tv Discussion on Campaign 2016 CSPAN May 4, 2016 8:19pm-9:38pm EDT
vacuum was filled by rival regional powers, and we have isis now. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on q&a. >> now, a panel of political discusses the 2016 elections. they discussed presidential and congressional races and the state of the republican party. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> good morning. ims senior fellow here, and i would like to welcome all of you
. i will be joined today by external. lists. extremely panelists. yesterday, indiana held its competitive presidential primary in 40 years. little did we know how consequential it was. this morning, we will be discussing the results and what we will be watching going forward. like to step back and talk a little bit about what we learned from the voters thus far. polls about the general election have some predictive value at this point, but they are much more valuable, obviously, as we
get closer to the campaign. trump cited anald poll in which he led hillary clinton by three points. what he did not say is that in 60 of the most recent polls on clear politics, he led in only three. we will be talking about the state of the gop in a few minutes, but let me turn quickly to what we have learned about caucus and primary voters. in every state except iowa, voters in gop contest have been more conservative than they were in 2008. in every state, voters in democratic contests, have been more liberal. 2008, according to an abc analyst, liberals were 39% of voters there. in every state except vermont and new hampshire, a majority or
plurality of voters in democratic contests have said to the next president should continue obama's policy. in vermont and new hampshire, more voters wanted the next president to be more liberal in his policy. in all of these contest, a significant chunk of voters to be morepresident liberal. in every poll, the economy has been the top issue. in vermont, not surprisingly, the economy tied with income inequality. health care has been tied for second place in most states. terrorism ranked behind each of these issues for democrats everywhere. ,n 13 democratic contests voters said the economic system favors the rich. in new york and a few other states, voters have been asked about wall street.
york, 60 3% said wall street hurts the economy. -- 63% said wall street hurts the economy. only 30% said that it helped. 87% of voters in new york said they were worried about the direction of the u.s. economy in the next figures. that is a fairly familiar finding. voters in the new york gop primary also agreed that wall street hurts the u.s. economy, but more narrowly. 48% gave that response. on the gop side, where they asked the question, between 63-70% of republicans favored a temporary ban on muslims who are not u.s. citizens from entering the country. wherey two of 19 states republican voters were asked about immigration did majorities favor deporting illegal immigrants working in the united states. in 18 states, solid pluralities or majorities of voters in gop contest said illegal immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for legal status. in 15 of 16 states where they asked the question, half were
more voters -- half or more voters felt betrayed, and many of them were angry. ted cruz won the evangelical vote in eight of the 12 states. trump won them in the rest. including indiana, where they were 60% of all voters. the exit pollsters asked about trade in seven democratic contests. with the exception of ohio, where a majority said it takes away jobs voters in the , democratic contests were evenly split. they asked about trade in six gop contests, and in every case the majority said it takes away , jobs. in every case, more republicans than democrats said trade takes away jobs. thus far, hillary has won fewer total votes the van -- votes
garnered when she lost in 2008. there are other fascinating stories from the exit polls. it should come out in late may. i should give a special thanks thanks to heather sims and eleanor o'nel. eleanor is the delegate tracker throughout the campaign and kept us on top of convention rules and heather and eleanor are essential helping me put out aei's political report. a few final notes. the exit poll in indiana had fascinating results last night that point to problems for trump and clinton in the future. 26% of the voters who didn't vote for trump said they wouldn't support him. 59% of indiana gop voters said they wanted a candidate outside the establishment, a key to trump's appeal, yet 24% of the indiana gop voters said they would be scared if he won and 18%, concerned. he won women by six points, but men by 26.
the gender gap and marriage gap will be problems for him in the fall particularly among white women. hillary still has a big problem with men. bernie sanders did extremely well in indiana last night among young people. the indiana poll again pnted to -- pointed to hillary's weaknesses on honesty and integrity and on compassion, on caring about people like you and me. 3/4 of democrats said they expected her to win. that is just a quick summary of some of the interesting highlights from the exit poll. now i am going to turn to michael baran, and we would like you to look back. how did trump do it? i looked back at the polls this morning, and in may, a month before he had been -- and announced he was running, he was at 3% in the republican field. how did he do it? >> thank you very much. will look at we
the republican who won the convention in 1856 -- mark shields was at that convention. he can remember that for you. i did not make it until 1860. one of the interesting things is here by my definition of presumptive nominee, one who has a majority of delegates in hand, committed, or on the way to getting them without visible opposition, the republican party has a presumptive nominee before the democratic party. donald trump meets that definition. hillary clinton doesn't. she certainly will within the next few weeks barring something utterly unbelievable, but nonetheless, she still has opposition from bernie sanders. she failed to carry indiana, a state she carried eight years ago. so, we're going to have to wait, i guess, until june 7 for her to be the presumptive nominee, as donald trump is for the republican party.
