and i would with that with satellite and when the chinese say, gee, something happened to one of our satellite am a whether they say it or not, we deny anything to do with it. it was a media right. remember,u have two it is war. a different type of war but the ultimate goal of life, the country that fixed. in eventuallypa comes to the table and then you have a treaty and that is where we get to. we have forced pain on the chinese government, not the people because the chinese government could care less about their people. painting, that's in power. that is my comments. guest: you make a good point. another thing to accepted, this is the fact that china is active, russia, israel and other countries, the u.s. is considered the best, so we have a lot of his ability to do a lot
of in congress based should we choose. one of the questions on the table now it, when we suffer a significant data stuff like this that has serious implications of national security, what should dollars honestly? and it could range from doing things like taking out infrastructure that the chinese are using to do these kinds of spying. it could escalate even beyond that and i think that is one of the they the white house is now considering. is it possible to craft some sort of response that does not lead to add control escalation which is fear question mark a lot of it can be securely, but the problem is if it is done notetly, if the public does know it is being done anything china does not know it is a gun, does it create a deterrent effect? it is one of those strange twist where you want to say, hey, you brought this on, you will pay
cut of the but in order to understand those the concert, there has to be an element of, yes, we are doing this to you, so it's a complicated dance. host: it "new york times" spoke about this and it said you have to have a range of tools for response. what are the tools that you guys have? they are good at hacking, probably the best in the world go -- so they could limit the tools to cyberspace. in other words, you could destroy service, the kind of infrastructure used to the. you could also retaliate by dealing sensitive data that -- wouldld either consider on the same level. in the case of china, they are sent them about controls of information, the chinese firewalls, a massive apparatus that gives the government control over information that
close to the country. it is possible to kind of disassembled that. if you did that, you could show the chinese that one of the they dofears, which is not control the flow of information in the country, could be a point of consequential retaliation for what they are doing to the u.s. again, the question is immediately raised that this china then take another step against us? one of the issues on the table, we, because you are one of the most connected countries in the world and one of them as possible, not just the with government -- you could target companies, you could do that attack against sony, a great example, a movie studio, and north korean hackers a sickly stille-mails -- basically e-mails and made an effort to embarrass everybody at the company by publishing the females and the media picked it up. computers.estroyed you can do that with any major
company in the u.s. you could do with electrical producers,electrical water safety and water production. again, we can do it back but then it is a pit for tax and that is a consent the white house has. host: in virginia, david is. caller: hello? host: go ahead. you are on. caller: my question was about ep being controlled from a car behind it and how it occurs. it is it -- is it like the airlines use a fly by wire? is there a connection between the steering wheel and the computer in their? how does that occur? guest: good question. one of the rings we are seeing is that cars are becoming increasingly computerized, so in this case, they were able -- the car communicate through the internet through mobile internet
systems. i think the carrier was sprint and it does that for also reasons. it doesn't for entertainment systems, safety systems like on connection with the broader internet is created, it allows a pathway for hackers to get into computers that control the car, so they used that system to basically piggyback and get into the computers to control the cheap. they were able to do all sorts of things. they could control their condition, the heat, the transmission which had computerized element -- i mean, systems -- cars are becoming much more advanced and much more computerized and there are lots of different elements in the system. once you are on to the car's computer, you can do a whole lot of things. the unique thing about this hack was that in the past, when hackers or researchers tested the number they had to plug into the car in order to get control of the computer.
these researchers showed you could actually do it as the car was moving from the working internet and the result was that chrysler ended up recalling more than one year different vehicles so they could create a patch. host: tampa, florida, alice next. caller: good morning. the problem i am having in hacking, i blame politicians. politicians like hillary clinton who was the secretary of state no business having a private server in your house. it is disgraceful. our politicians are not going to protect the american people from situations like this. how can we trust them to make decisions when the board is open and everything else? it has to start the government. if you're going to represent the american people, they need to protect us from situations like this. this is a constant constant problem with our government. allison, there are two
different points -- the question of the secretary's private server and whether or not that create folder abilities. let me take that second, but your first issue about political will to abuse, clearly, there are a lot of evil in the u.s. -- there are lots of people in the u.s. intelligence agencies that say we should fixed on the measures. the question is, is the political will to figure out some way to keep this from happening? it's a little bit of a complicated calculation because we do a lot of electronic spying and we do a lot of hacking ourselves. a huge amount of what the president receives every day in in hisf comes from -- brief comes from a cyber intelligence collection them by the nsa. in act, because we are among the best in the world at it, we are low to sign on to some sort of a larger treaty that says no
contribution should do this. if you're not going to say all countries can not, then you have to draw lines between what is acceptable and not at that the vote. drawn --e reminds even lines even drawn? this is kind of the wild west cyber and one of the implications of the opium hack is the u.s. is trying to say even though it's a legitimate intelligence collection and what we do all the time, it goes far beyond what should because it is acceptable and they should pick consequence. of people in the government would agree that up to this point we have not done nearly enough to create deterrence, even the head of the nsa has said many times that the u.s. government is being more aggressive at drawing redline and say you cannot pass this line and if you do, you will pay consequences is get the capabilities of making them happen.
