tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 7, 2015 12:00am-2:01am EST
plan, all of the things i've talked about. improving customer service, the my v.a. transformation, the call centers. it is now being built into performance plans. we have a lot more to do, lots of investigations currently underway. and as time goes on, you will see the results of these investigations. >> a question about cost control. what mechanisms and you put in place to control costs? how are you ensuring payments are proper and in line with fair market values? >> cost control is important. one of the things i one of the things that i believed in in the procter & gamble company, there were two things i believed would drive it. one was innovation. the v.a. is a great innovator for this country. we spend on innovation, $1.68 billion research. that research is not only critical to american medicine,
but also to the american people. secondly, productivity. productivity is critically important to us. we measure value units, which is a common measurement in the medical industry. it is a measure of productivity. our productivity is up 8% over the last year, versus a budget increase of 2.8%. i am asking for ways to improve our productivity every day. there is no question that demand is increasing for our services. i do not feel capable of going to congress and asking for more money, unless i can show them that we are trying to save money. if you look at my testimony over the last year, what you see is i told congress that we had 10 million square feet of unused space. unfortunately, it is all in somebody's congressional district. if we could close that space, that would save the v.a. and the american taxpayer $25,000 per year. please look at my testimony.
10 million square feet, $25 million a year. we are eager to work with members of congress to close that space. and we are going to have more space because we have digitized the claims process. by digitizing the process, we eliminated 5000 tons of paper. 5000 tons of paper. >> standardizing care. how will the v.a. standardized policies nationally so that the veterans will have the same access to care, no matter what v.a. they attend? the example they give is the various and limitations and qualifying criteria of caregivers, post 9/11 veterans to receive a stipend. sec. mcdonald: great question. i think i addressed it in my remarks, but let me add to it the new undersecretary for help,
one of the new leaders at v.a., this is his number one job, how to identify the current best practice in the industry and v.a. and bring all the v.a. up to the current best practice while at the same time trying to innovate to improve the best practice. let me give you an example. if you are a veteran and your address changes you have to , change your address nine different times in the v.a. there is not one backbone with every customer listed. a group ofther people all involved in this, and we are going to go to one data backbone with one list of address, which keeps track of every interaction with each of our customers. that is one example. that will cost money and will take time, but now is the time to do it. we have a new assistant secretary for the office of information technology.
her name is laverne council. i recruited her. she was the i.t. leader at johnson & johnson and dell. she knows how to do this. now is the time to get it done. >> how have the changes that you initiated with my v.a. helped to effect culture change at the department and improve morale? sec. mcdonald: again, i think i addressed that. morale is slightly better but not where we need to be. the all-employee survey was taken this year before we did the leaders developing leaders program. i think our leaders developing leaders program has been a breakthrough. we are working with noel tischi, he was jack welsh's mentor at g.e. and founder of the training university. his daughter works for the v.a. he has helped design a training
program which has been outstanding. interestingly, the leaders do the training. i do the training. sloan gibson, my west point classmate and friend of 40 years, does the training. our leaders do the training. we do not hire consultants to do the training, we train them ourselves. we have done 300. those 300 are going to go back and train their own organizations. we used videos from our 300 training. we put together a packet, a training packet, and they will go train their subordinates. some of our senior leaders will attend that training. i attended one last week in kansas city. i was thrilled with what we were re.omplishing the while i can talk about my vision need is for, what i every employee to talk about how
their vision for their organization cascades from my vision or the organizational vision. the test for any high-performing organization is, can you walk into a medical center, and ask the person in housekeeping how what they are doing that day contributes to the vision of a larger organization. that is what we are shooting for. it is like if you ask the person sweeping the floor at kennedy center what they are working on and the answer is i'm putting a man on the moon. >> hillary clinton got some attention recently when she said the v.a. scandal has not been as widespread as it has been made out to be. do you agree with her? sec. mcdonald: i told you, we have made progress, and have more work to do. [laughter] [applause] >> cnn reported that long waits continue for many v.a. patients seeking medical services. in august, more than 8000 requests for care had wait times
longer than 90 days at the phoenix v.a. why do these delays continue, and what can be done to cut down on the wait time? sec. mcdonald: 70% of veterans have a choice. they had that choice before. 78% of veterans have medicare, medicaid, their own private health insurance. 78% of veterans have a choice. they exercise that choice. today, on average, the average veteran, and of course there is no average veteran, but the average veteran uses v.a. for 34% of their medical care. only 34%. that 34% might be the hearing aids that save $4000, or the knee replacement that saves $5,000. only 34%. as we have improved our care, as we have improved our culture, as people have learned about the great things that the v.a. does,
as we have opened up more facilities, as we hire more providers, more people are coming. more people are coming, and those already in the system are looking for more of their care from the v.a. if that 34% becomes 35%, a 1% increase, i need a $1.4 billion budget increase from congress. $1.4 billion for a single percentage point. as many of you know, the budget problems we got into last year, because of a miracle hepatitis c drug that was invented in 2014-2015 -- that budget was talked about two years before that. we will have to do something with our committees to create the kind of processes that exist in business for how you have budget flexibility and agility to meet customer demands. otherwise, what will happen is as more people come into the system, if we do not get that budget flexibility, then the
appointments might not be within 30 days. maybe the average mental health appointment -- not mental health, that would be about example, but primary care appointment has to go from four days to five days, or six days because the budget is given to us by congress and the benefits are defined by congress. all we are trying to do is make the two match. >> a question about the v.a. complex in los angeles. admiral mike mullen is investigating issues. some reports suggest decades of mismanagement. how extensive are the problems, and will people be held accountable? sec. mcdonald: mike is a dear friend and he is there on my behalf. i do not quite understand the question. no, we have problems in west l.a. when i became secretary i , discovered there was a lawsuit in los angeles. there were 10 veteran plaintiffs suing the previous secretary.
the lawsuit had been going on for over four years. i discovered that that lawsuit was getting in the way up a them -- in the way of us solving problems in los angeles. i went to los angeles. we have changed the leadership in los angeles. we have hired more providers. we have strengthened our relationships with medical school affiliates, like ucla, and with new partners like u.s.c. we have created a community partnership and a master plan for the west l.a. facility now on the internet. you are welcome to comment. we have about 390 acres in los angeles. we need to use the land properly for the care of veterans, rather than having it used as a car lot and other things that were done in the past. we are moving in the right direction in los angeles. again, we have a lot of work to do. progress, but a lot of work to do.
at least we got the lawsuit, which i was able to settle, out of of the way. we have stronger partnerships, and we are moving in the right direction. and mike is being very helpful. >> it was reported that 30 v.a. systems lacked permanent directors. why is it so difficult to fill these jobs? is pay an issue? do facilities without a director suffer as a result? sec. mcdonald: i said job one is to get the right people on the bus and in the right seats on the bus. the one thing you don't want to do is put the wrong leader in the wrong place. the process does take some time. as i said, 90% of our medical centers have either new leaders or new leadership teams. i can personally vouch for each person we are putting in place. if it takes longer to do that, i'm ok with that. i want to make sure we get the best team in place and do our best to take care of veterans.
there is no substitute for leadership, and leadership does matter. >> this is a question about legislation that has been introduced to help world war ii veterans exposed to mustard gas, and help them secure compensation for their injuries if the v.a. does not help them. will it take legislation for the v.a. to compensate these veterans and their families, or is there something the v.a. can do now? secretary mcdonald: i'm trying to get the names of individuals that have suffered that. we have been collecting names, and we have a short list. i was lucky to meet, i think kimberly -- is she here? from npr? yeah. she is the one that wrote the article. i'm trying to get her list so i can marriott with our list and find out why there is a discrepancy. that is job one could we have to find the veterans that suffer through this. i'm not sure if legislation will be required. we will do everything without legislation.