one way you can look at the outcome of both party raises is -- races is that both parties would have been better served, at least from the point of view of traditional leaders if they adopted the other parties delegate allocation rules. [laughter] well, you laugh. there is some people on both the democratic and republican parties that are crying about this. but, the trump, who spent much of the month of april complaining about reading the -- rigging rules, and so forth, has been a huge beneficiary of the rules of the republican party, which are designed for a party that has a solid core of supporters thought would usually find plurality winners of early primaries to be acceptable. that has not been a dcription of the republican party this year, but it enables donald trump to amass a big delegate lead without winning the majority of
voters in any contest between february 1 and april 19. he got 35% in new hampshire, a big win. 33% in the main caucus was a loss. 32% of the vote in south carolina. that would have been a loser next door in north carolina or virginia. he got 36% -- a win in michigan. next door in ohio 36%, was a , loss for donald trump. so, when he gets combined opposition, he has, on occasion, failed to win the votes, as he did in ohio against john kasich or against ted cruz in wisconsin. i think what we have seen is that in the month of april, and in the time between april 5 and may 3, you have a significant quantum of republican voters seems to have been turned off by the idea of a contested convention, by the idea of ted
cruz and john kasich making a deal to emphasize different states, states where donald trump had one or had gotten pluralities. you see, not only in the northeastern states, the six northeastern states that voted where donald trump got a majority for the first time. then he does so in indiana in contrast to the surrounding states with somewhat similar demographics. that represents a clear change in opinion. i see your similarities between coalitionsnd clinton . clinton is on the way to winning her nomination. they have gotten bedrock support from their parties. blacks, southern blacks have
provided almost all of the plurality of hillary clinton's plurality or majority of the popular vote for her. by college-educated whites -- non-college-educated whites have provided that truck support for donald trump. both candidates have run badly degrees of of high social connectedness. social capital. badly fors have done donald trump and for hillary clinton. done veryem have poorly and caucuses. much worse in caucuses which require a certain amount of artistic patient -- of participation. both clinton and trump have run strongest of the northeast and south and have run rather ta llidly in the midwest with the exception of trump and indiana.
indiana. what does that say about the general election? if you take the national polling numbers, hillary clinton is leading donald trump 47-40. you have very high negatives. about trump is running at 65% negative. hillary clinton is running at about 56% negative. my own view is that this is not proven to be a good year to say things could never happen. [laughter] norm may have been innocent of the offense of saying something could never happen and that has happened, most of us have fallen afoul of that. but that the general election, when you have two candidates entering the race who seem to be universally known and have high whichves, how you predict
negatives be deposited? polls whichw recent seems to show a lot of people who have qualified as likely voters, not voting, and that is not totally inconsistent. an idea an eye land -- that democratic turnout is surging, but it is going down to 2008. republican turnout has not been going up either, but we saw in indiana, the democratic turnout was 600,000 and the republican turnout was 1,200,000. the opposite if you contrast indiana in 2008 and republican 2012 races where the numbers are the other way around. that hillary clinton doing very poorly with voters in the
primaries but you need them in the general election. will they? consequently, if donald trump, if people could change their minds in the five weeks between among5 and may 3 republican primary voters, i would not rule out the possibility, although it seems less likely, of some people who say they would never vote for him in a million years changing their minds between now and november. >> thank you very much. trumphould the numbeever forces do now and is there any reason for ted cruz and marco rubio to hold onto the delegates? >> it is an amazing situation we find ourselves in. a year ago, none of us would have predicted this. there has been talk of hair, bad things said back and forth and with the sudden exit, it is all over.
but enough about kelly ripa and michael strahan. [laughter] a couple things, i want to start out on the amazing fact that donald trump is the nominee and the fact that he really does come at the gop electorate from a different access and that i think is what confused us all. a fine book, the four faces of the republican party. i think you might be adding a fifth phase. the reason is he comes across categories and this issue of immigration. that has to what he talked about at first. when we realized that the people who describe themselves as the republicans, it has residents across all of them. he has found a way to activate them. it's it is very different. this is intentions with what a lot of republicans had been
taking after the 2012 election. the demographic future of the republican party has some challenges. reaching out to hispanics and other groups will be part of the republican future, but i do think it makes us realize that the republican party has been moving this way a bit. a group of people that can be activated and if you look at europe, there are all sorts of arrangements and european countries with more parties were not immigration and more center-right parties and in collision. i think the republican party will have to wrestle with these things and they will have to do with the demographic problems. finding a way to a forward will be the big issue for republicans in the long-term. in? trump w there will be more coalescing around trump. john kasich will not stay in the race much longer. ted cruz is out. there are people who put
themselves on the record to be against trump. they will have a hard time walking back. there is going to be a lot of coalescing around trump. we should wait and see, on these vegetables, we are very early. , we are verylls early. donald trump will get some new voters. he's also going to lose some votes. he has high negatives. as a looking ahead, we would wonder whether it is a net gain or debt loss. -- net loss. i'm not convinced it is a disaster as many republicans are worried. i think the mix of what he gains and what he loses is yet to be seen. two other topics, i'm usually want to downplay the vice president of selection in terms of the politics of it. it really has a great effect on the race.