when it comes to secretary clinton's primary -- private e-mail server, questions on if it is safe or not they -- i think the motivation for that was that she had control of her own data. only when you basically run your own e-mail server do you have complete control and that meant that she felt more comfortable having conversations, a wide range of conversations and the debate now is did some of them involve e-mail that should not have left the u.s. government servers? one of the problems though that the debate in france, the state department's own e-mail system was recently hacked by the russian government or actors that are linked to the russian government. the white house e-mail system was also recently hacked. just because she was running e-mail server just not make it any less safe if there is evidence that the government's own e-mail is hacked constantly. host: charles, new orleans,
louisiana, you are next. caller: hillary clinton has stated that the u.s. is losing the information war, and her way of going about that, trying to solve that was that she would push for the internet or that information device being minimized over time because of the cyberattacks. she is the one, along with other politicians in the u.s., that want to push forward that device, one of the most powerful devices for people to communicate with the scent. after she made that sentiment -- that statement and many others made similar statements, republicans or democrats, talking about cyber attacks coming from these people, china, but yet, the u.s. and media does not take into the politicians the way they should. the only ones who stand to lose anything in this coming "so-called" war with china and
the u.s. are the people. the politicians on both ends, the suits whether they are talking to the u.n. or not are in cahoots with each other. it will be the people in china of its., so i am tired will calling and saying we, us, us, who are we? who are us? people are trying to survive and you have people on to talking about we, our allies, china is not my ally, they are not my enemy. i had to do with police brutality every day and date promised to protect and serve but they get away with crimes of murder and you? have politicians talk about china is our enemy -- our enemy? is a: the internet fantastic invention for human collective interaction and creativity. to take increasing advantage, we see things like facebook or twitter or the way that businesses work have
fundamentally been transformed. there is really no putting the genie back in the bottle. there is no, ok, the internet turned out to be a dangerous place in terms of holding secrets, select shut it down. i think the question now is are there ways to secure it so that it becomes safer? much moreut to be complicated than anyone imagined and it goes back to the way the internet again to begin with. it was not a system that was data.to hold secure it was a communication system between universities and researchers were everyone on that network was already assumed to be trusted. what it has transformed into in less than two decades is a system in which everyone across the globe is communicating with veryimes a day sensitive information in some cases or things they do not want in other people's hands like credit card numbers or the
pictures on your apple account. but system itself and architecture was not actually designed, so now we are getting people saying, well, if we are going to think about how we are going to secure this, we may have to think radically and think about the peril of the internet. one internet where the way it works now, very public, anything you put could be stolen and one that is are more secure so that companies, for example, could use it, transfer information, and it would be technology that worked differently. the government already has versions of these. they have super net and others which are sort of government internetand maintained that are much harder to access and do not have the same accessibility from all over the globe. a lot of people are talking about you basically have to start all over and think about public internet that is very,
very vulnerable but also accessible and they have to go together in a much more secure internet that is far less accessible but also you can trust important data on. host: talking about cyber security issues. (202)-784-8001 for republicans. (202)-784-8000 for independent. how much of the defense department is devoted to cyber security issues question mark -- issues? guest: complicated question to answer because the budget numbers fall into an area that are general i.t. budgets or in the black budget if you are talking about offensive operations. we know that the government spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on its own cyber operations. in fact, we know the budgets are growing quite quickly. for example, the defense department's overall budget in many areas is being cut back.
