tv 2016 Election Predictions CSPAN August 14, 2016 8:59pm-10:26pm EDT
>> for free transcripts or to program,omment on the go to our website www.c-span.org. and it's also available as a free podcast. if you enjoyed this week's q and a interview with clinton -- clifton rafael, here are other programs you might like. work lastabout her days in vietnam. heidi discusses her documentary on the deterioration of detroit michigan. free angela and
all political prisoners. you can watch these anytime or search our entire video library at c-span.org. next, a discussion on the 2016 presidential campaign and some election predictions. then newsmakers with libertarian presidential candidate former new mexico governor gary johnson. i do love the clock p.m., another chance to see q and a -- 11:00 p.m., another chance to see q and a. c-span2 washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up on sunday morning, the latest developed in the presidential campaign with republican pollster and strategist brian and stephen. they will talk about the significance and accuracy of ,ational and statewide polling public opinion and the effect of the presidential race on down
ballot races plus how the tone of the campaign is affecting public opinion. -- rand corporation corporation discusses the latest in u.s. or rent including the execution of the iran scientist he was accused of spying for the united states and the computed -- continued questions about $400 million that the u.s. gave to iran that coincided with the release of four americans and the in tehran implementation of the nuclear deal. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live beginning at 7:00 a.m.. join the discussion. >> on tuesday, ucla put a science professor and american university historian discuss their prediction for the election. they also talked about the campaign styles of donald trump and hillary clinton. posted by the hammer museum in los angeles, this is about one hour and 20 minutes.
[applause] >> thank you offer coming tonight to hear from our guests. their political scientists and historians to study elections and the result of elections and everything that happens in between. clearly in this year of the outsider, status quo politicians are having a hard time practicing politics as usual. parroting political rhetoric with platitudes and promises that are falling flat because the electorate is angry and donald trump has changed the narrative and not necessarily for the better. rather than predicting the unpredictable, ucla political to explainill begin
the unpredictable. she was big for 10 or 15 minutes then american university historian will explain his production system that is correct we predicted -- correctly predicted every president election since 1984. he might venture a guess about the outcome of this wild ride we have been on for many months and many billions of dollars later. if he throws up his arms and says it is all too crazy, we will not hold it against him. after he has spoken, we will have a conversation before extensive q and a with our audience. the choices are presidency has non expanded so normal -- more complaining about having to vote for the lesser of two evils. not only had donald trump, hillary clinton, gary johnson, and joel stein, but as of yesterday, we can now include evan mcmullen, a mormon bachelor formerly with the cia who is
chief policy director of the house republican conference and is now running for president representing the republican never trump movement. let me introduce the professor of political science at the university of california los angeles. her research focuses on campaigns, elections and legal advertising and she is the author of campaign reform, the message matters, the economy and presidential campaigns and co-author of the logic of american politics. gambleest book is the and a forthcoming book about the 2016 elections is called shattered. ladies and gentlemen. [applause] >> thank you. thanks very much. i brought some show and tell items with me so if you have
always wondered what it might be like to be a ucla undergraduate, this will be a tenets to experience that. i'm really pleased to be here, thanks to -- so much for the hammer form and the introduction. i want to talk about, we are 90 days out. everybody wants to know what is going to happen. i am cut to talk about that in three ways. -- going to talk about that for three ways. we're going to talk about the state of the nation's economy and how that serves as a backdrop in front of which this great plate that is the presidential campaign takes place and then we'll talk about a little bit about the candidates because they all come with constraints. in the third thing is messaging. and the way to think about messaging is to think about leveraging the constraints that these candidates bring with them and that is really the trick.
for me, my system of predicting election outcomes mixes these three things together and comes out with some sense at the end about what you might expect to happen. that is where we are going in the next couple of minutes. we will start with the first thing, the state of the nation's economy. thing,only remember one from this 10 minute course, this is the thing to remember, incumbent parties and growing economies typically when elections. -- win presidential elections. the opposite is also true. shrinkingg parties in economies typically when presidential elections. you can think of this like a referendum on the incumbent party about the state of the nation's economy. neither personal pocketbook or whether you have a job now or later, but how is the country doing and that is the relationship i like to talk
about when i think about studying -- setting the stage for any presidential election and i think that mostly the post-new deal era. the late 40's. ? how does that look? here's a little bit about that relationship. what i have here is on the y axis is the incumbent party share of the two-party vote in the presidential elections i plotted. on the x axis i'm showing you the growth rate for the nation's economy in terms of gdp change in the first six month of the election year. basically how are we doing? are things growing or shrinking? as you can see, as growth -- wrong button. as growth in the nation's economy increases, the incumbent party share of the vote goes up. there's a positive relationship p her. -- here.