at best, you can usually hope for a state to be held a point or two if you are lucky. i think it is interesting this time, a couple reasons, a report on vice president joe selection to encourage the candidates to be serious about it and take the time to do it and find someone who is substantial, a couple dangers. hillary clinton, issued going to pick someone inexperienced because she is so experienced? it balances her in a way. it makes her look good? she will have to ask the question of whether she makes her left supporters happy? i don't think elizabeth born will take that position or sherrod brown or someone who leans more left. or does she feel confident enough who is more the center of her party. on the republican side, i do not have a answer. this is an opportunity for him to do more to unify or solidify
himself and the republican party. there are some who will want to run with him. it is an opportunity for him to do that. my last point, i delegate selection, what i was originally going to talk about, the convention things that could've happened, things have overtaken us. in many ways, the cat is out of de bag in terms of the small democratic character of primaries. i do not think we will see a big rethinking on both sides. it depends on how comfortable the nominees feel on who wins the presidency and what the parties are looking at. i do think the very insider process, the ones donald trump was complaining about. the uncommitted delegates and the conventions and ways in which the actual selection of the dumbest -- delegates go on. many of us do not pay attention to.
andd time going to states figure out who these delegates were. that will get more scrutiny. superdelegates will be raised on the them credit for. a move towards more democracy position -- democratization. their options for stopping donald trump are not that great. thank you very much, john. not to henry. to talk about the soul of both political parties and what we have learned at this point and whether donald trump can unite the party or whether they will be a third challenge -- party challenge. talking about the soul of the republican party. i can imagine norm saying that -- [laughter] of course, the devil has already made his appearance in the race.
i like to describe a somewhat conservatives as the affection that perverse -- prefer john boehner rather than the staunch conservatives. john boehner appears in the week completioncruz's comparison of his life -- competition up his sleeve. he called him lucifer. this shows that the republican party does not suffer from a sole deficit, it suffers from a surface. they are not suffering from soulless or bad so, but a multiple personality disorder. person who is disordered because of multiple personalities, they cannot coexist in the same body as the
body currently understands it. unless and until a choice is made by the different factions in the republican party that they must try and get along not, the republican party will continue to descend into disorder. this is possible, but it is harder than many would like to make it seem. what we see, i did my most the donalde calls trump faction the fifth face of the republican faction. k differents as questions and what different things than the republican factions that have been fighting each other for the last 40 years. even within the factions that have been fighting, there is strong disagreement. one way to look at it is to look
moste mistreatment -- recent typology and you can very roughly say that what we see in the race right now is three of those groups vying for domino's. the staunch conservatives in the business conservatives and the hard-pressed skeptics, the lookinge whites who are for trump. in any situation where you have roughly three factions, the easiest thing to do is to on one. then what happens to the third? 2 you look at the data, the on 1 would be very strong. they are largely in agreement on the trade but strongly disagreement with the business conservatives.
they're proposing this as a populist conservative alliance. this alliance -- looks at trade and immigration as gateway drugs to conservatism. if we give them immigration and trent, they will come over to immigration and trade, they will come over to our side. is, those voters don't want those things. this is where the business conservatives and the staunch conservatives have agreement. of business conservatives and 90% of staunch conservatives agree with the question that government is doing too much. hard-pressed skeptics think government is doing too little and that is part of the trump appeal. not that the government is to shrink and get out of the way, but the problem with government is it is not standing up for the people it ought to stand up for. the problem is government should be serving the average person
who deserves something because of their citizenship and that the government has abandoned citizens in favor of noncitizens. that is what unites all the points he talks about. i call it a form of nationalism. nationalism with expansion. a sense that citizenship matters. being an american entitled to not do a check, but to consideration. what elites in both parties have done is failed to give consideration to the plight of people who are being hurt by policies of elites. that makes this group a swing group which is one reason why you have seen turnout in 2008 up with democrats and in places like europe, the people who eventually settle the right-wing populist party try out the establishment party first.
labour 2005, labor 2010 and that is convinced no one cares. the task for republicans going of whether you want to hang together or hang separately. each of these groups have something more in common with each other than they have with the other groups, that if they do not get along, they will all hang separately because the natural demographic advantage that the democratic coalition has. it is impossible to put this group together without incorporating some idea of citizenship and nationality as a central obligating factor. this is not unusual. every successful conservative party in europe and anglosphere comes to the idea that some form of citizenship and nationalism is in fact essential to going from a minority of well-off
individualists to a majority that appeals to people throughout the class structure. this approach will help us as republicans do with the democratic question. if one must appeal to latinos, you must appeal to them as you have them. they're people because of their socioeconomic structure and where they come from, expect an active role of government. they do not expect socialism. they do expect getting government out of the way and letting the private sector work will not help them. nationalism form of and obligatory citizenship as a compliment to the existing republican structure will unite these groups. it will do what lincoln did in 1960 putting together people who disagreed with each other on tariffs and immigration, but could agree that slavery was wrong. it will do what nixon did after the debacle of 1964. taking modulated approach to
what goldwater race. started to think that divided and included the things that united food has set them on a party past accommodation with reagan. may the republican party relevant and the dominant party for 36 years. if the republican party views this as an opportunity to unite, the republican party will surprise virtually everyone in this town and once again become a dominant, more class placed, more secure party in control than it has been since the great depression which was the last time it adopted across class economic as it. if it fails to do this, well, we should expect a democratic party that will pursue what it believes is its natural course. we should expect a 16-20 year reign of democratic party until the republican party remakes itself and we should expect many conservative intellectuals to
discover the wonderful seafood of new zealand. [laughter] >> any thoughts on the soul of the democratic party? the democrats have their own divisions and i think the soul of the democratic party is less acutely in play right now because, precisely, their divisions have worked out in previous election. the day of reckoning is coming. which is to say there are elements in the democratic party that, while not within congress equally irreconcilable. people who say barack obama is a sellout, the people who will never be satisfied with anything purity, buto, -- that day is coming. >> thank you.