when of the few areas where that is not happening as cyber and one of the reasons is because i down the joint chiefs on realize that this is actually going to be a very, very transformative and transformative technology for military conflicts going forward. a little like back in the first gulf war when you saw the deployment of smart and the american public could see on cnn phones that are basically targeted at a single building -- that technology had been in the work for decades or more than a decade, but that was the first and use at the public saw they could see visually that this was going to transform warfare as we know it so that smaller militaries, with huge technological edges, could take on and destroy what at that time was the fourth largest military in the world quite easily.
in the samere now situation with cyber. there are a lot of techniques, tools, cyber weapons being developed, none of which is public. classified, but will ultimately transform the way that countries have conflicts. host: from virginia, go ahead. like to see them develop some type of software or device that if you hack into the computer, then it seeks to out and destroys your computer or system. guest: in fact, there are lots of interesting technologies that could be used to address the data theft issue and digital bonds that you could implant in data that sort of go off when that data is removed from the server is one way. for example, the way that works is when files are removed from the place they are supposed to
be or the service they are supposed to be on, it would set up a kind of virus and you get to sort of destroyed the that they were taken to. the problem is, in part, it raises all sorts of collateral damage issues. you have to think about the way that hackers work. they do not just go from the computer, say the government's computer because they are trying to hide much of what they are dealing, including their identity. they hack into computers all around the world first, so they hack into commercial data centers and the use those to launch attacks. if those cyber bombs went off on a commercial data center, say amazon's cloud, where it is often used by hackers to launch attacks, then it could destroy a lot of decent people's data and that is a huge problem. a lot of people are advocating or experimenting with techniques that could create deterrence through the techniques you are
talking about but it's a hard problem to solve. host: how much of the government -- how much does the government rely on these outside hackers, do they go to these outside sources for assistance and guidance and technical assistance? guest: one of the things we have seen is a lot of that best expertise is in the private sector. after the opm hack, they went to a lot of outside researchers who are really, really good at finding vulnerabilities and said, hey, can you help us identify the vulnerabilities in our system? it is something the private sector has been doing for a long time. they have things like that bounties and facebook and others theycreated programs or invite ethical hackers to find flaws in their webpages or other systems and they will pay money to those researchers in order to aentify those, so it creates
circle, so to speak, of incentives of ethical hackers to try and find vulnerable at. so, yeah, the unit -- the u.s. government does that. they use what is called an attrition testers -- penetration testers to find defenses in the government and elsewhere, but the cyber it's a little different where the government is trying to open up and say this is the collective problem as a country. we need to bring all the resources to bear and we will deal and think outside the box. host: jeh johnson, the homeland security secretary, spoke to fory at the city international studies in early july and he spoke about this idea of countermeasures when it comes to cyber security. here's a bit of what he had to say. jeh johnson: legally, each agency and department has the responsibility for their own system, legally. i stress that to my colleague. we have the responsibility for
the overall protection of the .gov world at sort of the baseline. as i see it and as we see it, where we need help in protecting the federal cyber security is making express our legal authority to receive information from other departments of governments, and occasionally, we encounter an agency lawyer, and i use to be one, that says, i'm not sure i can share that with you. that sensitive. we have encountered that a fair amount and it gets in the way, so we want to express the legal authority to make it plain that likewe utilize things einstein, einstein 3a, those
other agencies are authorized to share information with us to give us access to our network. like in the agencies themselves, maybe there is talking as far as strategy and what is going on as far as cyberattacks and things like that. aest: he is identifying problem around information sharing. a lot of the legislation being discussed on the hill now has to do it, are there easier ways to bring down some of the barriers to respond more quickly to the attacks. one of the things that is rarely a problem is because there are silos, one agency may get attacked by a thread group from china, for example, or russia, and another agency could get attacked are the same threat group but because they are not talking to each other, they do not recognize it is the same attack. if the agency, when it is attacked, recognized and attracted digital signatures that could be used to identify
the attacks could be shared quickly through the rest of the government and quickly stop the rest of targets from being hit. there is a lot of discussion, a lot of processes under way in which that occurs in my dhs has tongs like centers designed share information within the government and outside the government, but it is a constant problem. one of the things that everyone has decided is that in order to really solve that you will need a legislative package. we have not been very good at passing that legislation. in 2012, there was an omnibus cyber security legislation in the senate that after several years of work ultimately failed. they have restarted those efforts this year but we have not seen much progress with legislative gridlock. host: here is built from verio, georgia, with our guest mark riley. hello. i enjoyed. riley,