i totally get that a monkey flipping the coin would be right 50% of the time. so if you want to impress me about your production, you have to do better than the monkey. this production will be right, and basic production will be right about 75% of the time. it does better than the monkey and i think that is good. the next logical question is what about the first six months of this year. we just got the second quarter number and what does it tell us? now it is time for the red dot. right at 50%. that is what the 2016 growth number prefix. -- predicts. in equilibrium, that is important, in equilibrium, a stone what we know about the last several decades, this election is meant to be a squeaker. it is going to be close. party is going to benefit from the state of the nation's economy, you can't beat
barack obama in 2008 going out there and saying those republicans brought you global financial crisis. time to change horses. you can't be ronald reagan saying it is morning again in america, where people are going to work today than ever before. neither candidate can claim that kind of message. either as the challenger for the incumbent. they're going to fight differing this election for you. they are either going to fight to frame your perception of the real economy which is what is going on in the last two days or they will fight to change the focus of this election off of the economy. it does not help either one of them in any are found kind of way. they need to change the topic and they can't change the topic to any issue. the issue has to meet three criteria. in my view, you have to find an issue on which public opinion is lopsided, that is the most important thing. it does not do any good to refocus the election off of the
nation's economy and onto something else on which the public is divided 50-50. win it.es not you need to be 55-45 or 60-40. the second thing, you have to be closer to most posters than your opponent. doesn't do you any good to revoke -- revokes the election on an issue where you are helping the other guy. you have to help yourself. you better know where you stand and you better know where topic opinion is, it better be lopsided and you better be on the lopsided side. the third thing, this issue has to be or can be made to be important. you can't colonize them in. moon. can't run on something that you can convince people is more important than the state of the nation's economy which everyone things is important. has to be an issue that is topical. or can be made to be topical. just a couple of ideas here about how candidates have a hard
time with this, this is because of their constraints. what kind of constraints do i mean? some are young and old. some are experienced, some are inexperienced. those constraints. they've taken positions on things, they have records. they come with constraints. the trick is to find those constraints and leverage them. just a couple of examples of what i mean, in 1960, john kennedy is running against richard nixon and kennedy is young and inexperienced and nixon has a lot of experience, he has been the vice president. what does kennedy do? he turns the election into an all-out war for the future of the free world. an all-out war with the soviets. us? does he tell out --tell they are better at everything, better at science. their kids are better at math. their symphonies are more complicated, their art is more beautiful. their poor three is nicer. -- poetry is nicer.
he talks about everything and how we will be better than all of these things be we will export the oceans and the skies in the whole campaign turns into this idea of the new frontier because he is young and nixon is old. nixon is a part of the past. what is worse? the election comes down to what kennedy calls the missile gap. it did not exist but he did not know that. not too many people knew that tripoli. constrained? he is part of the administration that perpetuated the gap. there is nothing he can do to shake that constraint. that is the kind of thing i'm talking about. nixon8, traits -- leverages crime and fear and says we will restore law and order in a cautioned that is reeling from the war in vietnam and the free speech movement. he leverages that. 1976, jimmy carter does the same
thing, he is a washington outsider running against the most inside the beltway washington insider you can find, his appointed to the vice presidency and the presidency, there's nothing for it can give it to -- ford can do to shake that. he is the right guy that found the right constraint at the right time. that is what we're talking about. not as easy as it sounds. inould be barry goldwater to 1954 point around the country talking about nuclear war with the soviets and saying he wanted one into the men's room of the kremlin. disabuse americans of their fear of the word nuclear. 1964, most americans thought they would see world war iii in the lifetime and most americans thought they would die. going around the country telling people he will start world war iii, he missed the three
criteria. he got a lopsided issue but is on the wrong side. [laughter] not as easy as it sounds. we?, where are the messages donald trump and hillary clinton are try to convince or frame that they're are trying to put on the selection? where the pointing out that these messaging strategies for in place one year ago from right now. it isn't the case that donald trump just thought of make america great again, this has been going on for a year in the same thing with larry clinton. -- hillary clinton. make america great again, meaning it is not great now but it once was. when was a great? in the past.why ? because we were different then. that equation however you want. is an isolationist kind of message and you can see very clearly how it counters how hillary clinton's stronger together message counters that.
they are very much trying to leverage the exact opposite ideas about the future of the country. here's a still image from one of donald trump -- his first campaign ad. he talked about the things we might be afraid of. security, terrorism, radical islamic terrorism in his words. tois -- and he is trying divide the election by in group and our group attitudes based on race and ethnicity. here i go to show you a little evidence of this thing understand what i'm talking about. on the y axis i have donald inmp's share of the vote republican contest of 2016. these are data from the american national election study gathered this year in february. as fisher goes up, all the other candidates has to go down. saxis, i've do different
measures of this kind of in group outgroup consciousness. the first is a question asking respondents, white respondents if they think it is likely that white people will lose jobs to minorities and the more likely you are to say that, the more likely you are to vote for donald trump. over here we have whether -- how important you think it is for whites to come together as a group to change laws that are unfair to whites. more, 10w you seven more grass like this about all sorts of different groups and they look the same. donald trump did not create these attitudes. these attitudes have been out there a long time. thems just chosen to prime in a way that divide the electorate. he has successfully did that and the republican primary and is largely successful doing it now. hillary clinton on the other hand is talking about stronger together and she is telling us
an inclusive message. women, nonwhite people, children. he wants everyone to come together and that is her message. we will be better and greater if we are all in it instead of just those of us who live here in some previous period. what does that look like? hillary clinton is successfully expanding the democratic coalition. she is winning by 31 points among college-educated white women. point in 2008ne and 2012. that is a huge change. that is not about telling clinton being a woman, she did not win in the democratic primary by that much against bernie sanders. that is about donald trump. that is about college-educated white women enough ended i offended by's -- donald trump's attitude. she is losing college-educated men by seven points but this is a big improvement by how barack obama did. among losing
non-college-educated men. that is the group that is with donald trump. story is more of a timeline sort. the movement started between mccain and romney and now they are more with donald trump it the white women story is completely episodic. that is about this election. what is not bring us to? who will be president? again thisthe pulpit is but as of now, the poll aggregating prediction has 86% likely that hillary clinton wins the presidency. we are keeping in mind that that is not her vote share, that is the probability, the chance that she will win. it is better than the chance that an nba basketball player
makes a free throw when he goes to the free-throw line. than being the average nba player making a further shot. [applause] >> thank you. american historian professor. whiteoks include protestant nation, the rise of the american conservative movement and the keys to the white house, the surefire way to predict the next president. his production system has correctly predicted the outcomes of all u.s. presidential elections since 1984. alan. and gentlemen, [applause] >> thank you very much. you can all rest easy, i'm not going to predict the victory of evan mcmillan. it is ok.