i have a lot of other legislation we need. >> the new plan presented to congress to consolidate community care states explicitly that it requires congressional support and funding. how likely are we to see that plan realized and when? sec. mcdonald: as i said, great unanimity with our committees. rankings members -- ranking members and chairman said they understand the plan. the reason there are so many different ways of getting care in the community is over the years congress has passed so , many laws that layered on top of each other. each one had a different reimbursement rate, a different selection criteria, and as a result of that, you had the se seven different programs that were very difficult for veterans to understand, and very difficult for our employees to understand. similarly, you had dysfunctional or skewed incentives. i went to montana with senator
jon tester, a great guy, and he brought in a room of providers, medical professionals, and they all told me how much they loved one of the seven plans. i whispered to john and said, the reason they love that plan is because the reimbursement rates in montana are the highest for that plan. we have to get to one level of rates. we have to get one plan, easy for the veterans to understand it. we are in the customer service business, but these laws have been layered over the years. we will get this done, and get it done quickly. >> the mental health of veterans suffering from posttraumatic stress and brain injury is one of the biggest challenges that the v.a. faces. with the shortfall in mental health professionals what alternative methods are being used for veterans? viableic and art alternatives? sec. mcdonald: when i was going
through my confirmation progress, there was a very small number of senators, one or two, who said, why don't we blow up the v.a. and give out vouchers? i thought it was important for me to study that, the business guy. i discovered the v.a. is not only essential for veterans, it is essential for american medicine because we are on the cutting edge of so many treatments. and therefore, it is essential for the american public. we spent $1.8 billion on research. we did the first liver transplant. invented and did the first implantable cardiac pacemaker. it was a v.a. nurse that had the idea to connect patients with barcodes to records. the first electronic medical record. v.a. doctors invented the shingles vaccine last year. v.a. was the one that came up with the idea of taking an aspirin a day. when you have the largest integrative medical system, you can be on the cutting edge.
right now, we are leading the in precisioneffort medicine. we have a project called the million vets project with blood samples of veterans connected to 40 years of medical records, and we are doing the genome mapping of all of those blood samples. imagine the research that can be done by medical professionals to go back to the genome to understand the causality of that genome and a form of cancer. we are running seven pieces of research to figure that out. more work will be coming. without the v.a., who is going to do that? training -- the v.a. trains 70% of doctors in the country. without the v.a., who will train those doctors? it is the primary source of residency for medical schools. we need more medical schools. we are working to create a medical school at the university of nevada las vegas.
the bigger part of the problem is we need the residencies. congress is giving us more residencies with the choice act, but we need more. the v.a. is the largest employer of nurses, the largest trainer of nurses. the third leg of the stool is conical care. to deal with mental health, because we are who we are, and because we are on the cutting edge of mental health, we will try any technique any treatment , that may work. we found that acupuncture is effective with some people. we are the largest user of acupuncture in the country. we found equine therapy is effective with some users. we have equine centers around the country to use them with veterans. i could go on and on. there are many different techniques that are effective that a for-profit system will never figure out. it is up to us to figure it out, write the reports, write the research, do the literature, and create new standards of care.
one of the things we will do coming up this spring is hold a mental health summit here in d.c. we are inviting everybody who is an expert. we have already done one of these, this will be the second. we will invite the nhl, nfl, people suffering similar brain injuries so we can spread knowledge and make sure that we are all working synergistically to figure these things out, rather than at cross purposes or in a redundant way. >> this question says women veterans are often invisible to the v.a., and also the fastest growing population of the homeless. what is your plan to outreach to women vets nationwide informing them of benefits? sec. mcdonald: the question is correct. women veterans often do not identify themselves as veterans. all veterans feel inadequate because they feel there is someone who has done more than they have. we find some veterans think the word "veteran" means only if you
served in combat. some veterans think the word means only male. we are outreaching to female veterans all of the country. we are hiring more providers for female veterans, more obstetricians, gynecologists. we are also setting up women's clinics in most of our major facilities. if, who ever asked that question is in d.c., ask for the medical director and take a look at our new women's clinic. i'm quite proud of it, and think some good work is going on there for women. the same thing in atlanta, georgia. we got some space from the department of defense and set up a women's clinic. we have women's clinics going in all over the country. the questioner was right. women are 11% of veterans today, and in the not-too-distant future, 20%. >> we are almost out of time, but before i get to the last
question or two, i have some housekeeping. the national press club is the world's leading professional organization for journalists, and we fight for a free press worldwide. to find out more, go to our website, press.org. to donate to our nonprofit journalism institute, go to press.org/institute. i would like to remind you about upcoming speakers. p.j. o'rourke will discuss his at 6:30s coming tuesday p.m. the club will hold its 38 annual book club and authors night on november 17 at 5:30 p.m. we have more than 100 authors who will be here in the club, and there are so many of them that are noteworthy, i will not even begin mentioning a few of them. debra lee james, the 23rd secretary of the u.s. air force
, will speak at a club luncheon on december 2. i would now like to present our guest with the traditional national press club mug, the greatest keepsake of the national press club. [applause] you are here a year ago, so you now have your collection started. we hope you come back in a year for your third. you really have to get the larger set to get the full experience of the press club mug. mr. secretary, you have been at the v.a. more than a year now. compare the challenges of running such a large government agency with running such a large corporation as procter & gamble, as you did. how are they like, how are they different? how do the challenges differ? secretary mcdonald: the thing
that is alike is what you could call the burden of big numbers. we have 9 million veterans in our health care system regularly. if you make a mistake, .5% of the time, that is still a very big number. just like i talked about the 7 million more completed appointments, but i also talked about the tail. if you are in a place like phoenix or hampton, virginia, where the veteran's population is growing rapidly, you do not care what is happening elsewhere. you don't care about the quarter days for primary health care. big numbers is really a big deal. how do you be perfect across that system? that is why design thinking is so critical to train the organization in. secondly, one of the differences -- at procter & gamble, what we them -- while we had health care business, it was things like over-the-counter remedies. here, we are in the health care business where people have catastrophic injuries.
that also makes for a difficult situation where there is no room for errors. those are differences. a big difference for me is i spent 33 years with the company, and i had lived and worked all over the world, 16 of those years outside of the united 33 states. i lived in japan, brussels, canada, the philippines. here, i have just been on the job a little over a year. how do you compress those 33 years of knowledge and knowledge of the people in such a short period of time. when i got the question of why does it take you so long to fill a leadership vacancy, it was easy when i knew somebody for 33 years, it is a little more difficult today. those are some of the differences. >> more and more veterans are running for elected office. has this been helpful to you and the v.a.?
also, it is the campaign season. we are hearing a lot from candidates on the campaign trail. what do you think in terms of the veterans issues? are you hearing enough discussion of veterans issues out there, or not? sec. mcdonald: i'm always glad when veterans issues are raised. i wish there would be more fact checking on some of the numbers used. there are a lot of myths out there. what i have tried to do today is give you both the good and bad. the things we have accomplished, but the challenges we have. i may well leave it at that. >> as far as more candidates getting elected that are veterans, is that also helpful? sec. mcdonald: i think it is helpful when you have more people with veteran experiences that are writing laws. there is no question that we will keep moving in the
direction where very few of our elected leaders, or at least, not as many as in the past, were veterans. that is why i think it is critically important that, rather than having veterans at the center of a political issue, and using veterans as a political pawn for one party or the other to play gotcha with the president, the administration, or the department of veterans affairs it is better that we work , together. we have hearings on what we want to do in the future, rather than what happened two or three years ago when everybody wrote their questions to play gotcha. if you ask me about differences, coming from the business world, i'm just not used to this, where somebody behaves one way privately to you, and different way on camera, and they work hard to write a question that you might answer incorrectly. let's work together, all work together, all of us, including
everyone in this room strategic , partners, members of congress. let's work together to do what is right for veterans, and forget this gamesmanship. it just is not make sense. -- it just does not make sense. [applause] just to be clear, i think we have tremendous unanimity today. i will tell you, i'm not running for political office. i'm in this for only one reason. i came out of retirement for one reason, and that was to do this job. the lord has put me here to do it, and i will do it to the best of my ability. we will make the changes we need to make and let the veterans decide we have made the changes -- decide whether or not we have made the changes we need to make. [applause]
>> thank you, mr. secretary. i would also like to thank the national press club staff, including the journalism institute and broadcast center for helping to organize today's event. if you would like a copy of today's program, you can find one at the website, press.org, where you can also learn more about the national press club. thank you so much. if you could stay in your seats until the secretary leaves the room, i would appreciate that. thank you so much. we are adjourned. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accura
giving students the opportunity to discuss what important issues they want to most from the candidate. follow c-span's student can contest and wrote the white house coverage 26 gain on tv on the radio and online at c-span.org. >> with the 2016 election when your way, the american enterprise is russian about the current field of candidates and campaigns discussing the presidential race.