bloomberg news but you are scaring americans by telling them that their automobiles can be hacked. those guys that pact that jeep, that was not the factory built jeep, and they had change the computer programming in the chip. and when you look on your supper, occasionally see fbi surveillance under your wi-fi vehicle and more recently, a family here in georgia had their door kicked in because someone had hacked their wi-fi and was looking at poorn. why do you talk on those subjects. guest: let me take the first point to begin with the chrysler recalled i think 1.2 million after this article, independent article in "wire" magazine with these former abilities. from the automaker's point of view, they identified a vulnerability that was inherent in the vehicles that needed to be passed. wi-fi and thef
ability to hack someone else's wi-fi, that actually is quite possible, right? -- if you imagine, we used to live in it and age where you could share the internet and the connection was their neighbors. that is happening less and less because people are security conscious but it is not that hard to be able to hack does, your neighbors, for example, and if that is the case, it looks to the broader internet and law enforcement agencies like whoever is the owner of that wi-fi doing that activity when it may be somebody nearby. if that is the case, then you can create terms about your vision and that goes to the larger question of in the world of cyberspace, it is actually not that hard to make your malicious activity look like someone else is doing it, so
that actually happens all the time. u.s. government, china, russia, often try and make it look like they are other nation states. russia tries to make it look like they are china. the u.s. tries to make it look like they are another country and they can be quite successful at it. the idea is that it creates a fog of war, so to speak, so it becomes really hard to point to is actually doing it. and that is especially dangerous because you cannot tell who was doing bad activities, there is no way can create red lines that will deter people because you cannot point a finger. u.s. government has been working hard to cut through that cloud and i think the public attacktion of the sony was one effort to demonstrate that. even in that attack, there were a lot of doubts by some security experts about whether the government was right. again, goes back to the fog of war and the question of
deterrence. covers cyber security for bloomberg news. bloomberg.com is the website. you are for your time. coming up, we will talk about how we market in your community. take a look and give us a snapshot picture of what sales are like foreclosures. availability of rentals for homeowners. it was a callout (202)-784-8000 for renters. get some-8001 if you type of help as far as housing is concerned. .202)-748-8002 and all others, (202) 748-8003. ♪ >> the republican presidential candidates aren't man sure, new hampshire for the first
presidential form on monday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. and c-span's "road to the white house," provides lot coverage on c-span, c-span radio, and www.c-span.org. the new hampshire leader and media are sponsoring this forum. following the live form, you can provide your input five joining our call in program or adding comments on facebook and twitter. "road to the white house 2016" on c-span, c-span radio, and www.c-span.org. for serious tv readers. the authorn-depth," of several books including "stop the next war now," "the greeting of the revolution," and "thrown warfare." joint conversation. we will be taking your phone calls, even, and tweets. we are live from the nation's capital for the 15th annual national book festival hollowed
on sunday with our live "in-depth" program with lynne cheney. some of the upcoming live programs on c-span twos "the tv -- "book tv." >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to hear about the housing communities. here are the numbers to call -- (202)-784-8000 for homeowners. (202)-784-8001 for renters. and for some of those receiving subsidized housing, (202)-748-8002. all others at (202) 748-8003. the wall street journal" says that when it comes to big cities , overall, cities have seen marked improvement in the economic well-being from a couple of years ago. 100,000a population of -300,000 reported that local
economic conditions have greatly improved during the past year. that is compared with 20% of cities with you and then 50,000 residents. the big cities with populations over 300,000 reported that economic conditions have worsened over the last year. 20% said that they had improved greatly, meanwhile, 5% of city population under 50,000 say they have worsened slightly or. perhaps you live in a big city or a rural community and you want to give us a sense of what the housing market is like where you live. again, the numbers will be on the screen but pick the best one ever present you. if you have called us and the last 30 days, if you hold up, we appreciate it. (202)-784-8000 for homeowners. (202)-784-8001 for renters. and for those of you receiving help with housing, (202)-748-8002. all others, give us a call that (202) 748-8003. if you want to post something on her social media channel at twitter, c-span the bj.
we also have -- c-spanwj. we also have facebook, and if you want to give us your thoughts on facebook, that is facebook.com/c-span. again, the economic picture, especially u.s. cities. one of the cities of 300,000 people or more show some greatly improved economic health there. it says that that underscores the story that plays out the recovery of larger urban areas from new york city to seattle, i have seen an influx of get workers in search of jobs and affluent older residents seeking a more likable lifestyle.