it is true i've been predicting election since 1984. when i was nine, but that is another story. you may think it is a wonderful prestigious thing, i go around the world predicting the outcomes of american presidential elections. but i have to tell you, the only result of all that is every four years i make half of the country really angry at me. i hope i will not anger to many of you. now, i have to tell you, i'm not good to predict the outcome of this election, you are going to predict the outcome of this election. he will have my little 13 keys to the white house. you are going to predict the election because the 13 keys is the world's only do-it-yourself election system. to have that privilege, because i'm a professor, you have to answer a pop quiz first. are you ready? it is easy.
how many of you have listened, read or watched any of the punditry about this election? you all past the quiz. but you have to take the advice of the great british philosopher what he talked about work and superstition. consignment to the flames. it is superstition. worthless. it is not based upon a theory of how american presidential elections work. that is why you have to turn to a scientific system like the keys to the white house which is actually based on a really simple theory. elections don't turn on debates, speeches, advertisements, issues , party loyalty or any of the things the media spends a billion dollars a year covering, rather, elections are simple.
it is the joe the plumber theory of elections. any of you remember joe the plumber? the guy who asked obama a lot of noxious questions. imagine you hired joe the plumber to fix your pipes and joe the plumber breaks your pipes and puts her basement. i going to hired joe the plumber again? of course not. but if he does a great job and fixes your pipes, everything is great, you will consider hiring him again. the same thing with presidential elections. if the party holding the white house governs well enough that the american people give them another four years. the plumber does well. if they break the pipes of the country and flooded basement, do a bad job, then the public turns them out. the 13 keys to the white house is a system for creating a model to demonstrate that theory and the decision role for
prediction. lynn talked about her students. i would love to tell you and i would love especially to tell my students that i came up with the keys to the white house by use of contemplation and libraries and archives and deep thought but if i was tell you that, to quote the late not so great richard nixon, that would be wrong. i came across the keys to the white house like a lot of discoveries, it is interesting how they derive. evenely by accident but though i'm based at american university, i discovered the keys to the white house right here in southern california when i spent a year at caltech and there i met the world's leading authority in earthquake production. he said to me, you and i are
going to collaborate and being such a brilliant foresight foci, of course, i said absolutely not. they may care about earthquakes here in southern california, but i got to go back to d.c.. no one cares about earthquakes in d.c.. he said, i've already solve the problem of earthquakes. i would you try harder problem. predicting american presidential elections. the sovietmber of scientific delegation, unites politics to -- pop quiz, they came to washington in 1963 and negotiated the most important treaty in the history of the world. why young people here today. treaty thattest ban stopped us from poisoning be atmosphere and mother's milk and the earth. he said he became fascinated with politics but said, i live in the soviet union, predicting elections, forget it.
it is supreme leader or off with your head. you know a lot about american politics. the greatest election in the world for the american president. this point i thought the guy was i'm a historian, i have no secrets. we put to the test my theory that elections are primarily referendum on the performance on the party holding the white house and the opposition party does not matter much. this was 1981. by looking at every american event election from 1860 to 1980. we found to our surprise that we were able to come up with a model, the 13 keys which are simple true or false questions that can be answered prior to an upcoming election and in answer of true always favors the election of the party in power.
role,e up with a decision is six or more of the keys are false, it is six or more of the party in power, they lose. fewer than six keys, against the party in power, they win. six strikes and you are out. you don't even have to take your shoes off to use the system come all you had to do is be able to count. but few academics do when they come with the biggest covering -- discovery? they publish it in an academic with the expedition that for five people will read it. we did it. the united states national academy of sciences to six people read it. in the six person was the science reporter for the associated press. in 1980ck in washington one at american university, a professor and i opened the newspaper and there is an article which said on couple
discovers -- odd couple discovers key to the white house. it had to be the crazy russian physicist and the crazy american historian. all of a sudden i'm thinking, oh my gosh, i'm in the paper. i published my first prediction in the washingtonian magazine in april of 1982. two have used before the election and i predicted the reelection of ronald reagan. reaganlection of ronald was easy. wee's the next pop quiz, talked about the economy. post the state of the economy in 1982? horrible. everyone was talking about it one term presidency. that was not an easy production. and it caught someone's attention. i get a call my office and a man with a heavy southern accent professor, mrs. lee atwater
calling, political director of the ronald reagan white house, we want you to come to the white house. i said, excuse me, i think you have the wrong guy. i'm friends with george mcgovern and he said no, we know you are. if you don't know who he is, he died young tragically of a brain tumor, he was karl rove before their was a karl rove and karl rove was a carbon copy -- pale carbon copy of lee atwater. we talk about all caps of history. -- kinds of history. he was in the eye and guess what he wanted to know. professor, what would happen if ronald reagan did not run again in 1984? six keys and you're out. right now you're are down three keys as my article pointed out. you are a sure winner. take out ronald reagan and you
will lose the incumbent to keep. the incumbent charisma key. george bush charismatic, forget it. five dump-in -- five down. big party contest, he will lose that. -- you will lose back. you'll go from three keys in a sure win to six keys in a loss and he says, thank you so much professor. and the rest is history. the other call i got was in 1991 after published my first book from the special assistant to governor bill clinton and she asked me, based on your system, and george h.w. bush really be beaten? his approval rating was 90% and i said look at my book. it shows he is a sure loser. i sent a book to clinton and a memo and the rest is history. no matter what your partisan
affiliation, he can blame you for something. our attention to this election are the toughest election i've ever had to call. 2008 i called in 2005. i was notorious for saying the democrats could nominate someone out of a phone book and win 2008. that's what they did. who had heard of barack obama? i called 2012 in 2010. why is this election difficult? because it turns on one key and it is a very difficult key to call which is why i want to help. right now the democrats have five keys against them. get to sheet. obviously the mandate key. how did they do in 2014? horribly. obviously they have lost a sitting president key. key lose the policy change because it goes term by term.