norm, i wanted to tell us a little bit about what the trump agreements for the down ballot races. he said last night that ted cruz has a great future. you agree? >> ted cruz who called donald trump a pathological liar, serial adulterer, and that played the hero disease card which one -- leads one to believe there is a new phrase meaning feel the bern. one has to think about what happens if donald trump loses and there is a struggle for the soul of the party that henry is talking about. you will see a number of factions. the fact that ted cruz lost so badly in indiana and had to pull out immediately reduces his traction as the leader of the
wing with the theme that he had pursued, we keep losing because we nominate these moderates like mccain and romney and now we nominated a liberal like donald trump. someone is going to pick up that baton. the freedom caucus of the wing of the party. if donald trump loses, and especially if we see this movement which i think is likely to pull apart of having an independent candidate, the theory being that if you have a real conservative running out there, at least republicans will turn out and vote down ballot, if that happens that donald trump is going to say, another conspiracy, the elites disturbing. the populist forces will have some traction. the third force, which may be the weakest, the establishment leaders in congress and the party as a whole who have failed so badly at this point.
i would say that nobody should take any comfort in this kind of struggle. marcus he not work unless you have two vibrant parties -- democracy does not work unless you have two vibrant parties to compete. it is not a healthy thing. night have a republican party that is donald trump's party and given his hair, i think they should change the name to the party.party -- wig [laughter] let me make one observation. those of you who have was into my colleagues to compare it to the simplistic and shallow dribble that dominates most cable television dialogue. toould to give a shout out carlin, heather sims, ellen who put the materials together and decide what we are going to talk about. we are very proud to be a part of this election watch series.
that, what is going to happen down ballot. this is a really difficult year for republicans in the senate. we knew that going in. we know the rhythm of senate election. was up six years ago. the numbers were very much republicans. 24 senate seats, 10 democrats up. because of the wave that occurred six years ago, that means you have a lot of republicans who are naturally vulnerable. they are in blue states. there are seven of them. others.e it means the democrats about the difficult election and you will not find many vulnerable to. what is happening now with donald trump and the discord in the republican party is that the number of seats that are now in play on the republican side have expanded. it has expanded for a number of
reasons. what is striking to me yesterday is that mark salter, who has been a close advisor and a two john mccain, co-author of the best on books john mccain has done, has said that's it for me, i'm voting for her. for john mccain, when you have a republican candidate who said waterboarding is not enough, we are going to go for real torture and kill their families at the same time, this has to be a difficult moment. in a state where arizona itself may be in play, and you have a guy who is been around for a long time and has plenty of enemies and his party, you have to say arizona is in play. grassley in iowa, having taken the stand he has as chairman of the judiciary committee has seen his support declined significantly and all of a sudden, i was in play. is in play.
if you put that together with the seats on the chart where we know which seats are in the tossup category, the open seat florida the marco rubio is giving up, the seat in illinois, rob portman in ohio, pat toomey in pennsylvania, ron johnson in wisconsin, you have a whole lot of seats that could potentially change hands and on the democratic side you only have nevada. which is harry reid's open seat. given what may well be a significant uptick in hispanic turnout, i think the odds are reasonably good that democrats to its majority of the senate. then we just have to point out that the worm turned sharply in 2018 as the chart shows. your 24 democrats up and a lot of them invulnerable places.
it's hillary clinton wins the white house, there's likely to be, as there always is, a set of headwinds for democrats to begin with. the democratic tenure is likely to be a relatively short one. in the house of representatives, what is striking here. we have a short that shows all the seats that you could potentially put in the tossup category. 103 thats end up with end up being upsets that are there. -- 1-3 that end up being upsets. you look at that and you could say, all of a sudden it everything falls apart for the republicans, and i have to say it will not work that way, our politics have become so tribal that in the end, i think we are going to see a lot of people. i'm waiting to see how ted cruz makes the pivot from pathological liar to i'm going to support the sky.
-- this guy. >> their wives could have lunch together. [laughter] could have all the ex-wives and have a unity lunch. rubio giving him a template on how you can make that today. a whole lot of people are going to be making that pivot and it may not cannot be quite as dire as it looks. that there is another factor that we have to keep in mind. the koch brothers and their alies amassed a war chest of hundred-$900 million. they have artie spent some of that on building -- already spent some of that building a boat or a dedication -- voter identification. at a lot of the money will go to house and senate races and identified republican voters and making sure they turnout and telling them, do whatever you
want the presidential level, just protect our last line of defense. that is good be a lot of money and a sophisticated effort. i would say, get it back to henry's point, it raises another interesting and somewhat troubling element, donald trump is not going to take his chairman of the national republican committee. he would not have complete control over the members of the rnc, most of whom will not be warm towards him. through the ongoing fully struggle for the party. you will have a parallel structure being built outside. short-term,, the koch brothers and allies have been recruiting candidates in primaries and doing what a party organization does. are a number of fronts. if the democrats somehow pull off a stunning upset and won a majority of the house in winning
30 seats is still a very serious battle, -- uphill anyone who thinks that will lead to a wave of legislation is missing the boat here. democrats when the house, that means they're going to have 20-25 members who wanted districts are much more republican and in the midterms, they are in deep trouble. the idea that they will go out on long limbs to vote for sweeping education given the history of embers of the house who run scared will be a challenge and republicans are going to be united in opposition. i would add that whether they win the house or tone, if republicans want to the majority, that small majority, if you look at the republican seat being vacated and those that are most in jeopardy, they are the remaining somewhat conservative -- very
conservative, you put together york,ee's eldon of new these are the people who are going. and the freedom caucus forces will have a higher proportion and more leverage in the house of representatives. paul ryan, who you will recall that at a trump rally in wisconsin had people yelling out paul rino. the idea that the most conservative speaker is viewed as a rino, with all these other challenges, if they lose the white house, means that congress is going to be a very interesting and not terribly edifying place, whether it is for the next president, or for the rest of us. ms. bowman: thank you very much.