this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> good morning. i am a senior fellow and like to welcome to the first installment of the 2016 election watch program. as a number of you know, this is the longest running election program in washington and two of us on the panel were here when the program first began in 1982. i would like to begin by thanking the conference team who always do a wonderful job of making sure everything is in order here. also, a special thanks to my assistants who have been extremely important in preparing the handouts you have and getting this conference organized.
we invite you to join the conversation on twitter using #ai2016 and follow our handle for more insights into the 2016 election. if the tradition continues, in 367 days, 15 hours, and 16 minutes, the voters in new hampshire will go to the polls to vote at midnight. this morning, we are going to tell you what we are watching at this early stage in the 2016 campaign and why. it is a pleasure to my colleague, norm on the panel and we are delighted to be joined by the director of the policy center. henry olsen, you are here. wonderful. i am delighted you are here. i a. i'm goingntroduction,
to pose a question to each of the panelists. they will have five minutes for initial remarks. we will try to start a lightning round in which any of them can answer any of the questions. last and not least, the mesh last but not least, we will turn to your questions. like all of you, i read the polls. i think we should treat what we are seeing now with substantial skepticism. here is why. politicalto scientists, polls conducted even 300 days before an election have virtually no predictive value. that is one of many reasons polls should not be used as the standard for debate participation. their predictive power comes later in the campaign, usually around the 100-day mark. another reason to caution at this stage of the campaign is the polls cannot simulate the electorate because of the arcane rules for awarding delegates each party has. in most important finding the new poll among republicans was not that trump ben carson were tied for the lead, but rather that 35% of republicans
said they leaned to the g.o.p. and said their minds were made up. in the nbc news-wall street journal poll released tuesday, only 28% of republicans said they had definitely decided. in the new poll of republicans in new hampshire released monday, only 20% of republicans said they had definitely decided. democrats are more sure of their choices, but a substantial number say they could still change their minds. traditional polling is beset by problems. all of the final polls in the kentucky gubernatorial contest show the democrat ahead by two percentage points. by 8%.won response rates for most polls today are below 10% for even the best-designed surveys. this year, gallup and pew have been sitting on the sidelines in
terms of trial heat. in 2007 between january and november, gallup asked over 50 questions about the election looking at the candidates. we all know about the missed calls in great britain, israel, and argentina to name a few. i am not sure election polling has a future. it remains important. already, hillary has spent more than $1 million on pulling. last week, bernie sanders hired a pollster. this week, we saw another change in the polling business, again in part because of problems with the business overall. 48 years ago in 1968, cbs news conducted the first exit poll of voters leaving the polls and kentucky in that governor's grace. it has become harder for the consortium to conduct an exit poll because around one third of us vote either early or absentee. on tuesday in kentucky and mississippi, the associated
press moved forward with an experiment to reinvent the exit poll by conducting an online voter poll. in the 2014 election, they did online polling in georgia and illinois. there estimates were more accurate than the exit polls. i spoke to david pace yesterday of the a.p. and unfortunately they have not fully analyzed the results from kentucky or minute -- mississippi. online surveys cannot guarantee the people they have surveyed have voted. but a.p. is working with the national opinion research center to explore the possibility of using g.p.s. tracking on cellphones of online participants with their permission to verify they voted before asking them to participate in the online polls. candidates with high name recognition and star quality usually do better early. and then the fundamentals kick in. let me say a quick word about the fundamentals.
the jobs report this morning was encouraging. the economy added far more jobs than predicted, 271,000. the an employment rate ticked down to 5%. in part because the 2008 crash was such a powerful event in public opinion, americans have still not fully recovered. they are not confident the financial system has been fixed. while we have focused on divisions among republicans, dissatisfaction with both parties in washington runs deep. although the republicans lagged behind the democrats in terms of party favorability in virtually every survey, a new cnn opinion research poll shows slightly say they half, 52%, are angry with the way both parties have been dealing with the country's problems. said they were angry with neither. many americans share donald trumps critique that america is not great anymore.
while americans are generally oriented to the future, this nostalgia impulse is a powerful occurrence in public opinion today. this will be a major topic in our december report on virtually every question on one of the central issues in any modern election. there is a chasm between democrats and republicans on the proper role of government. what does all of this mean? nbc news and the wall street journal have asked adults six if it woulddecember be better for the country to have a democrat or republican for the nurse -- next president. people have been evenly divided. they conducted another poll in late october. they asked a separate question. 40% ind a democrat, republican. once again, the country was evenly divided. when asked in november of 2007 before our last open contest, people preferred a democrat by 10 percentage points.
since 1960, we have had five of the eight closest elections in our nation's history. now we will turn to the panelists. i will begin with michael barone. michael is one of the original authors of this 2000 page volume, one of the founders of it, the 1972 edition was the first. 1972.l barone: >> he has one of the introductory essays in the volume this year. in that essay, you say our politics are stuck in a rut. explain. michael barone: thank you. you have already explained we have had five of the closest elections in american history since 1960. one of the others was 1880. nobody remembers that in washington now that strom thurmond is not around. back over the last few
years, the last half-century, what i see is we have been in an extended period of static partisan alignments going back to the middle 1990's. it has persisted about as long as any such period in american history. voter attitudes, voter choices seem to be linked primarily more on cultural attitudes rather than economic status. the demographic factor most highly correlated with voting behavior is religion or degree of religiosity. that has resulted in a certain amount of polarization. we have had increasing numbers of people on the one hand identify as secular or nonreligious and on the other hand people who identify as evangelical, very strongly religious. this has been reflected in the degree of political polarization in attitudes.