nothing big was achieved this term. partyose the incumbent charisma key. even hillary clinton says i don't have that magic. that is for. the also lose foreign-policy success key. i thought the iran nuclear treaty was a huge success but it has been a big bust with the american people. it has not been solved. that is another story. that is five keys. if it stays at five, the democrats win. because to six the democrats lose. thef it goes to six keys democrats lose. the party contest key. this is such a difficult key to call. early on i thought surely there is a big contest. that is the sixth key interpublic and will win. but then something really strange happened that has never happened before in the history of our country, donald trump.
donald trump is such a president shattering candidate that he may be a racing the effect of the democratic contest. in other words, it has been there for a while as the contest between hillary clinton and bernie sanders happen to be, it is being erased by the fact that all of clinton supporters and the vast majority of senior supporters can agree on one thing and one thing only, it would be a catastrophe to have donald trump as president which he may have proved today with his remarks about supporters of the second amendment can do and he said after she selected. it had nothing to do with how they were voting because he was talking about appointing supreme court justices when she selected. -- she is elected. the democrats lose the contest key and lose the election? or has donald trump erased the
effect of the contest key? how many of you think the democrats with the contest key? you have turned history. this group has now turned history. there is an old saying and probably a curse, may you live in interesting times. note that we have that here. -- no doubt that we have that here. [applause] >> thank you. let me begin with lynn. a certain amount of uncertainty in both of you and i would like to talk to you about the wildcard, adult you can rule out -- i don't that you can rule out an october surprise with the you have,ate and also
essentially, i think you could make the case that the american people don't necessarily control their political destiny. if you look at history, 68, obscure palestinian decided that kennedy would never president and helped elect nixon. ayatollah comments to your actor from the middle east, he helped elect ronald reagan. you can also argue that osama bin laden and saddam hussein helped bush in 2004. do we really control our political destiny? landsn events in far-off that we don't understand it more often than not we get bogged down. >> first i think, want to
kennedy the bobby exhibit from the others. it is different a summit comes in and illuminates a front ran her -- eliminates a front loader -- runner. the second set, is it the occurrence of these events or is it what the candidates who are running in those moments are coming october surprises, what they do at the moment? that is an interesting thing to think about. in the background all of that, i also want to say that foreign-policy is rarely the modernhat decides presidential election outcomes. what is my evidence for that? even during the vietnam war, if you go back as i have and read all the campaign stump speeches and all the political advertisements and all the news campaigns,f those what you will learn is that neither one of the major party
candidates for making the war in vietnam the number one predominant message. toeone is always trying frame the state of the economy and the other persons or try to shift off the economy and onto an issue that meets the three criteria in the reason for policy is never the choice is because of the october surprise. the world can change dramatically 10 days before the election and if you run your diplomacy, wasrt that the heller clinton secretary of state, and all of a sudden the world unravels and you have 10 days, you are losing. avoid candidates try to owning the foreign-policy card because of that reason. >> donald trump has played that sayingirly prominently it with confidence? >> the one thing about donald
trump is unusual, there are many things unusual, the one i'm to talk about in response to this this is his, i think, why he's a good salesman come he has an uncanny ability to know how to sell his product and he reads the room so that when an event happens, whether it is san bernardino or paris orlando or dallas, he knows instantly how his works in the service of argument in his brain that he is trying to cast on the election. i don't want to say that he has made this election about for policy, i don't pick you have. i think he has made this election about in group outgroup attitudes and that those in groups and out groups are separated on race and ethnicity in the foreign policy moments only work for him in the service of his friend because of the ethnic makeup of these moments. that is why they work for him.
it is not so much about for policy, it is about your fear and he uses that. mentioned that donald trump has changed the narrative and it seems to me that he way --hasn't a profound has in a profound way, that's how we got to the primaries, he continues to do so, do you think this is a permanent thing? for example, if you watch the news hour over the years, republicans and democratic politicians have said they respectfully disagree with my learned colleague in the front and all that funny rhetoric, now dislike, you are his comeback. -- it is like, you are a scumbag her. >> we can if donald trump loses and you all think that he will
lose and we can recover. if he wins i don't think we can recover from it. you have to look at the history and is not a pretty one. answer,o claim i am the i am the answer, only i can change things for the better. say,esn't matter what i you have to believe me and trust me as a person. analogieske to draw to foreign nations but you have analogy out to find an to donald trump and i have to say, many times when you see similar candidates, you have folks say, it can't happen here, we have checks and balances, we have a bureaucracy, that is simply wrong. it has not worked out that way for country after country around the world that has come under this way. this kind of one man type of
rule. is on aour country dangerous precipice. i think we are in danger of going somewhere where this country has never gone before. he has already gone were no candidate has ever gone before and not just once, not just twice, not just three times, but 10-15-20 times. you, it doesn't matter how may times he is criticized, it does not matter how he times he is caught up in lies or statements, it makes no difference whatsoever to donald trump because he has no shame. you can't shame him into changing. all of these people who say he votl pick it and change -- pi and change, it will not happen. donald trump has been this person throughout his career and life. essentially a con man. did athe same thing he
trump university which was never a university and not paul ryan or mitt romney or all the kings and horses of the republican party are going to change this one word. second? jump in for one i want to entertain for a second, but they can about this a lot, that none of this matters , that the comments he is making that think what you are saying allen, he is not getting feedback, he is not changing. say,heard a lot of people some people say, i've heard a lot of people say that he is teflon and can say anything and does not pay a price. i want you to pause for a second and think about where he stands in the polls and how much is cratered in the last 10 days. he is not teflon. he looks like he is stuck where he is. maybe there's an october
surprise but i don't think it is right to say that he is teflon and none of this is hitting him. it might be right to say he is not getting any feedback from the fact that he has cratered and is losing georgia and iowa and utah and arizona. he is not taking because of that. i think he is paying a price in terms of public opinion. >> given that he has a gigantic ego, -- [laughter] do you think you could face public familiar asian? -- public humiliation. ? rumors of exit strategies. one of george w. bush's speech writers has an op-ed in the near times today saying mike pence should ease him out the door. do you think that he will last the distance? i'm not putting you on the spot. is iike and say about that don't know donald trump, i've
never met him. my guess is that you don't yet to be -- get to be that executive with that portfolio unless you have some resiliency and so can he take humiliation? i suspect he can. doesn't mean he will drop out, i don't know. when i hear a public and say that i think that is wishful thinking. based on anyis kind of real evidence that he might be indicating that he is looking for a way out. >> if you agree with me that donald trump has no shame that none of this matters. it is not that he doesn't get feedback is just that the feedback doesn't matter. the feedback never changes him. up to already set things heaven after he has said the rigged.ifis rate -- he loses, that will be the narrative. i should have one but for the rigged election and how do you prove a negative.