when it comes to home sales, "the washington post" has a story taking a look at when it comes to the showings in stockholm sales of limited supply saying that prices are soaring higher in some cities, according to a survey taken. 10%, they rose 10% one year ago and in denver, 9.7 percent. san francisco, a .4% and washington, d.c. posted the smallest increase at one point they percent. is dan in texas on our line for homeowners. two are for calling. give us a sense of the housing market in your community. caller: it is pretty wide open. a lot of houses going up for sale. what i believe is happening is that because of the community
itself, we have one big college, tarleton state university and at the bottom, blue-collar's, which i include muscle, i have two or two full-time jobs, we are having trouble paying the mortgages that were out there as of 10 years ago. some of us that i know in this neighborhood, and it is getting to right now where with two jobs , layoff from a good company and has me working two jobs now, i really can hardly afford the payment. i have got a high interest rate know,and it is just, you could not make the payments. i could only make partial payments. at the end of it all, it added up to one big payment. i filed bankruptcy, i am not the only one in town doing that either, i just -- my comment is, to havedo need is help
some kind of homeowners oversight committee that can .elp us keep us in our homes that's really all i've got to say. it is hard for the lower end earners. host: did you say 9% interest? caller: yes. host: did you have the option of refinancing it at all? fine for bankruptcy, i don't really have that. i just want to keep my house. host: joyce from virginia. a renter, good morning. caller: i retired 15 years ago from washington, d.c. and my apartment on connecticut avenue running for ias believe about $1200, a two bedroom, two bath, which i did not pay for because i was resident manager.
i moved back here and i am of townhousesrea and i'm $430. the new ones become empty and these townhouses are only running for about 550. i was just absolutely crushed because i did not want to move back here, but in order to retire, i had to. however, housing prices and everything here in this area, of course, are so much below anything in washington, d.c. i am wondering what my apartment may be running for now and i am happy because i do not have the energy to fight the traffic in the d.c. area and it is just so easy here, but you know, the point of the situation is what a mess.
west virginia is turning republican and i am not happy about it but nevertheless, living is easy here compared to what it was -- what it would be if i was trying to live in washington, d.c. on a retirement income. host: robin from springfield, illinois, receives subsidized housing. hi, how are you? caller: fine, how are you? host: pine, thank you. go right ahead. caller: yes, i have been living in subsidized housing in springfield, illinois. in an apartment that was owned by the man of clout who went to andon with former governor with his co-conspirator tony rest go. he founded the new frontier company which is the parent ,ompany of specific management
the management company that owns a large amount of subsidized housing. they claimd there that the market rent was $1141. and that is what the federal government was paying. however, that is what they were charging, the federal government, however, they listed -- $640 which$40 is a large increase from the fair market rate. we are talking millions of dollars. here is my concern -- is a poor individual of that is entitled to subsidized housing or an elderly or disabled person receives a voucher from the federal government and they apply and have a felony, they cannot get the systems. i am concerned, [indiscernible] been they been found guilty of a felony in our state
and he is able to still maintain that his daughter in dubai is running a property management company that i have turned into the federal trade commission and contacted security about the excessive prices. host: ok, that is robin's experience in illinois. let's hear from mary in georgia. the homeowner, hi, mary. hello, two are particularly called. i hope you are doing well. what happened to me is that i own my home but because i cannot afford to make payments, i have that a lot i found of people are in the situation. i feel that when they had the bank they a lot, they should have given it directly to the homeowners. i also agree with the young man from texas who was saying that homeowners really need some
help. thank you very much. host: "the wall street journal" tells us in the recent story 64%.homeownership is below about 2005 andhs after the financial crisis, you can see it steadily declined to the point where we are now in the 65% range. again, we want to get from you, as far as the housing market in your area, and we have divided the lines it. if you are a homeowner, call (202)-784-8000. if you rent, (202)-784-8001. if you are in subsidized housing, (202)-748-8002. and all others, (202) 748-8003. let's hear from gary. gary is in alabama, homeowner. hello. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. if you've got a few minutes, i have a long story to tell you about my dealings with the
mortgage company. we have been in dispute for about 10 years now and that dispute is i am trying to get these companies to abide by their contracts. them,ntract did not favor i did not make the contract, they did, so i asked them to abide by it. they brought the wrath of the on top bike in the world of my head and have been fighting me for 10 years. it has cost me a small fortune and -- host: specifically, what about the contract is at issue? caller: well, they claimed they got a different piece of property that what they described in their mortgage. opinion, iff the