if you look back at the last six , and intial elections the 1990's allocate the perot votes a second choices, both democrat and republicans have run between a narrow range. things,y in historical we have not seen anybody win anything like the landslide victories that when two candidates perceived as bringing peace and prosperity we saw for 19 56, 19es in 1936, 64, 1972, 1984. that has not happened. the highest percentage since 1984 in a presidential election went to george h.w. bush in 1988 , nearly equaled by barack obama in 2008. rounded off to 53%. had elections where the easiest way to predict which party is going to carry the states electoral votes is to
look at the last map. switchedy three states between parties from 2000. only two states switched between parties between 2008 and 2012. 2008,etween 2004 and which was the biggest swing, partisan swing, you get nine states out of 50 changing parties. we see the same thing in-house elections. popular vote for house of representatives, in nine of the 1994ection starting with when i think i was the first one to write there was a serious chance the republicans would win the house, the article appeared in july of the election year. almost nobody had any idea this was going to happen. we have had static numbers. republicans winning between 48-52%. democrats 42-44%, nearly
overlapping numbers. you have two exceptions. 2006 and 2008 when george w. bush's numbers plummet. and then you have democrats republicans in%, the mid to low 40's. in 2010, we swung back to the 1994-2004 range and have been there ever since in the house popular vote. this has been accompanied by increased straight ticket voting. i remember when a political scientist produced a book called "ticket splitter." ticket splitters were the key to elections. that was then, this is now. had 26 of thely 435 congressional districts voting for president of one party and congressmen of another. that is the lowest number since 1920. warren g. harding was elected in a landslide. despite this, we have had
divided government. even though you have closely divided electorate and partisan -- straight ticket voting, you have had divided government. since the 1968, but for different reasons than earlier. part of the reason is demographics. democratic voters tend to be clustered in central cities, synthetic suburbs, and university towns. a very high percentage democratic in those constituencies. that helps in the electoral college. go to equaln you population districts. i have been looking for changes. we have seen huge viewership increases, particularly in the republican debates, maybe in the democratic debates. as i look at the results of the 2015 governor races, i see the
same numbers. louisiana governor race, 56-42.ts -- it was the president last time, 56-41. sounds similar. >> this gong reminds us elderly colleague introduced us to the election series to try to keep us on time. we remember him fondly. he passed away earlier this year. this is the centennial of the new hampshire primary. when did it become important? michael barone: 1952. it existed but the results were not associated with candidates. you were just electing delegates. 52, eisenhower backers in the republican party entryman opponents of the democratic party, people rebelling what was seen as party establishments, decided to put their candidates on the ballot and that becomes a
referendum. we see that with caucuses evolving from a an old skins ring when antiwar democrats started in the 1970's to emphasize caucuses that had been perfunctory before. >> thank you, michael. we will now turn to henry olsen. you tend to think of the g.o.p. contest in terms of the title of your forthcoming book. it is available for preorder on amazon. could you explain your theory of the republican party? henry olsen: if you look at the exit polls through the 1996 republican nomination contest, you find there are four phases or factions of the republican party. they are roughly the same in terms of what type of candidates they prefer, what type of issues they prioritize, and roughly the
same as where they are concentrated in strength and weakness. those four factions are moderates and liberals that dominate in the northeast and are strong in the midwest and in california. nationally, they are about 30% of the national electric. 35% and are well over in some cases up to 50% in the states i mentioned. there is the evangelical conservatives who are extremely conservative. they dominate in the south and midwestern caucus states like iowa. there is a fiscal conservative who is a secular, the sort of person who thought steve forbes ought to be the next president. they are about 10% of the electorate nationwide. and then the group that always wins is the group that no one pays much attention to. in the polls, they say they are somewhat conservative. i think the best way of thinking
about them in washington terms is they are the sort of conservative that think john boehner is just fine. they are about 40% of the republican party. they exist in equal numbers in virtually every state and at the state and national level, they always back the winner. track this group, and you know who the next nominee is going to be. insiders versus outsiders has not been a theme a very much import throughout the last few republican cycles. a lot ofd be the idea media representatives are pushing now based on a couple of polls saying republicans prefer somebody without elected experience. i think they are using that to interpret why ben carson or donald trump are rising in the national polls. but i would say two things about that. this far out on national levels do not have a good level of productiveness. and secondly, if you dive below the top lines, the aggregate
numbers, and look at the crosstabs, the support among subgroups, you find the factional theory i advance explains every bit as well what is going on as the insider versus outsider. i think what is going to happen that havee factors affected republican nominations going back for 20 years are going to affect the same ones here, which is the very conservative factions of the republican party, people who are highly ideological and highly ofive in their rhetoric, 2/3 the republican party that is either establishment conservative or moderate liberal do not want those things. what has typically happened is the moderates and liberals and establishment conservatives back somebody who is conservative enough and they win the nomination. the only time that has not happened was in 2000 when john mccain broke through.
there, you saw the opposite. the inflammatory candidate came from the left and not be right. the conservatives lined up behind george bush, who was the heavy favorite of the very conservative group. right now, it does not look like the candidate likely to come through is a very conservative favorite like ted cruz is going to have much support outside of that group. that suggests whoever consolidates the two larger factions is going to be the nominee. the only reason ben carson is running well now is because unlike every other candidate who has profiled highly to the right in the last 20 years, he also appeals to the g.o.p. center. when you see somebody who is basically extremely low-key and extremely self-assured on tv, that is the sort of personal characteristics the boehner conservative likes unlike ted cruz or mike huckabee or rick santorum. he is much more low-key. i don't think this is going to last.
i think somebody who thinks the pyramids were built by joseph to conserve grain, there are too many of these things out there. the other thing we know about establishment conservatives is they like stability. when financial markets are in meltdown, investors flock to the 30 year bonds. when political markets are in meltdown, they flock to the conservative candidate who looks like somebody who could govern. i don't think ben carson is going to be able to stand up under that scrutiny. i don't think ted cruz will appeal to the center. that means the winner of the rubio-bush contest is going to be the nominee. >> thank you very much, henry. one more quick question for you. are there any lessons in scott walker and rick perry's demised for other candidates? sell olsen: rick perry's by date was november 2011. scott walker i think has a lot
of lessons. one is don't run as somebody you are not. scott walker is not a voluble tea party person. he ran as the tea party candidate. what became clear in the debates and why he has had an unprecedented collapse in what his supporters were being sold as was not who he was. that came through very clearly that this is not somebody who is a ted cruz who can win. i would say the first lesson from scott walker is don't run as somebody you are not when you are trying to run for national office. the other thing i think you can learn from scott walker is what worked for scott walker in the general election in wisconsin was the uncanny ability to mobilize people who generally support democrats to support him on what might be called a reform conservative platform.
nobody is trying to do that in the republican electorate now. none of the republican candidates are trying to mobilize republicans in a way that present that for the general election. the thing that made scott walker wasttractive candidate something they decided was not salable in the republican party. i think that speaks poorly for the republican party's chance to win the general election. >> thank you so much, henry. norm, we know this is the recruitment season when democratic and republican party officials are going around the country trying to get the best candidates to run. the democrats have done well on a number of key house contests. is there any chance they can ?egain the house realistically, how many seats do you think they can pick up? norman ornstein: let me say i do miss rick perry. my favorite moment was when he
was asked about what he would do about the west bank, and he said he would bring back free checking. i want to offer a moment of silence for george pataki and lindsey graham who did not even debate -- kiddie debate next time. i feel for lincoln chafee. he tried to become the alternative to hillary clinton. bernie sanders had the slogan "feel the burn." he tried to feel the chafe. [laughter] just did not work. for chris christie and mike huckabee who are now off the main stage and onto the undercard, christie said he would cross that bridge when he comes to it. [laughter] , the your question democrats have had a good recruiting said them -- season.
but it is important to realize there is a longer-term problem for democrats below the presidential level. the last done poorly two midterm contests were disasters for them. not just in congress put at the state level. the farm team, and democrats in particular look to state legislators and in some cases people who have been in other public offices to recruit to move up. it is a very thin team looking down the road. they have to hope they can turn that around. while they had a good class this ,ime and will have resources winning the house would require a set of circumstances that go beyond the candidate they have, the microlevel campaigning it would probably take a republican presidential candidate who would make some republicans yarn for
the success of barry goldwater. it would take a complete wipeout at the presidential level. that could happen in a couple of ways. henry's analysis is really terrific. i have a couple of cautions. i believe the anger level for a substantial number of we know among other things that anger is driving the electorate more than we have seen before. it is anger at the other party more than support for one's own party. on the republican side, there is a lot of anger at the party's own establishment. some of that is driven by people making a lot of money by feeling ingt anger -- feeling -- fuel that anger. if you have a process were a significant number evangelical conservatives and fiscal conservatives feel was stolen again, the ted cruz theory they keep having defeat snatched from the jaws of victory by
nominating a nice person who is just another democrat, we may see a turnout that is not quite as robust as before. the same thing would happen if you ended up with a ted cruz or donald trump or ben carson winning the nomination. i am not so sure it is going to move inexorably in another direction. but that is a topic for another day. otherwise, democrats can pick up seats this next time. if you look at the sheets, you can see how different the electorate is for a presidential election year compared to the midterm election year. that is becoming even more distinct. categories in a presidential election year that work to the advantage of democrats, and that includes people not married. it includes having more women. it includes a larger share of minorities and a larger share of younger voters. that works to the advantage of
democrats. that can help in some districts. but the structure of districts is such that if democrats managed to pick up 10 seats, that under most circumstances now would be seen as a big victory. the senate on the surface has a great chance for democrats to win back the majority. 24 seats held by republicans, only 10 held by democrats. seven of the republican seats held in states that obama won. increasingly as we see the number of swing voters decline, as we see red and blue states divide much more distinctly, as we saw with the kentucky results which reflected the fact that you are not seeing swing voters so much anymore. it is a red state and votes red. for matt bevin who was an outsider in that party to win handily, that tells you something. for democrats to win the senate, they will have to win the white
house and probably by a significant enough margin that a lot of races that are marginal would go in their direction and they don't lose states of their open seats that are also tossups. >> the second question for you. i know paul ryan is a friend of yours. he is clearly a friend of a.i. what are the strengths and weaknesses? norman ornstein: paul ryan started out well. john boehner gave him two big parting gifts. the first was negotiating this broad deal that took us past the debt ceiling debacle that could easily have resulted in disaster. but also added enough money to the budget accounts. that money itself is not going to be the big driver in confrontations in the days and weeks ahead. by doing that, it also left it open for another bill boehner
helped negotiate. that was the infrastructure bill which has to be done by november 20 or the highway trust fund basically is unable to operate. did, bringing it up which they could not do until they resolved the basics of the budget bill, was to open up the process more and have a significant number of amendments. surprisingly, 100 amendments allowed. but he moved it through expeditiously. donaldson's burger -- dawn is here and knows about how the committee operates and the dangers of opening the process more. whether ryan can continue to bring up bills along a lot of amendments, maintain some control over what happens on the floor and over those amendments, can do what the freedom caucus wants, which is the regular order. but what they want is regular order that applies to them and not to democrats or moderate republicans with amendments.