terrific summary. i will turn to john to talk about the governor's races, but norm mentioned how proud we are of this series. this is a bittersweet moment for norm and for me, because this is the last time we will meet in this room. we have been meeting every two years for election watch -- almost 100 sessions since 1982 in this very room. we are moving to 1789 massachusetts avenue. we are hoping we'll have our first election watch fall session in september at the new building. this has been a long run. of course, norm and i were children when it started. it is been a long run. mr. ornstein: we should note, 1789 is not a year we want to have as a model, but we are stuck with it. >> we get george washington sworn in as president, april 30. mr. ornstein: i am thinking french revolution, myself. ms. bowman: john, the governors. mr. fortier: i have a few words to say about the governors, and
then i want to ask norm a quick follow-up. there are not so many governors this year. it is like the class of cicadas. not like the big cicadas of the other years. many of them are safe. overall, republicans have enormous advantage in governorships -- 31 republicans, 18 democrats, and one independent. a number of them are safe. i would say if you're looking for change, probably all things being equal, assuming not a blowout without trump losing badly, but a relatively neutral environment, there are slightly more democrats in trouble, three, really. west virginia in particular. an open new hampshire seat which is competitive, and an open missouri seat which is competitive. on the republican side, you have a couple -- north carolina, where the race is shaping up to
be close and potentially an outside chance in indiana, but i guess i'm going to focus on north carolina. it looks like a mild republican pickup in a field or a group that already have a big advantage in. what i did want to ask norm was on the congressional question, i think we all agree that if there were a big win for hillary clinton over donald trump, a lot of those seats will fall. but what if donald trump does pretty well? whether he wins or not -- he has different asterisk. there will be people that will want to run toward trump, part will want to run against him. what do you say to those people that will be conflicted. they might benefit in some ways, but also be troubled? mr. ornstein: you are absolutely right. i do think that we are going to find a lot of republicans who will come back into the fold. it may get closer than it would otherwise be. we're not going to see, i think, the kind of blowout of a
goldwater losing 45 states, or a mondale or a mcgovern losing 49 states. the states are more firmly red and blue now, although some of those red states may be in play. but if you have got lawmakers in states that are still swing and could turn close, they have a huge dilemma on their hands. and how do you embrace trump, where you know in the process, you may end up linked to him for minority voters or others who might turn out in more substantial numbers? but if you get distance from him, you will create a backlash among a lot of others who see you as betraying the cause. so, i think there's no easy way out of it. and my guess is you're going to find some people who handle it in a very clumsy fashion, and others who may be a little more adept. in the house, they are used to
running away from their presidential candidate, and trying to run as individual lawmakers, but much of this will depend on the turn out. for those of you thought indiana was an upset, alan abramowitz, a good political scientist at emory has developed a simple model to look at the democratic contest that has three components to it -- the region -- is it a state in the south or outside of the south? what is the percentage of minorities, of african-americans voting? and what is the percentage of democrats who voted in the democratic primary in 2008? and he has been just stunningly accurate within a point or two of every contest, and a week ago, he said hillary clinton would get 47% in indiana. he has also looked ahead, and it looks like bernie will win in
oregon, but very possibly lose in kentucky and west virginia in a toss up -- and not that this matters in the end. she was still win the nomination, that we look at the tea leaves. this is what happened, the campaign moved in that direction. a lot of it and that includes a a lot of our politics more generally, is doesn't have quite as much as we think the events in the campaign suggest. ms. bowman: michael? mr. barone: we have been through a period of very high persistent polarization, roughly equal size blocks on both sides and very persistent voting patterns. we had in 2012 only 26 congressional districts out of 435 that voted to split tickets, that is vote majority president in one one party, elected congressman of the other parties. it is the lowest number since 1920.
i do think, however,, americans are capable of splitting tickets. it's not that hard if you want to do it. they just haven't been in the habit of doing lately because george w. bush for a long time defined the republican party, and barack obama defined the democratic party, and people voted accordingly. norm suggested the problems of difficulties -- does donald trump define in the republican party? many people do not want to be identified with their party leader. when richard nixon was reelected in 1972, he carried, i think, 389 congressional districts against george mcgovern. half of them voted for democratic congressman. so, americans are capable of splitting tickets if they want to.