? he has set himself up, it doesn't matter to him whether he wins or loses. i'm not sure he even once the job. let me say why. he loves the spotlight. can't stand not to be in the spotlight. but this is a man who has walked .way with bankruptcy six-times does he really want to be president of united states when you are actually held accountable for your decisions? i'm not sure he does. i think he's planning this exit strategy. not that he will get out, but that he is planning to say if i lose, it was rigged. >> probably a good time to write out your questions. we will have people on both files collecting them. collected them. if we want as much qad as possible. given that he is cratering -- >> tomorrow he will surge just
because i said this. [laughter] >> all changes rapidly. the one thing that is consistent is he drops a bombshell almost every day if you did a major one today with the second amendment folks could stop hillary clinton from appointing judges in the assumption is that he meant stop them with a bullet, that is just today. trajectory,le this there is introductory and it could get worse? >> it is possible. the upshot prediction mostly based on poll aggregating. when i made this and sent it to the hammer a week ago, that number was barely at 70. it was a different sports analogy. justin that week, so many polls have come out that have the margins, double-digit margins.
it moved a prediction into a range that is really unprecedented. it is possible that that continues and it is possible this is a plateau and it goes back up. i agree with alan, let me say. saint 47% of the people will not vote for you, none of those moments are game changers. rarely change the outcome of elections. what they do do is change the polls after the debates in right after you say things. romney example is a great one because he lost. people who were supporting him after the 47%, moved into undecided. we were in the field with a long panel. people moved into undecided in the news was romney that this hurt him. later, i said to his
campaign manager, you are brilliant whole thing with 10 days later he had an amazing performance at the first debate held the news was that romney had a great night and went back up and was searching and it was a game changer. that's what it was --guess what it was? it was all those people who moved away from him to undecided after 47% that moved back to him after the first debate. there has been no change after all. i think polls can move but the outcome is probably solid. proved whyshe just you can't predict elections by following the day-to-day events, the ups and downs of the polls. i will remind you, three weeks was 538, the gold standard saying 55-45% trump and now is heavily clinton.
you can't predict that stuff. i also want to talk about donald trump's comments about the second amendment people. and what is dangerous. he tried to explain this away by trying toas being -- unify people to vote a certain way. that is not what he is saying. he was talking about after the election. when hillary clinton was already president and was making supreme court appointments, how could we stop that. nothing to do with voting or unifying people to vote. invitationrly, an for the second amendment people, those who love guns to do something about it. why is that interest? -- dangerous? not because we will shoot someone, but what has donald trump stirred up? the worst and most dangerous element. neo-nazis, white supremacist, ku klux klan, david duquette said
donald trump has made this my time. all of those groups are encouraged by the trump campaign. how some of those people might interpret what donald trump said. that is was -- it was so despicable and ought to be disqualified for the presidency. we have not seen anything remotely like this in our history. [applause] i do think it's important to keep in mind as you think about these things that come i said this earlier, donald trump is not creating these attitudes. they have existed in the united states. ofple have high levels racial anxiety and we can trace this back to the beginning of pulling. it is worth pausing for a moment to think about what donald trump has demonstrated is that the payoff from priming this kind of explicit racial and ethnic messaging or this hate
messaging. he has demonstrated the payoff from doing that. the white non-college-educated men moving toward him. mitt romney and john mccain could have gone to that same explicit messaging and they were running against the first lack man nominated in the major party so they were in an environment where it would have been more of a payoff for going there. both of those candidates are on record and you can talk to them or their advisers saying that they were not willing to do that. they were not going to win that way. the romney said i had to get up in the morning and look in the mirror and john mccain said i'm not winning by playing the race card. i think it is worse worth -- worth pausing saying that donald trump is not a member of this class of professional politicians. not a polite politician. honest are genuine. there is a set of norms that politicians adhere to.
mostly you see on the floor of congress but donald trump is not of that. he is a businessman. it is a different set of norms so a lot of what we see as despicable is really, for the fact that he is not of this group and we disparage politicians. people disparage politicians all the time but i think this moment actually makes me sit back and say that professional politicians may be dessert slightly more respect than we are traditionally given them. >> i cannot us went i think he's not a professional politician. we have had nonprofessional politicians before run for office. we had the republican tommy in 1970 -- 1940 was exactly like donald trump compared a businessman who had never run for office, never held office.