that is a challenge ahead. he is very smart. the other thing he wants to do is bring up substantive legislation that can pass and go on to the president for signature or veto. the infrastructure bill is one of those that will go for signature. most of the other things may not make it through the senate. he has a real challenge because he has promised to bring up an alternative to obamacare. we have been promised an alternative to obamacare since obamacare was enacted. we don't have a bill introduced that can be scored by the congressional budget office because it is very tough to do without being eviscerated. can he managed to do that? course, we have the other big test coming up quickly by december 11, which is will freedom caucus members and others now demand, having voted for ryan and taken a lot of flak in coming from the right for being squishy on that front,
will they demand he confront the defunding planned parenthood and adding riders that block obama executive actions on the environment and other areas that could lead to one or more partial shutdowns? if he can make his way through that, i think he has relatively smooth territory through the rest of this congress. >> , norm.ou last but not least, john fortier. john has been looking very closely at the fundamentals in the senate contests. john fortier: great, thank you. i would like to thank all of you and look forward to henry's book. is it ready for christmas where we have it in our stockings? henry olsen: it will be ready
for your stockings. [laughter] john fortier: we created a new insult. instead of being two faced you can be four-faced. i think lesson two or three old familiar faces are enough to win. i will let you follow up on that. , we have very different characteristics. we have gone through a phase last election where republicans had many more seats that they could challenge. and a date addition to the -- in addition to the number of seats, republicans did very well last election picking up extremely red states that had democratic senators. there were six states that were rock red republican states and they had open seats. republicans picked up all of them, plus north carolina and if you swing states as well. those of the prompt -- those are
the prime targets than a world that is well aligned for the republicans are holding republican seats and democrats are holding democrat seats. what does this election look like? 24 big numbers are, republicans of four election, while there are only 10 democrats of your seats. and they just looking ahead, if in thek at 2018, and is opposite direction with only eight republicans and 23 or if 25 count the independence, democrats bring you can imagine that the fundamentals are very different in these types of elections. one thing that is different about this election coming up is that there is one seat that looks like a very red seat that the republicans one last time for the democrats print that has an illinois. that is one that they should win. very difficult atmosphere because of the
character of the state. the other opportunities for democrats are swing states. some of them are democratic leaning swing states. the list is relatively long. it would be a very good win for presidential candidate" were to be a democratic way. it can imagine a big wind sweeping in. but those states are more competitive republicans will win some and lose some. wisconsin, the most endangered for republicans with ron johnson off against feingold looking to go back to the senate. florida, which is an open seat in the sense that both primaries are quite interesting. you know that was going to come out of it. bothis potentially -- sides have better and worse candidates in their primaries.
ohio, where rob portman is facing a good recruit and the side.atic democrats have done well recruiting in the senate. governor ted strickland has --win statewide. he is still a very formidable force. looking down to other states that are competitive but probably the candidates are not there to pull out the races. pennsylvania, north carolina, iowa and places like that in nevada is the one place where democrats will have to watch. it does not like michael bennet is going to get a serious challenge in if you look at the race they need four seats to win. or five seats. and the bottom line is we're looking at a senate that is more democratic emma is closer to 50 just democratic chemicals
are to 50-50. it is hard to tell at this point. karlyn bowman: john in the expert on early and absentee voting. i am wondering what we have seen since 2012 election that we will see. john fortier: the trend over time, i wrote a book on this not so long ago. the numbers have started to go up and up since then as they had been before. so the direction certainly is more rather than less on both voting by mail and voting in person. roughly 40% ore so in the midterm election according to surveys. that orprobably be slightly higher this time. a couple of trends, we have already had states like oregon and washington data voting 100% by mail. we now have the state of watches more or less that we ourselves to everyone. 95% vote by mail.
it is essentially a vote by mail date. places like massachusetts moving in that direction. more only voting, more absentee voting. the extra resting development is a couple of states moving to new modes of registration. this is because the left is excited about it. the democratic side is excited about it. in oregon it will happen in 2016 people who go to the dmv do not interact with anybody of the voting process and automatically get what on the rolls. they could act out of they want to do. in california which has adopted this fact is, but will not be quite ready to go into thousand 16, these could be significant changes in the registration of states and it may lead to other states adopting. karlyn bowman: thank you. we have all kept to our five minutes. i'm turning to what i call the lightning round. interesting no one mentioned
hillary clinton yet on the panel. let's start with a question of bernie sanders upping his compare and contrast attacks at this point with any do ask that is designed to raise questions about her honesty and integrity. how serious of a problem is this for hillary clinton? >> honesty and integrity is serious problem for hillary clinton, most voters don't think she has those qualities. whatever you want to say about her, that is not a positive when you're running for president in a general election. i think that it is interesting that bernie sanders has taken this attack. user therst of a position that he's not going to ask questions about the e-mails and so forth. he's dealing with a democratic electorate but i understand it has nearly universal positive feelings for hillary clinton and very little appetite for an idea
that she might not be honest and trustworthy. they are loyal pretty much down the line. a real path forward for bernie sanders. one of his problems obviously is that in a democratic primary overall, approximately 25% of the voters are black. to doy clinton is going very well against bernie sanders, and he is just not the kind of candidate that black voters go for. black voters tend to be pretty well now i unanimous in democratic primaries, as they have been in general elections. so, i do not see this is a game changer. karlyn bowman: interestingly in the falls, -- polls donald trump and hillary clinton are the two candidates who have the highest negative numbers on honesty and integrity. virtually tied.