and in this context, i think turnout is going to be important. we had surge-increasing surge of turnout during the george w. bush presidency, including the 2000 and 2008 elections which were a repudiation of the bush presidency. we have had declining turnout during the obama presidency, particularly of democrats, but not any surge of republican turnout. i have been of the view that the fact that the republican turnout was a lot bigger in the primaries this year and caucuses than democratic turnout has, perhaps, some significance for the general election. and others in the 538.com website, for example, have pooh-poohed that and said in 1976, it didn't. i don't think that's relevant. i think, i think it may still have something, but i simply don't feel i have any confidence how it is going to work out there.
one more point i should have made in my initial presentation, i mentioned the rules for both parties. if you look at if the democrats had rules like the republicans, which include winner take all primaries, hillary clinton would be ahead in delegates 2-1. the sanders campaign would have disappeared almost as effectively as the john kasich campaign disappeared sometime ago. ms. bowman: henry, a quick comment, and then a question. mr. olsen: with respect to the turnout, i have been looking at purple state turnout, and with the exception of ohio, and also with the exception of pennsylvania, republican turnout has vastly exceeded democratic turnout. obviously, we have two competitive races, and if everyone who cast the republican ballot in the primary cast a republican ballot in the fall, the democrats would need to win
between 53% and 63% of the remaining voters in order to carry each of those states by one vote. i think that's the promise and the pitfall of the republican party is that, of course, to put that coalition together means to put those three factions together in a coherent way, and the reason why trump may not win is precisely his inability to do that. but i do think that it indicates where a unified republican party could go, which would be extremely hard for a democratic party to respond when you have 50% of the general election voters in the state who are actively considering themselves republicans. we have never dealt with that in our lifetime. ms. bowman: all right. now we are going to turn to your questions. i should tell you that cnn has come out with its first matchup. it is 54%, clinton, 41% trump. 13 points. double-digit lead. questions, we will start over here. i should point out that that
handout will be available to anyone outside, and we can e-mail it to anyone. we'll be updating it throughout the summer. joshua myers: could this be the year the libertarian party breaks 5% and becomes eligible for federal matching funds, and could that have any long-term consequences? >> my initial answer is no, and why would libertarians want government money? [laughter] ms. bowman: other questions? right here. larry: thank you very much. we're talking about the soul of the republican party here, and it is my opinion, and i may speak for some around the table here, that the real issue is, is the party going to coalesce around this person, or are we going to coalesce around america? i think this is not a condition where we should be -- the party
is second to the country and i think most of us agree to that. i would just like to know, most of you said there was going to be some coalescing around this man, even those who said very negative things about him in the past. what can we see for the party if that becomes the norm? ms. bowman: another question, what should the never trump movement be doing now? mr. barone: your point of view is pretty clear. they shouldn't coalesce around donald trump. you could certainly make that argument. i think he will get less coalescing than other republican candidates have gotten, but i think he will get more than the tenor of your question suggests. we have people like bill kristol, the editor of the "weekly standard," talking about
a third party as a kind of basis for republicans to vote for and to come out and vote for so they will come out and vote for republican candidates for the senate and the house and so forth. i think that -- i suspect not a whole lot is going to come out of that, and so forth. you know, it is obviously a different situation from which we faced where both parties have nominated candidates in recent cycles who have been widely acceptable to the party's constituency, and the question is how much of the party's constituency considers trump not acceptable, and does trump add some people in the contest to compensate for that? and my view is he is probably unacceptable to fewer than the tenor of your question suggests, and the number of new people he brings in is fewer than the
anti-trump people would suggest. mr. fortier: i guess i agree that, i think there will be a fair amount of coalescing. a lot of it. the anti-trump forces don't have a lot of places to go. i think there are several dangers. but if after the convention there is some coalescing, and i do not put much stake in the matchup polls at this point, but if the matchup points show trump down by a lot, the lack of and enthusiasm might be very strong. i do think there is a natural place to go, and the natural tendency is to come together, but if it is not enough, that will show in late-summer, early-fall. mr. olsen: i think you will see a lot of pivoting. newt gingrich, who has set a lot of nice things about trump, has
one part of the mantra -- we cannot allow hillary clinton to transform the supreme court into a liberal court that will change the country for decades, and others will be using the mantra anything will be better than hillary clinton. my guess is a whole lot of people will coalesce around them. there is some that won't. that is true of a lot of people outside of the political arena, but i would bet the vast majority will fall in line, and then they have to live with the consequences. of course, one part of this is when they do the second autopsy, and this time it will be a real dead body, most likely, it will be back to the same set of issues. how do we expand a base beyond angry, white, working-class voters? and if you have an immigration position that has taken you so far away from that, and a rhetoric that is going to so
alienate the growing forces in the electorate, you are in trouble, and that is going to be a battle that will follow, but those who fall in line are going to make it much harder to have that battle won by those that think you need to broaden your base. ms. bowman: we have a question in the back, then mike gonzalez in the front. >> thank you, gentlemen. i was wondering if we could move to discussion about split-ticket voters. there was a poll that 50% of clinton voters in ohio are still going to vote for portman. i was wondering if you could speak to how the gop could target these split-ticket voters, and what the strategy should be involved to mobilize them to vote for gop senators. ms. bowman: split ticket. mr. barone: if you're running rob portman's campaign, you talk about his campaign, his legiation against opioid abuse, which is a real problem in parts of ohio and southern ohio.