that is what you agreed to, that is what you should accept. they have perfused to do that. they said, well, we want this other piece of property over here because it is worth more money. and i said, i am not going there . we have been fighting a person's. thisis interim period, mortgages with gmac and in the interim period, they filed for bankruptcy. they named me as the claimant on their bankruptcy filing and then turned around and sued me for judgment which is a violation of the bankrupt -- the bankruptcy laws. just did not care about the laws. store int is gary's alabama, dealing with the mortgage company. housing marketing in your
community is what we are interested in hearing from you. (202)-784-8000 for homeowners. (202)-784-8001 for renters. and for those in subsidized housing, (202)-748-8002. we want to hear from all others, (202) 748-8003. deborah from tampa, florida, you are next. hi, thank you for taking my call. i agree with one of the callers from virginia earlier this morning where she said she had a student loan and her equity was like 60,000 -- well, mine was $130,000 and was five. during the housing bubble which was artificially created, by the way. anyway, as far as the value of for 20 years and i may be, may be getting near to breaking even which to me, my house has become an albatross and i'm pretty disheartened about the whole thing. "newsmakers"st on program, which you can see in
about 15 programs -- 50 minutes, is richard shelby, and one of the issues he spent about was homeownership come particularly the rate of homeownership in the united states. some of the things behind the mortgages that got people into the homes. here is a response. >> i have always thought that people who borrow money on houses and buildings [indiscernible] they should put something down into the housing equity, so to speak. one of the problems with our housing process was nothing down basically. the down payment was like a second mortgage. i promoted homeownership in this country. i thought it would be good. europe, they do not have the homeownership we have. i don't know what it is, but we
are 60 something percent and we were at 60% at one time and that is probably pushing on the low. i would go back to [indiscernible] -- if you do not have sound that, you need a mortgage system where people have some [indiscernible] host: that program starts at 10:00 on "newsmakers" program. angel up next, washington. caller: hi, pedro, you always looks so handsome. [laughter] and you are one of my favorite hosts. host: thank you. what is the housing market there like? changed a lot. we have had a lot of house sales in our vicinity. our taxes have gone up exponentially lately. for some reason, our home equity has definitely improved.
we build our home back in like the late 1990's and we put a lot of sweat equity because we build it ourselves. lot of thehave a underwater problems that some people did buying instead of -- buying at a bad time in the market, you know? that we were very fortunate that with the first home that we bought, we were in a lot of credit debt, and the salt our first time, that is when it was like the big, you know, the big [indiscernible] basically when the homes were selling for ridiculously crazy overpriced where we bought in and we were able to actually get out of debt, which was really a huge great deal for us. right now, the homes selling around us right now are in like the mid-, you know, mid-$500,000 or so range.
but they were going as low as $300,000, you know, and stuff like that. host: do you find a lot of owners versus renters, foreclosures, what is that situation like? caller: no, it is pretty much, i would say 90% owners. there are barely any renters around our area. it is a very homeownership cap area. people pretty much buy-in to stay in. they stay here and they want to live here. it's a really beautiful place. it has a great view and everything but we do want to downsize because we are just kind of, we are getting old. in washington talking about her experience. on the front page of "the washington post," the obama administration expected to unveil what is known as the claim carbon plan when it comes to carbon emissions. it says that the new plan sets a goal of cutting power pollution
-- pushing from power plants compared with -- now from miami, florida, a homeowner, good morning. .aller: good morning, pedro good one, c-span. how theyt is a shame created this housing bubble under the laws. those of the struggling homeowners who worked all their lives trying to live the american dreams to be turned into an american nightmare. i am a homeowner, man, and like i said, man, people come around and assessed your home and you get more sales in the community and a brand-new cola site that is eight years old, and you lose 80,000 dollars, $70,000 and i cannot understand that. these home range from 300 thousand dollars and above. you are close to this madness
and they keep creating this and it's a shame. the president and his administration or petition about two years ago to do a mortgage house they and they claimed they cannot be done but they can bail all these banks. all we need is relief and they could stimulate the economy, help people increase personal savings and a lot of other things, but they just will not do it. i don't understand that, man. thank you for listening. host: "the new york times" will highlight that cleveland, ohio will be decided that the bit where you can hear from republican candidates. "we will have thousands of republican ohio and on tears and activist conversion on cleveland next summer. the party will be --