norman ornstein: for bernie sanders he has chances in iowa and new hampshire. once you get past that his support just craters. look at numbers in south carolina where he is losing by almost 70 points. in iowa, theonder caucuses require people nauseous to go into a virtually tied. polling lace and site you have to go to a and stay there for several hours. it is a complicated process. in 2008, hillary clinton's campaign did not do the to get theirquired people understanding how the caucuses work and the obama people cleaned them there. this time she has a much better team. hassanders, who support tilted very young you have a lot of who likely have never been to a caucus and probably are not going to have as much staying power. if hillary wins iowa, it is pretty much over at that point. if she does not, if she loses
iowa and new hampshire, then i think there is still for anybody else. we are likely to see a democratic contest that is effectively over very early on. the republican contest, even if you get a few more candidates dropping out, that is going to have more candidates and we usually see and extending beyond what we usually have. whether it works out the way that karl rove suggested the other day, and i wrote a piece on why this time might be different, that this goes on perhaps to the convention, or at least much more into april or may remains to be seen. but if the training process, and you can see right now that candidates are looking for traction and they go after each other. my guess is that as sanders declines a little bit more he will turn away from the attacks a clinton and moved back into
substantive role, trying to pull her towards the populist left. karlyn bowman: thanks, norm. one of the things obama did in 2008, considerably expand size of iowa caucus electorate and bringing in many, many young people, and that was a key to victory. it was all done sub rosa. it is not clear to me that we will see that same thing for bernie sanders in this campaign. the primaryo calendar. henry we will start with you. who doesn't advantage? let's talk about the byzantine delegation roles. henry olsen: republican nomination is significantly influenced by rules. republicans decided that any contest between march 1st and march 15th must award their their delegates in some manner of proportionality. republicans being republicans, they have a looser definition the democrats were there visit
national standard that applies to all the contest. what that means is that if your republican voter in a state that votes during that time your vote a state thathan votes afterwards he just because your vote to delegate ratio is going to be lower. reason, ther some very conservative states of the south and the midwest have all the -- decided to lockstep vote in the proportionality. when you read the polls about ted cruz gaming, and ted cruz telling you how he was going to unite all aspects of the movement, the simple facts means he is going to walk out of all of his key states assuming that carson drops and crews and is a beneficiary, with a much smaller delegate lead and as in the states that are more heavily and list moderates, particularly those in the midwest and the northeast votes later and are
very likely and have much more winner take all approaches. somebody who wins new jersey will get 51 delegates. you will have to win four deep southern states by a large margin to get 51 delegate lead. aat that means is if there is candidate who is favored by the establishment and moderates who is not fatally wounded by march 15. the person is highly likely to win the nomination. but they will have to wait until april to be able to show that by winning an of states to the other candidates of the other candidate will drop out. karlyn bowman: one thing we should point out in those march 1 to 15 contests, eight of those states have threshold of 20%. so the delegates could be awarded only after that i percent -- 15% overall. >> let me just add to that. couple interesting things to
keep in mind, more moderate, they're not moderate, some of these establishment candidates may do very poorly in the first 4, 5, 6 contest. this --bio is likely to finished fifth in iowa. he is third in new hampshire now. it is hard to imagine him doing well now. he is not doing well in south carolina. nevada may be, but i'm not sure how many hispanic republican voters that will be. americans notcan cuban-americans. then you moved to super tuesday trunk,ou may find crews, carson doing particularly well. if you go through the first month and a half of all of these winning and you are not much, it may be very difficult for you to build any traction. there is aates where 20% threshold you can imagine that the candidates at that point will have the core 20% not leaving them start with donald trump who could win some of these winner take all states
just by getting 22%. >> one if no candidate gets more than 19%? john fortier: let me build on this. i think henry's analysis is broadly right. there is a question of which part of the electorate consolidates first? i think a lot of people are thinking that ben carson might and ted cruz may take that vote. as henry indicated, and a lot of the earlier states will be favorable to him. if that happens early that gives him and a lot of momentum. he other candidates, as mentioned on the establishment side may be more divided. the big question is donald trump. that what point do we say is he doingervative, or is he well in polling. does he become the alternative to those who can last through? >> just very quickly, i'm
assuming that ben carson is going to fade. that ben carson's polling right now if you were to sustain that through, it would be quite clue that ben carson would be the nominee because ben carson is running first among all the ideological factions, project and the evangelicals who dominate in the early voting states on march 1 and march 15. he is running first or second among the establishment conservatives. if that were to continue, it he will be the nominee. i do not think it will last. ,he question is who drops off prior to his rise. he tended to be a more evangelical candidate than in establishment candidate. at the last comers on to his bones are the first ones off, where do they look? if they're going to be for trial, they would already be for trump. if there were going to be for crews, everything we know about ted cruz suggests that there is one question that is very telling. what would you prefer in a candidate, most conservative, or
somebody who can win. little under 40% say the most conservative, and he is running third they are right now. over a majority choose the win. he gets 2%. are goingthose people to carson. when they drop off they will not look to cruise. else getson is, who that vote. i think you're going to see a very late rise by rubio. i think is finish second or third in iowa. will finish second or third or win in new hampshire because this carson goes down, those people will switch to somebody who looks more like the candidate they are backing now than the other alternatives. and right now, because of jeb bush's implosion, that looks like marco rubio. >> i am cautious about predicting who's going to come second, third or fourth inning of these primaries. just ask president romney for advice on that when making predictions. there are a couple of numbers that make me cautious.
those are 24 million and 23 million. but as the number of people were viewers of the first two republican debate. the third was held on a world series night. it got 14 million views. previous record for a republican debate with 8 million. 24 million. triple. you also had a rising democratic debate viewership but less so. the one definitive had so far, 13 million views. the previous record was 10 million. that is a 30% drop. not insignificant, but nothing like we have seen on the republican side. the republican caucus and primary electorate could be vastly expanded. norman mentioned that the 2008rats turn out in iowa about 240,000 old democrat at it the democratic caucuses. primaries and caucuses overall, 37 million voted verses 21 million and the
republican caucuses and primaries. iowa, the republicans have been getting 120,000 in their caucus. they tend to tell the a fully, they are the most evangelical republican electorate outside of the south. those numbers could change. are 600, 700 8000 people that were -- vote in the general elections in iowa. the democrats are getting twice the caucus turnout. obviously some of the increase in the debate performance, most of it was celebrity value of donald trump. the staticok at political alignment that i talk about, and then i look at the possibilities of large numbers
people participating at stages when they have not before, i'm pretty cautious about predictions. karlyn bowman: thank you. let's change the focus a little bed. how big of a factor do you think obama will be? one of the interesting things elizabeth wilner at "the cook political report t" wrote recently was that was the only one taking on obama and his. >> and in a quiet car on amtrak as well. i think incumbent president is always essential on the ballot even in an open race. if you want to throw away the details and look at political say how isels and the president doing for them and how is the economy doing in various measures, that you sense of the playing field for the race. how it will be. the president now is kind of in the middle. as numbers are up from the midterm, but they are not great. they are the 47% range.
and so the economy is kind of in the middle. at this point it points to a neutral playing field for the general election. but that could change. we are still early enough that things could get much better. we could be looking back and say these were bad economic times much so in the summer of 2016. the president's numbers will matter for hillary clinton, even though she is a different candidate. karlyn bowman: how valid you think the obama and rubio comparison is? this is one area where you should keep a close eye on paul ryan. the dissatisfaction and anger, so much focused boehner, will now be focused on mcconnell, was in large part a sense that the republican establishment leaders were letting obama just kill him over and over again. and of course it is part of the reality that if you look at lame-duck presidents, two-term
presidents in their final two years, the results are usually pretty pathetic compared to earlier times. for a whole host of reasons. your attempt tapped out with ideas, you have many fewer members of your own party in congress great you start to lose your people in your own administration and you cannot replace the very easily. your party is usually divided over the successor. people do not do want to do big things because the next person may well move in a different direction. mold at abroken that part of it is because in a polarized world, instead of having a united congress taking on a president who uses executive authority, you have democrats in congress siding with the president of the republicans. that has frustrated republicans. now will paul ryan be able to change that and reduce that frustration level?