you do what candidates in both parties have done for 40 years when they sense the party is not strong or might be unpopular with significant parts of their electorate. emphasize the specifics of those issues, the character of the candidate, and things of that nature. voters are capable of splitting tickets, they just haven't felt the need to do so lately. but they, you know, given the choices before us, they may -- you know, it is quite possible they will need more, and i do not think they really need the mechanism of a third party, which is not going to be competitive anyway, to bring out voters to vote for down-ballot people. mr. ornstein: one of the challenges for mitch mcconnell,
the expectation is that would have a robust ticket to run on. they said keep us in power. this is a congress that left without dealing with the zika virus, which is now becoming a potentially huge epidemic in the country, without dealing with puerto rico, which has gone past the deadline for a budget, and is not going to do a budget, which appears to have difficulty doing a single appropriations bill, and has not acted as a congress on the opioid legislation. if they cannot get much done, that is a slender reed for people to run on. mr. olsen: this is unfortunately a party that remains mired in the past, and you will see people moving to a repeat of the 1996 campaign where it appears that dole is going to lose. takewould be a way to
advantage of hillary clinton's very high negative, you can have your cake and eat it too, put her in the white house, but don't get her a blank check, vote republican down ballot. ms. bowman: go first to you, then mike gonzalez, then to you. >> my question is to henry. how likely do you think is the possibility of unifying these different factions of the party, and you mentioned immigration and nationalism, but there is one strong message of trump, which is the anti-trade and anti-globalization message. how do you put it together with the business conservative coalition? thank you. ms. bowman: mike gonzalez right here has a question, and then in the front. mr. gonzales: actually very similar to the question you just asked. i'm mike gonzalez from the heritage organization.
henry, i completely agree with you that a yearning for national identity, not nationalism, is the important thing right now. that is the inheritance of eight years of obama. that could be the theme around the different factions build, but how does that take place? how does the reckoning happen? if trump wins, obvious, then the populist will be ascendant, and everyone will have to glob onto them, but let's say trump loses. how does -- there has been so much self-incrimination, how does the shakeup look? >> my name is joe freeman. do you think the republicans might reconsider their opposition to the barack obama nomination to the supreme court? the possibility of a democratic senate during the confirmation hearing.
mr. olsen: the possibility of unifying the gop -- that is a matter of choice. if people want to find peace and want to hang together, they will find a way to do so. if they think that it is better to try and continue the warfare to engage and have your faction be dominant under the misguided belief that somehow you can put together a national majority by having only two prongs of the stool rather than three, then we won't unify the gop. but it is a matter of choice from all the different factions, and i can't say what the probability is of that, but as far as the possibility i think you have to have a unifying message that focuses around national identity but not a week national identity. one that embraces a limited, but active role for government to care about people like me.
that's essentially what the plea of the trump voter is, that you have not cared about a person like me for decades. and that's always been the weakness of the republican party. republicans do well at saying we care about people, but have a really hard time saying people like me. when you do that i think you can put together an appeal. with respect to how do you do this, i think what you need to do is you need to do an immigration policy that's more like australia and canada, that says we need immigrants, but we are going to decide who they are and bring them in. canada has a larger share of foreign-born population than we do, but they do it by choice. and you do not have immigration roiling their issue. australia's conservatives dealt with immigration by saying if you are a refugee who is coming here by boat to try to land on our territories, you're not going to be admitted to australia.
we will have immigrants by choice, and they, too, have a large immigrant population, but it is not one that places the foreigner ahead of the citizen. i think with respect to trade, what you need to do is stop treating people who are indirectly harmed by trade as collateral damage in the willy-nilly pursuit to globalization, and what that means is a tony blair-esque view. we need to support for an trade but have accommodations by people dislocated by it. that means a more robust income support system and an attempt to bring people to work. i think we need to rethink our social safety net, that, on the margin, says that if you are of low skill, you will get low but steady handout if you remove yourself from work. but we will do nothing to help you get really back on your feet
again and support you and help recover some of the income you have lost because of the jobs that we have encouraged south koreans or burmese to have. a republican party that is for trade but for a serious way of accommodating the people that are dislocated by trade, letting in the immigrants that we need but only the immigrants that we need, is one that i think that could unite this wing. it requires choice and compromise. that may be something that certain elements of your republican party are unwilling to do. after the debacle of 1964, it was not just party leaders like nixon who realized we had to accommodate the goldwaterites, it was the goldwaterites who realized that they had to stop trying to overturn the establishment. that was when fusion is him came into being. and it is when buckley moved away from confrontation is to the most electable conservative model. >> i was going to say, on immigration, it would be
interesting if the scenario that norm talked about came to pass, and democrats had majorities in each house of congress and the presidency, whether they would bring forward immigration legislation, as they did not not do when they had votes to pass the so-called comprehensive bill in 2009 and 2010. from a democratic point of view, you would have the potential to legalize 3 million or 4 million net democratic votes. maybe they would want to do that. maybe they may be fearful of blowback. i fear they would not do what i think the country should do, which is have a system emphasizing high skill immigration like australia and canada. on the supreme court, democratic priority here is obviously totally hypocritical. the idea that a democratic congress in the eighth year of a republican president would confirm a republican appointee to a democratic appointed
supreme court justice is absurd. they would not do that in a million years. and the republicans aren't going to do it. if hillary clinton is elected, and particularly, if democrats get a majority in the senate, i would expect judge garland to be confirmed in december by a republican senate who would have to eat words to do that. judge garland is a highly competent and decent sort of judge. he is unlikely to roll the way republicans would like on a lot of issues. >> i respectfully disagree. >> they are in a box right now. if you noticed jerry moran, a very conservative senator from kansas who is up for reelection, when he said, we ought to hold a hearing. the club for growth and others came down hard on him and said maybe it was time for a primary challenge.