all good republican candidate, by the come have been invited to the potus first board. that is sponsored by the new hampshire union leader and we are cosponsoring that participating as well. you can see it smart 7:00 as part of our "road to the white house" series. watch it on c-span, listen on c-span radio and economic view it at www.c-span.org. it is the voters first format 7:00 in the evening. garth on our renters line. hello. caller: good morning. i have comments. 55 like retirement, i think it is subsidized by the government. we have no management. it is only open half a day. it is closed in the middle of the week and on the weekends, it
is closed. guestsfor parking and if or families visit, there are only like two spaces they can park in her building. we are expected to download our own lease when it is due. a lot of the seniors here are not familiar with computers, and they do not have computers. it is just terrible, just terrible. i am not a subsidized person. i pay out of my pension, but it makes it awful for seniors who are caught in, i think, a trap. thinking that i could live in this 55 plus until it is time to go, and we are just treated terribly. if i had known all of this, i would never have retired in florida thinking that this is
the place to live. it is awful the wake seniors are treated. here, theyy of them have no other place to go. it takes a lot to move, and the management here feels that they can do whatever they want to do. theave no help when elevators are out. either you stay in your apartment or you have to walk down the stairs, so that is my comment. host: that is florida. tony in spring, texas, a homeowner. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a couple of comments. a few yearss house back and i moved from florida. in florida, there is a homestead, the homestead is good throughout the duration of your mortgage. when i moved here, i have to fight every of for my homestead. when i bought this house, on
just going to talk numbers, i hate to but i will. i bought this house for $146,000. me a letter,nt told me my property was worth $140,000. i bought the house from upside down, here's the problem -- i owned the house for a while, i got another letter from the county telling me my house is worth $160,000. how is that possible? what if i wanted to sell my house for one dollar? well, it is my prerogative, but instead, my house is deemed $20,000 in equity that i'm going to have to pay taxes on. that is crazy. that is my comment. host: story in "the new york times" this morning takes a look at joe, the headline -- "
fighting is taking steps toward the 2016 run, supporters say." mr. biden'say that advisers have started to reach out to democratic leaders and donors who have not yet committed to mrs. clinton or have grown concerned about what they say. host: two from california. good morning to you on our renters line. good morning to you. good morning.
thank you for your show. my comment is in escondido and the san diego area, the cost of the house these days is about $500,000, minimum. you can get one for maybe $400,000 in my day which was a considerable amount of time ago. i could buy a house in des moines, iowa, $425,000 in and that was a duplex. the cost of housing is out of and with its actual worth the lowest ownership rate in 50 years kind of plays into that. i think the tremendously high initial cost and the legal and financial responsibilities, the obligation to live and work in one area of the united states for continuedperiod -- continued time, 30 years, the
rising taxes, the cost of upkeep , and increasing insurance cost, all of these things far outweigh the benefits of ownership, and i would like to hear your comments about that., that overriding thought that the cost these days is simply not worth it. host: other people may want to respond, philadelphia homeowner, john, go ahead. caller: good morning. my name is john and i bought a house in 2011 for cash. it was lifted -- listed for 70 49, got it from re/max. the girl helped us out. i wanted to borrow $10,000 from the bank to get in $90,000 home. they would not lend me nothing. on top of what i had in the bank, anyway, i found one house $75,900 -- 70 59 and
she worked it down to 70 39 and put in new electric, gave me toward two, gave me this, i was a renter for 27 years. as a renter, you don't have to do nothing, it's like you live in the house and abuse the house, it's really what i see. anyway, my neighbor next door tells me he is a foreigner, he moved in three months before me. he must have took the arm or leg or whatever they give you, and he ends up paying 86,000 while i pay 73. our decks are connected on the back and are front wall. we are in a good neighborhood. two blocks away, my brother-in-law owns a house. he paid $140,000. three years before at the highest and of the market, next door to me is a renter and they
are paying $1000 a month. this corner of this street is renters where i live. host: we have to leave it there. i apologize only because we are out of time for this program. tomorrow's program, 50 years since the start of medicare. we will take a look at the question is it is working. two former administrators joining us, gail wilenksy and on the topic of medicare on the 50th anniversary. also, robert egge from the alzheimer's research talking about federal funding for alzheimer's research. we will look at the papers and take phone calls as "washington journal" comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow. we will see you then. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]