campaignn an exemplary . up against frequent roosevelt and had no chance. he never appealed to the darker nature's in america. dwight eisenhower was hardly a professional politician, he ran an exemplary campaign. what do you agree or disagree with them -- whether you agree or disagree with them who came from outside the political class, they did not come remotely close to starting -- stirring up the emotions that donald trump hazard i don't think donald trump is explicit -- exportable by saying he is not outside the political class. he is outside any reasonable class of human being. [applause] >> some questions, there is a big stack. do you think the election is in any way affected by the defections of gop leaders away from trump? >> i do think that that would
have some impact. i actually think that if we were seeing what we are seeing in the last two weeks back in october of 2015, i think that a little bit of the caller:. -- if there had been more coordination -- from her elite a year ago. given what we now know, do you think that sanders would have had a better chance against donald trump and hillary clinton? >> i can't answer that. i don't do that thing. >> i don't know. anything that republicans could have done to foil comes rise? --donald trump's rise? like i was saying, the lack
of correlation. the advice they were making a year ago, we were buying time for attack advertising but they were attacking each other and that is when they started attacking donald trump, i was march. -- that was much. >> i will think there was anything because the donald trump supporters were not listening to those people. last august when everyone was dismissing donald trump, i was on the air saying you cannot dismiss donald trump because he is saying what a substantial segment of the republican base once to hear but that the other politicians are afraid to say and that is why donald trump had so much appeal and there's nothing that jeb bush could have done about that. whyhat does the republic -- does the republican party continue to support donald trump and do you think there is a limit? >> this is an interesting question. they take a pledge and say they
will support him and he becomes the nominee and what you do? i think plenty of people have held back and a lot of people have expressly said they will not vote for him. again, if this had been happening earlier, thinks my has shaped up a little differently. i don't know how much differently. at the end of the day, or has to still be a party and contrary to what you might think, there is no master puppeteer of their telling people in the party what to do. and] teaump loses party and non-tea party and nonevangelical. right back where we were of a broken, dysfunctional republican party. if he wins, i'm not sure what happens. i think it have to be worried about the house and senate. words, supreme court.
there were maybe as many as three supreme court nominees you would see much more massive defections, probably even paul ryan and mitch mcconnell. but where is the action today? washington is such good luck that the action is in the supreme court as we have seen time and again. reason thatonly they are still clinging to donald trump. >> could his rise be attributed to the fact that his republican opponents had no marked accomplishments other than their instruction is a -- obstructionism? >> probably ted cruz in mind with that question, that set of people, for senators and governors, those are formidable candidates with a lot of political experience. it was the best group they
could put up your there was on some shadow candidate out there ready to rise into the party. what you see is what you get. do you feel that the entry of three other candidates shifts the balance? >> i think it is too early to tell. i don't feel like i have a good read on mother -- where that will go. there had to be more to -- more than two people in the first debate, that could be interesting. >> that looks unlikely and you had to get 15%. my rule is you take where the candidates are a pulling -- pulling and you slice it in half. if johnson is pulling six or 7%, you might expect three or 4%. why? wasted both syndrome. vote syndrome. it is easier to tell a pollster
you will vote for gary johnson. place andto the point say i love you gary johnson, you can't win so i will vote for some of the ross perot in 1992 at one point was out pulling both clinton and bush. at 40%. he finished at 19%. the only third-party candidate ever to be in the debates. >> what is your personal hope for the outcome of the elections? >> what! >> we know who allen is voting for. >> i'm voting for trump. [laughter] personally, as a clinical scientist writing a book about the election, my personal hope is that it continues to be really interesting. [laughter] that's not what you want to know.
i will tell you what i told my mother lastly, my mother who is 87 years old and has watched her first set of political conventions and is not interested in politics but has been watching and this is how interesting this election is and she said to me, i don't know, what do you think? and, this is amusing to me. i had the privilege and honor of hosting hillary clinton at ucla when she came and spoke on thought leadership. career highlight for me and i said to my mom, wouldn't it be great i got to tell people that i got to interview the first woman to be president of the united states. that is my answer. >> you should go into politics. [laughter] a one candidate is
dangerously mentally in fit -- candidate,- unfit does that overturn all the keys? [laughter] >> no! of course not. i swing how he affects the keys. this has never happened before. in opposition candidate has affected any of the keys. in this brilliant audience, you all expect to me that donald trump has negated the effects of what otherwise would have been a divisive and bitter democratic contest. perhaps something on donald trump have done. >> what can be done or can anything be done to improve , cooperation and compromise in congress? i think that, i don't want
this to sound hokey but it does kind of start with the candidate to get nominated in primaries for open seats in congress. i really think that whatever the systemic column is the people in the chamber now, the problem is staying there. to change the culture, we have to change the people. to, if you have good people who you think should be running for congress in your neighborhood district, i know this sounds hokey, you have to talk them into running for congress. i'm not going to run. i will talk you into running. i think we really do have to change the set of people because as long as the republican party has the tea party-non-tea party divide, it is going to be very
hard to have brokers like ted kennedy and john mccain working across the aisle, even people like dan quayle who had bipartisan bills, i just think that is an era we have lost. >> think where our politics have come to when you are rooting for dan quayle. [laughter] we will put you on the spot. did you expect or predict donald trump to win the gop nomination? >> my system does not predict nominations. in august i was on record when every other pundit was saying he was going to fade, i thought, was the most likely candidate to win the republican nomination and everybody thought i was nuts. >> somewhat similar to the one i
ask, how can you evaluate the campaign for one candidate keeps breaking the boundaries of what is acceptable and/or normal? >> i mentioned this in my remarks and forgot to come back to her when about the slide that said equilibrium, this election is meant to be close, i told you that the in equilibrium part was important and that is essentially what this question is asking. numbersll of those since the new deal and i look at what they mean and i can make a prediction to wear the red dot is going to be based on the growth rate in the six months of this election year. but, that is assuming the equilibrium we are typically in in every presidential election year is to highly qualified candidates equally financed fighting really hard because they want to win.