and the next day, it jerry moran was saying, not only should we not hold a hearing, but this guy is a dangerous socialist leftist will take away our guns. that is a problem. that is the problem that mitch mcconnell has. having said that, if we get to october and the cnn results are still pretty much what we still have, it is going to be a debacle. republicans are looking out there and believing that very possibly the day after the election, president obama will say you said the voters should choose, so i am withdrawing this nomination, and i will let the next president, hillary clinton, a nominee who will be younger and more liberal. they may well come in october, and especially if chuck grassley is underwater in iowa, go ahead and confirm. if not and he kept the nomination, i think it may happen in a lame-duck. what i think is happening now is republicans in the senate having said, we should let that go.
saying, that doesn't mean we would not filibuster for an extended period of time, any nominee from hillary clinton. we could well end up with a 4-4 supreme court for a significant period of time. that is a big danger. what we could have before long, and i could see this playing out through much of 2017, is yet another change in the filibuster rules to move it to a simple majority. i don't thing that would happen until we get 8 or 10 months of a filibuster. and that would be unfortunate. >> i do want to disagree on the merrick garland issue. i think it is very unlikely that republicans will go back on this, no matter how badly they are doing, and confirming somebody in a lame-duck or early on before the election. i agree with norm on this, there will be opposition to a new
nominee by hillary clinton or perhaps more than one nominee. that's the other thing, you have the potential for other nominations either from resignations, especially on the democratic side, who might resign. there will be intense pressure to fight back. i think the filibuster is always under stress there. of somehe chance pressure to get rid of the filibuster as they have for lower court justices. but i think the nomination probably will not happen. ms. bowman: we have time for one more lucky questioner. in the meantime, political corner is going to be having some special events this summer. but in september, this team will be back, and in october, and on the thursday after the november election, as we usually are. there was one question, yes, back here. >> can you please explain why the system allows different level of social intellect to
vote. rich,ve a class system of middle-class and poor, heaven a nd hell. why would every level of criminal activity be allowed to vote? >> i'm not aware we let every level of criminal activity vote. >> there been proposals, we just saw an exact -- we just saw and executive action in virginia, which is perhaps of dubious legality, to have convicted felons who have served their sentences to vote. i think arguments could be made for and against that as a public policy. but we have sort of gone from manhood suffrage, which meant white men, basically, as far back as the 1810's, we moved in that direction. in our american elections, and i some -- think that despite some lamentable over results in recent years, and each of us perhaps as our
different lists of lamentable results, we are not going to go back on that. mr. ornstein: you know, i have long been a supporter of something that will not happen in this country, which is the australian system of mandatory attendance at the polls. in australia, you don't have to vote, but you have to show up, and that makes you subject to a small fine if you don't. this gives them 90% or more turnout. belgium and other companies -- other countries have this as well. it has not brought great disaster. there are always questions of whether the least informed should be out there voting. the fact is, most people who vote are very little informed. it begs the question of what do you believe by a republican form of democracy? i believe in enhancing the electorate. and we had a literacy test at one point, which i am not sure i would want to turn that into an iq test. frankly, there are a lot of people we know with very high iqs that i would just as soon not vote.
[laughter] we get to the list of mandatory voting countries, brazil, which is now in the process of impeaching its president is on the list of mandatory voting countries. of course, we have impeached president's in this country as well. ms. bowman: we're out of time. join me in thanking the panelists. [applause] ms. bowman: the handout is at the reception desk and we will be here for a few more minutes to answer any additional questions you have. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
c-span, president obama visited flint, michigan to talk about it's contaminated water. cameron on the uk's upcoming referendum on the european union. and ohio governor john kasich and his presidential campaign -- ends his presidential campaign. ♪ >> c-span's "washington journal" live every date with the issues that impact you. the nationaling, council of conservative health will join us to discuss the efforts of the organization and others.
to pass opioid legislation. they are pushing for changes to the house legislation that would make it similar. citizens united will discuss the latest on campaign 2016 and the influence of money on politics. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" beginning live thursday morning. donald trump will be campaigning intros and, west virginia thursday. it is his first campaign rally since his remaining republican rivals dropped out of the race. watch our life coverage at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> madam secretary. -- proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states.
♪ visited ant obama flint, michigan high school today to talk to local residents affected by lead contaminated drinking water. he said the federal government was on the case, and that the water is now safe to drink if filtered. michigan governor rick snyder also spoke and was booed as he took the stage. this is an hour. [applause]