if not then obama becomes a bigger factor. but a factor because he looms over and all and it adds to the traction for outsiders. look at what these insiders are doing to my nothing. part of the problem that brian is going to have which is the same problem that boehner had as he may well be able to mobilize the house republicans to pass some things that conservatives will like. they're going nowhere in the senate where mitch mcconnell has to try to protect kelly ayotte, mark kirk and pat toomey and others running in blue states from votes over and over again that are too extreme for those states. salt brine can navigate through that it will make it much easier for the establishment republican party. it reduces the role that obama place. otherwise obama plays a role just because he is presiding over an economy. what happens with that economy, where are we when we get close to the election. it is still going to come down to, as it always does and in open contests, do you want more
of the same, or do you want change. 's successor has a difficult time saying i am real change. without alienating members of his or her own party. karlyn bowman: anyone else? i sort of agree with both john and norms recent remarks. i would just add that the policies which obama has done, the most important policies domestic and foreign, both fall under 50%. they are not popular. we have not heard the democratic candidates in so far as we have heard them trumpeting those policies at all. to listen to the rhetoric and the democratic debates you might suppose we've been having a reactionary republican president to the last seven years
obama is a factor. karlyn bowman: we want to turn to your questions and we will ask you to identify yourself. if you could wait for the mic that will be very important . while you're think about your questions i want to ask the panel if they see a clear emerging theme or if this will be a mishmash of the economy and other things. >> i feel much more confident in predicting possible moves in the electorate 60 days from now, then i do a year from now. michael is right, american muchics has been pretty electorally divided in the same patterns at the same distributions since the 1994 gingrich revolution. going back to the presidential levels from the 1992 race, there's very little right now that suggest to me that issues will do anything else but mobilize existing consistencies and move on the margins the few
remaining swing voters that we have. >> first question right here. if you could identify yourself and wait for the mic. >> i am tom with the foreign policy discussion group. i wonder if the panel would talk about what foreign policy issues are likely to be featured in the presidential race? >> republicans have been making the argument and will continue to make the argument that across that he does not want to leave americans behind. marco rubio would make it front and center, ben carson with soft-pedal it more. that is what republican activists leave. that is what intellectual republicans generally believed rate i think you will see that sort of attack across the board. ann would be mentioned as
example of a shrinking military. syria would be an example of the red line. but they are all examples. the only way that would come up as an issue if there were a negative developments in the world that would force people to debate to that. other than that i think republicans will make the argument we are weaker than they were seven years ago and elect hillary or bernie and will be more of the same. >> the foreign policy numbers, the overall numbers of the president job approval moved up and down a little bit. but foreign policy numbers of trained -- have changed dramatically. it has not really affected his overall numbers dramatically. the one thing i would add 200 is of course republicans of the debate will focus on the malaise or weak leadership problems in the one thing they did seem to move the numbers and could be
more specifically moving things is of terrorism very directly comes up. we saw the beheadings of isis, that is when number started to move and people woke up more rather than just saying this is a weak leader. this is something you might change her vote on. >> it will be event driven, but i've been amused. there are two main lines of attack by republicans against obama. the one is he is feckless and we s pushedpolicy and get around. the other is he is like sherman racing through georgia back home while rome lookup lukens get rolled over repeatedly -- while republicans get rolled over repeatedly. it is hard to reconcile those things. there is substantial fatigue even among conservatives over boots on the ground and more wars. we may see an interesting contrast here. it may well be there is a desire stronger leadership, and i think the notion of trump that you
test me on the wrist i will cut your legs off and i will not to isis and to pull in and here is not taking note of the debate negotiations as well, that may play as a general matter. we may end up with a republican nominee who is eager to move into more aggressive military action and not create some thesions or ways inside nominating process. michael barone: i think the key moment in this second obama term in terms of public opinion of foreign policy was the execution of the american journalist james foley i believe in august 2014. before that rand paul seem to be a real threat in the race. he has not seen that sense. before that republicans were willing to accept the sequestration cuts in defense or hold down in defense spending. after that they were not.
if americans think the world is spinning out of control, as they thought in 1979, as they thought is a07 to 2008, that problem for a candidate who was formerly secretary of state. karlyn bowman: question from this side of the room. anyone here? have answered all your questions? can you wait for the mic? it's coming from back there. >> the mic is leading from behind. [laughter] >> my name is joshua. i wanted to ask mr. olson's theory where the republican's will decide the nomination. what about those who wins the general election? it seems like the panels operating under the assumption that donald trump will be around it will be a factor for a while.
it seems like a lot of the other candidates are operating under the assumption he will fade and collapse altogether and will cease to be a factor. do you think they do feel that way it is that correct? >> taking the first question. ted cruz's problem is that it's like he's working in common core math. he thinks a lot to produce the wrong answers. [laughter] not a majority of people who agree with him in the republican party much less the country as a whole. the problem why did you know when it not because they do not nominate people who are not conservative enough. it is because they do not appeal to the few training swing voters they have. conservative voters who have not voted in 2008 and 2012 because the candidate was not conservative enough that is simply not true.
there is no argument that has any degree of statistical validity or have any sort of some or two that says that somebody like ted cruz is the portion who can summon people from the deep end: how to vote. the repeat -- the reason republicans do not win is because they do not understand the moderate electorate. they do not understand what the swing voters want. holden ton to the those who do not move people the way they did in 1981 the republican party stopped running the 1980 campaign which was effectively what romney did just without charisma or detail. they start to run a campaign that reflects real issues today. candidateu will see a that comes out of the conservative wing and win a general election. until that happens it does not happen.
wrong it isso flat really shocking that he continues to get seriously played about. >> i can make an argument in the other direction. i'm not sure i agree with you but i can make an argument. [laughter] we are in a time of declining turnout. the image a lot of people in this is there a huge surge of people who voted for obama. way of a fairly accurate looking at it but it has not been true sense. turnout is been down in 2012. it was down in 2014. it is declining turnout. 2015 elections, and we see record lows in the governor races. admittedly, republican states. work if you get your voters out and the
democrats do not get theirs out as they have been having increasingly difficulty in doing. 2012 numbers. down from 08.as reverse those numbers, and the republicans win. that would be my defense of the cruise argument. john fortier: i want to take on the second question about top rump and whether he will fade. most people look at trump would have thought, a number of the things he has said would call use him to implode. andcarson halves not figured out, and i think a lot of that support starts to fall away. i would not be shocked if donald trump would implode, but he does have a record greater love people do not like him but he has a lot of people who like and after being known at having these gas. that is likely to stick around at some level for a while rate
-- for a while. >> just quickly on the trump thing. trump draws very much like blue-collar protest candidates do in europe. which is to say he has gets lots of people in high education backgrounds who strongly dislike him but he is very passionate some board. i do not think he is going to collapse. i could easily see him be like the you cap party and britain were they were pulling 16% in the time before, but when it became a serious vote, and number of those people decided to hold their nose and vote for the tory. i can see trump pulling 23%, going down to 15% and a little bit less in iowa. he will not implode, but he could very well draw. >> remember trump is putting money into organization in early states. he has a campaign now. seen, aon, as we have
lot of the money is going to carson allies who are making a fortune out of this campaign. that is not seem to be much infrastructure. make changes but it is getting late to the let infrastructure. there is no infrastructure there. trump is building. i believe the anger level out there at the establishment is high enough rate my guess is it is worth digging into the conservatives a little more as well. people are reading the same things and hearing the same things from their neighbors that support for outsiders may be a little more persistent than we have seen before. karlyn bowman: speaking of organization the post reported that cruz at 77,000 volunteers and 6000 in the first four states the organization could be important. >> bryan harvey, i'm uninformed american political science association congressional fellow.
as you are looking at the press coverage on all sides, do you think a different lens is being used when they look at the candidates? side, donaldican trump, dr. carson are not seen a serious candidates and on the democratic side bernie sanders has been billed as a progressive alternative to hillary clinton. people who know bernie sanders from his days as the socialist mayor of early to know how andomically depressed burlington did not thrive under his leadership. do you think there is a disconnect or a different standard being used? the second part is why do you think people are so quick to who for many bush, people really is the most thoughtful candidate and is really the most presidential? when will the silly season be er and many have the bush and clinton race many are looking forward to? >> on the first question bernie
sanders was a mayor and has been a senator, and a member of the house that before that. and has had some legislation in the veterans area go through in a bipartisan way. donald trump and ben carson have never served in any office there going to look at them in a different way. when you're looking at one side where there are two main candidates, and the other where there are a bunch about theirs, you will get different lens that are used. i would say for donald trump, you could change the name of cnn to tnn. it is the trump news network. all of the others -- they have given him billions of dollars of free publicity. it is a different standard. i'm sure other candidates would say lee's judge me by that standard. as for bush, i do think we are going to see, this is all driven by press narratives. a lot of the narratives are the deathwatch. they love the deathwatch narrative.