that is the equilibrium we are making a reduction in. if someone comes along and does not have the money -- any money and has no tv ads and says unusual things to get into the news come all the other things , people always ask me, when obama ran, isn't this time different? he was the first black man. isn't this different? maybe people would say this about the selection because of helical to being a woman but it is so different because of donald trump that they are not saying that. i always say no. part of what i do as cyclical scientist is generalize, take data and be able to tell an overarching story and so i have this urge to generalize to something we can use to make productions. i was on say no, this time is going -- not different if we are neck will agree. i think we may not be in 2016. i want to say that this time might be different. any positive impact of the
trunk candidacy? --donald trump candidacy? >> if you are a democrat. >> i think hillary clinton has to be incredibly lucky. what book you have said, she's running the worst campaign because she is using donald trump's words against him rather than addressing the underlying reasons for the anger for why people support him and supported bernie sanders. i don't know about that. some days i wake up and i said, if you're hillary clinton run out, you're saying i'm the luckiest person in the world and some days i wake up and think choosing, this guy is a loose cannon and i don't know what he will do today and i'm the most -- i don't know whether she is lucky or unlucky. i have this project in the field
called spotcheck run testing these advertisements in real and i've got people rating and it is on the web. what actually works best is when, the at has worked best, it is not one of hers, it was a republican super pac called our principles pack and they had women just, average women reading from ipads and iphones s donald cap has said about women and it is offensive statements in that ad hurts donald trump more than anything else i've tested. i think that is why you are seeing her do it. it is effective. second amendment people do in the face of a rigg ed election? >> recently he said on what he -- troublegged the
eventually said they were voting all times, people were voting. 10 times. >> 15 times today. 15if you are not voting times, you are not living up to the city expectations. >> i was the expert witness and all of those voters -- texas, north carolina, virginia, and we looked into the question of whether people were voting multiple times or impersonating someone and your chances, even in southern california of being hit by lightning are vastly higher than the chances of anyone impersonating someone or voting multiple times. you know i does not happen --it does not happen? three years in prison. he will risk that -- who will risk that when your chances of being caught are 25% because that is about the percentage of people who recognize people who
come to the polls. it is a complete red herring issue and for courts have weighed in on this. including the most conservative appeals court in the country, the fifth circuit down in louisiana and a long come to the same conclusion that these voter id laws are not justified by claims of fraud. donald trump is making this up out of -- making this up. >>'s polarization such that pulls will become much less electives -- plastic and volatile from here on out? >> if you had asked me this question in 2008 and 2012 i might have said maybe. party identification is such an anchor. in 2008 2012 we have is long panels of data with a lot of people in the abdomen december the before the election what is
your party id into you will vote for it over 90% on both sides tell us they will vote for the person from their party and then we go back to them, they end up doing it. the swing in the election with people moving around is maybe 13%, maybe more than that. i might have thought the stability was the story, this year makes me think, we have seen a lot of volatility in the polls recently makes me think that when you have an exceptional candidate like this, when you get party elites announcing the candidate and endorsing the opposition, you can shake people off that party identification in a way that honestly is a little surprising to me. rallies, watched the you talk about uneducated white men and trump said he loves the fully educated. i don't see them at these
rallies. i see middle-class, republicans. i have been to a donald trump , it is hard to say. felt't say that the crowd much different to me, i went to a ted cruz event and it donald trump about, it was not that noticeably different. in might have been a little older age wise. will democrats get back the senate? will likely to be a one term president --hillary clinton be a one term president? sweeping bution is we can expect there to be cut tales of the democratic candidate. -- coattails of the democratic
candidate. he will bring members of the senate to her party. this is generalizable. you bring people into congress when you win the election and then there is this reverse to the mean in the off year and your party loses seats. we call that surge in decline. we're likely to see a surge italy clinton'-- hillary clinton wins. i think the search could be big. allen, is donald trump truly a president? is there anyone like him and u.s. history? >> all of u.s. history? figure one figure, not a major party candidate. he was an independent candidate. he did really well for an independent. he got 13% of the vote. pop quiz?
two -- who? george wallace. ofcampaigned on citing a lot -- inciting a lot of ethnic and racial issues but he campaigned as a complete outsider. one of his favorite targets was as pointy-headed professors who try to tell everyone what to do but we can't even park a bicycle straight. [laughter] >> how will the relationship between china and the u.s. be if clinton wins? i think the question would be if trump wins? >> that is outside both of our scopes. >> anyone who would dare to say something about that would probably be wrong. try to predict what china will do, good luck. >> do you think kerry johnson
can get in the debates? -- gary johnson can get in the debates? >> the presidential debates are different than the primary debate. there hosted by tv networks. the presidential debates are organized by the commission on presidential debates which is bipartisan and has democrats and republicans on it and so it has been in existence for a long time and all these rules about how you get in. highly negotiated set of atmospherics by representatives from both campaigns. 15% is the number you have to be there are some other criteria and off the top of my head i don't know what it is. i think it is a little bit of a tough read. -- road. >> i think the bigger question is whether donald trump will debate. he has set up the possibility of not debating. riggedy is the election but the debates are also.
it is the commission. alreadyrtie said i'm -- going to debate under conditions. will getf gary johnson into the debates. i'm not certain there will be debates. >> if i remember correctly, if he does not want to show up, that is fine but she gets the stage for however long, 90 minutes. so i think that is the role. i'm not sure about that. she would be remiss to she does not take advantage of the situation. >> she will. >> why has donald trump not been accused of treason for encouraging russia to hack democratic computers? why has he not been arrested for inciting the assassination of
clinton? >> check out my article in the new york daily news. i did not say he committed treason, but i did say he was advocating a violation of federal law because he did not sickly say if you have the russians, if you have the hillary clinton e-mails come he said go find them. the only way you can find those assuming you can, is to hack into her private e-mail server. which is a violation of communications at. a violation of federal law punishable by five years in prison. he was breaking the law and another lawyer enough to say but certainly he was advocating a foreign power to break a federal law. first candidate i know of to advocate a foreign power meddling in the election.
ever since george washington as the netherlands french ambassador to get out of the country back in the 1790's we have stood staunchly against meddlingoing until -- until this year. , i've as what he said given my commentary on what he said about the second amendment. saidu had say that -- that, you'd be in some interrogation room with secret service agents. >> what about hacking the elections? >> i think that is a scary prospect. the defensehacked department. i have to tell you, these voting machines are nowhere near as secure, probably not as secure as the dnc. the possibility of the russians hacking, while small, it is not zero. that is a frightening thought. federal officials are well aware
of that and i'm not a computer expert, i don't know what precautions they're taking, they are treating this as a homeland security issue. in treating the security as a -- of our elections as a chief security issue. putin will do whatever he wants to do and does not care what anyone thinks or says. though that sound familiar -- does that sound familiar? pollyanna ofhe this group and i'm not willing to believe that the united states secret service changes its protocol on for a three principal because that person is a nominee. i'm not willing to believe that. >> it was sufficiently ambiguous. >> maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. if a private citizen had say that, they would have been in some jeopardy. remember come the federal government does not like rocketry to interfere with -- bureaucracy to interfere with
their retro -- presidential candidate -- campaign. candidates have a lot of latitude that is not given to ordinary citizens. >> i am puzzled by this. friends hateomen hillary clinton with my -- with a passion. how do you explain the extreme hatred of hillary clinton, does that matter for the election? >> this is one of my favorite questions. the animusexplain people feel for hilly clinton? -- hillary clinton? you were around in the 1990's. she is not an unabridged candidate. bruised candidate.
you have to admit that she had a history that is, there is a pattern to that is just somewhat troubling and i think that is why she is a little bit of a lightning rod but not always. the other important point is that she had very high approval ratings when she was secretary of state. a lot of what you see now with the high unfavorables is brought out by the campaign. ton he that was going happen, everyone knows that when you get in a political contest, the partisanship kicks in. >> do you think misogyny is kicking in? >> i think there is a gender difference here for sir -- sure. ad calledatch this quotes with the women reading the statement, i wrote about this, you can read the piece can see all the data, there are very different reactions to this ad
by gender. women really hate donald trump a lot after they see this but they don't necessarily like helicopter anymore. it is not her ad. himare not as moved to hate i think that is a lot of it. hillary is not german as much by gender. much by gender. >> do you think donald trump has fundamentally or permanently changed the way politics and the and i would add to that, the only beneficiaries of our broken political system or the media? the 5 billion this election will cost will go to the mainstream media. >> local television. that is not a bad thing. the local stations are going to make a lot of money. that is not a bad thing.
news, okke your local --do i think he has changed the relationship? i think so but on the way you think. from a reporter buddies, they were telling me that this thing about how the media has made donald trump, the pushes the button's because they desperately want to cover these candidates. that is their job. what does he do? he calls them. sitting around and your producer for the morning show on cnn and donald trump calls you up and you are talking about the thing and he says he has something to say about that. he makes himself so accessible, but my friend said you are doing a form like this couple months ago and he said, i will prove it to. i will get on my phone and we will call it donald trump and he will not answer but i guarantee before the panel is over, he will, back. -- call us back. accessibleself so
and hillary clinton has not talked to reporters for months. that is attention for them. should they not cover donald trump uw's make himself accessible because clinton will not talk to them. it makes you think a little differently about how much coverage he got. is that a real change going forward? if you want to own the new cycle, make yourself available. media to taken free extort very heights -- extraordinary heights. i want to because i'm expecting a train wreck. it -- watch it for extraordinary -- expecting a train wreck. >> why people watch nascar. >> we are approaching the end. hereld like to mention
that the final debate live on october the 19th whether or not donald trump is on stage. i think both of you for joining us tonight. -- thank both of you for joining us tonight. [applause] ♪ democratic, presidential candidate hillary clinton was begun a rally in scranton, pennsylvania. accompanying her will be vice president joe biden. to the white house
coverage begins at 12:45 p.m. eastern on c-span. eastern, donald trump will discuss policy at a campaign event in youngstown, ohio. we will have that for you and c-span2. -- on c-span two. three years after the supreme court ruling overturned part of the voting rights act, arts across the country have struck down a number of state laws saying they discriminate against specific groups of voters. saturday night, c-span issue spotlight looks at voting rights and the impact on the 2016 election. we will feature part of the 2013 supreme court oral argument and shelby versus holder. members of congress look at whether to restore the voting rights act and a discussion on whether the voting rights act is necessary. here is what the presidential candidates have to say. >> all this voter id, and a lot of places aren't going to have better ideas. what does that mean?
you just keep walking and voting. >> what is happening is a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchised people of color, poor people and young people from one end of our country to the other. >> watch our issue spotlight on voting rights saturday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org. >> joining us from las vegas on c-span's newsmakers program is former new mexico governor gary johnson. thank you very much for being with us. gov. johnson: great to be with all of you. thank you. >> joining us is david, senior correspondent for the washington examiner. also the host of the examining politics podcast which is available online governor, let me begin with the commission on presidential debates which is