and then they love the resurrection narrative. we are into the resurrection narrative now. this becomes ritual because if bush can stay alive through early contests, we are going to get to a super tuesday where we know that john kasich him if he is there is going to win ohio and all of those delegates. these western in states, if bush and revealed on each other out in florida, is completely alters context of is nowce for rubio who facing scrutiny that comes when you begin to move to an upper tier. that is a danger. it is a little early. he did not want this happening. it becomes a very different matter if you have several establishment candidates hitting at each other. mitt romney got a way with having nobody in that category. think jeff has been running
a four campaign but is not a technical thing. michael dukakis had the fish rots from the head down, and this is the guy who basically has been retired from politics for a decade. the american political scene has changed dramatically in tone and substance since the last time jeb bush was involved. he has not adapted to it. abby is trying to adapt to it and he can see -- he needs compassion so you shouting into microphones. this is a guy who is more likely john this cycle's connally, spending tons of money, and getting very few delegates despite having a lot of media and establishment. you look at polls and they are very consistently showing that a third of the republican party loan jeb bush. debt when you start
with a third of the parties will vote for anybody but you. h that is a problem. only candidate who regularly gets pasted no matter ask.state u.s. -- you maybe you can go a little further with bush because he has not only thelf candidate who might have a foot part of theal republican party and the establishment conservatives, he really has only feet in the literal and most far left of the party. if you look at polling, marco rubio has some support in that more left-wing. it is hard to get out of that. he was a conservative governor and anyways, but he does not emphasize those things. how to back oneself out of being
seen not just as conservative, to the mostfeeling left voters in republican primaries are hard thing to get out of. karlyn bowman: are there any questions back in this part of the room? and then unfortunately are going to have to shut this down. this gentleman right here. make it brief. we only have a few minutes. >> fulbright scholar, johns hopkins. last week i attended book launch talking about the american political dynasties from adams to clinton. i have a question about the candidates who have capacity to experience. one is from a nonfamily, the other is from a family that is a
political dynasty. which one would americans agree with? >> it's very large countries that are electoral democracies have had dynastic leaders, elected in. we see japan, you have the current prime minister that has pictures with his fan death grandfather the prime minister. taiwan, philippines, indonesia, india, and so forth. my interpretation of that is that people in a large country do not know the candidates first. they do not know anybody that does. if you are trying to assess if you know helps the family. on the other hand, back in the 80's when bush was running for the house isent by that the bush had lived in.
the nicest of them was a little modest ranch house. the idea that three of the future presidency were living there in the 1950's strikes me as really weird. i think that is a problem. obviously the republicans were to nominate jeb bush, they forfeit the idea that you can campaign against hillary clinton as old stuff, a remembrance of the past or the future. i used to say jeb bush was the best republican conservative government in america and the last 10 years. now i have to extend it to 20 years, which suggests this problem. karlyn bowman: thank you. we will be back in february at a nd i want to thank the team. it
>> washington journal continues. >> here are the employment numbers for october for the united states. in october the unemployment rate is 5%. 271,000.d this is the commissioner of the bureau of labor statistics. how are these numbers put together and what do they mean? numbers come from two separate surveys. and then a very separate survey of almost 590,000 worksites across the country who voluntarily report to us whether payrolls are so we can keep track of what employment is.
often when these numbers bye out they are preceded predictions are ask and ask. do you make this predictions? >> we do not. anyone is entitled to make predictions and many people do. host: what do these numbers it to you? showese numbers seem to the labor market moving in the right direction. i think this latest number will give us some comfort to some policymakers. so the number of jobs added that was positive? >> we survey economists to find our they think they'll be.
certainly no one did number about 200,000. it might say that we got a little bit of bounce back for the retirement. >> when you look at the past the pastthey fit into year? was it then link the past year? it's deftly a strong number and at the pays more like we were seeing in what we've been seeing so far in 2015. this one is very healthy in a number of ways. it is the highest number that we have so far. so it particularly is strong that we haveows the sectors. we were seeing a lot of job growth in the past.
it's very service center. do you cover government employment as well? guest: yes it's in here. .e can turn to a chart were going to throw a lot of numbers at you. we will put the phone numbers on the screen because we want your participation. you will see a lot of words and a lot of numbers on the screen. we have broken the phone lines down a little bit differently because it's an effective way of getting different voices on. select the phone numbers up. let me read through those. 2202 is very good for all of them. if you are unemployed and want
to hear you from you at 202-748-8000 if you've recently been hired 202-748-8001. for those of002 you. looking for work and then finally all others 202-748-8003. let's go through chart number one employment in total. guest: it's difficult to count employment on farms because they're scattered around and they have so many household the national agricultural statistical service tracks that. we do not track that. host: so this is employment october 2015.
31,000 jobs were added in construction. write the blue bar show you the jobs added in the gray bar next to them shows you the 12 month average prior to that to give you an idea of how typical this is. host: so this is where the gray bar ends in construction but will guest: that's right. we got a real verse host: this is just october. is just october. and this is concentrated in nonresidential, specialty trades. commercial hvac office buildings and things like that. there was a big burst of 31,000 jobs in construction.
78,000 jobs added. guest: this again is a big burst. these are people like architectural and engineering services computing systems. also temporary halt. all of these have significant increases. host: education and health. healthdriven mostly by which is given us a lot of growth in the past years. the one is more similar to pattern we have been seeing. a growth in both ambulatory health care services in the hospitals. these are in hospitality also growing. guest: very strongly. general merchandise stores at a real bump up.
in hospitality this was almost all food services and drinking places. numbers, wasthese your analysis? >> a few different things. i think the construction number jumps out to me as a very strong positive. it suggests that there might be some more energy or momentum behind it. mining and logging is pretty easy to explain. that incorporates the energy industry. he see gas prices down in oil prices down this lesson videos and in that area. leisure hospitality and retail is a mixed bag. , atne hand it's positive
the same time this tend to be lower wage jobs. this people are not -- better we have to got back to reinventing the economy. health care certainly continues to be a real driver employment in this country. i will show you these charts. civilian unemployment rate. here we are in the recession 2008 at nine workers out. if you look at this chart and looks like really good news. guest: it is. 5.0% isone this month half the unemployment rate that we saw in october 2000 and nine which was the peak right after the end of the session. is the official recession. set by the bureau of economic research. host: if we take that money so.ared to this one 6% or
laborlook at civilian participation. if you notice this participation rate for october 2015 was 62 point 4%. was this number? isst: the participation rate the working age population. they're either working or looking for work. this is a very different pattern unemployment rate. it has a pattern all its own and that's largely because very strongly influenced by demographic trends. trends inong downward the participation rate ever
hase we baby boomers started to retire. we see less of an influence from the business cycle and more of an influence from demographics. host: this is the lowest participation rate in the labor septembere guest: 1977. >> i think they'll be part of the story. but i also suggest that it shows the number of folks outside the labor force for different reasons. one might be of their students. some people may retire early. i am also -- if you look at the number one reason folks are not in the labor force, one of the top reasons disability. that may suggest that they are receiving social security disability benefits. it may be an impediment. they may say i will set aside those benefits and go back to
the workforce. but for minimum-wage job it may not make sense. when you see that 5% unemployment figure as a reporter for the wall street journal, what do you also see. >> 5% is a very solid figure. to zero.r never gets i think when you look at things like registration rate. employers at 5%'s with seen wages increasing and worker shortages. that's not happening across all industry.
guest: this one is marginally attached. [applause] -- [laughter] host: people not in the labor force -- the indicator. marginally attached is jargon for a group of people who have looked for work within the past 12 months and say they want to job but have not looked within the past month. who were the people think will be most likely to be pulled back into the labor market conditions were better.
these are people who are not in the 5%. they are not employed. webe counted as unemployed want some evidence that they are really serious about looking for they must have done something actively in the past month. if they haven't done anything --ively then they are in the they are not in the labor force category we still want to know if anybody job. when you can see is that there was a big increase in fees marginally attached folks during the recession. since 2011 and it has really been trending down. the source of gotten for back into the labor force. they have not gotten all the way to where they were before the recession. discouraged?
guest: they are a subset of marginally attached and they say the reason they're not looking for work is that they are discouraged. they don't think there is a job out there for them. host: and these numbers around six or 700,000. guest: both of these were unchanged over the month but they've been trending down. is thing to realize there that any decline in labor force participation can be driven by an increase of these numbers. they're coming down. >> when i would look at is how the marginally attached number to the recession before this light blue bar. you see a half-mon