tv Smithsonian Associates Hosts Discussion on the 2016 Election CSPAN November 11, 2016 4:44am-6:30am EST
have been in the senate if they had had term limits. >> very interesting. >> what i hope we can say in about a month osh two months, relates to something that i will never forget. i had a conversation with justice scalia as we were leaving the inauguration in 1992, bill clinton, and as we were walking out he said to me, just imagine -- just think of what you've just witnessed. you've seen the transfer of power in this country from one party to the next, from one man to another without a shot being fired. he said that's the miracle of this democracy. and i hope we will always be able to boast and to expect a peaceful transfer of power, in spite of how difficult it may be and the challenges it presents, the extraordinary nature of our country and this democracy rests on that premise that we can switch back and forth as we've done so many
times over these last 20 years between parties and among leaders, and that will be the essence of what we can look to with great pride if we can continue to pick up on the tone that we've had for the last 24 hours. >> that's heartening. thank you. we're going to go questions in a minute. i want to take it down from that lofty plane down to something nor -- both of you, actually, would you advocate making the -- rewriting of federal health care policy the first big ask? or not the first big ask? and i think you both -- did you both say transportation and infrastructure should be the first big ask instead? >> it's one that obviously i think they can find common ground. but none of it will be easy. go ahead. >> i agree. first i would take trent's admonition to president-elect trump look for small things that we can agree to and build on those.
build some trust, build some chemistry. find ways to work together so that you can take on the bigger things. and besides that, the affordable care act is now about the most important element in public policy as it relates to health and that's going to take a lot of time and there's an enormous amount of detail involved. we're dealing with 20 million people that didn't have insurance before. we have 31 states that have expanded medicaid. we have these new protections that are built in and new opportunities for 26-year-olds to sign up on their parents' plan. all of that and totally new infrastructure around the individual marketplace and exchanges. you can't simply say we're going to repeal all that and let the chips fall where they may. it's going to take a lot of thought to figure out how we're going to do that. so i think taking it piece by piece and recognizing so much is now ingrained in the health infrastructure, it's really important that they take it -- especially if they want to keep the kind of tone that we've
just been talking about. >> so if they hit singles, which your encouragement that they do small to build up a head of steam sort of flice in the face of convention which is the 100 days, the mandates. >> if they get too caught up in this first 100 days thing they'll wind up like i think president obama did in some respects overplaying their hand. and tom has done a lot more work in health care than i have but i think -- look, no lawyer pass is perfect. with time you need to revisit most of them. i don't think anybody would disagree that we've got some problems here with companies pulling out and with the explosion of the cost so there needs to be some work done. but i do know this, this is not easy work. this is complicated and has a lot of moving parts. so i think that there clearly the trump administration and
the congress is going to have to deal with this. i would caution them, take your time, maybe not do this in the first 100 days, work through how we can get better participation, how do we deal with the costs? can we add some things? president-elect trump has talked about being able to buy insurance across borders and medical savings accounts. i'm with that. i always wondered why can't you buy across state lines? and medical savings accounts? i am a big advocate of that. i worked with ted kennedy years ago. so there's some bells and whistles. but we need to try to find a way to make it more bipartisan and -- you're not just going to say it's over and here's the total replacement. that's going to take some work and some time. >> do you believe in general hat the time horizon for spending, if there is a mandate -- and i guess there's going to be an argument about that --
for president trump or any new president to spend it out, to last longer than the first six months or 100 days? when in the modern senate or congress does it become time to make it about positions for the mid term and silly amendments that don't do anything? >> unfortunately it starts earlier and earlier. >> it started yesterday. >> that's a good question. my guess is you're going to have some time. i think people are going to look at whether washington is working better when they make their decision two years from now or four years from now. is washington working better? part of what we've seen over the last couple of years is just a level of dysfunction that's so exasperated the voters that i think they voted in part for mr. trump because he was such an outsider and so unrelated to everything that was going on in washington today. this was an anti-washington vote to a certain extent and members of congress ought to understand that. >> i think too focused on the
first 100 days is not wise, quite frankly. i remember that during president bush's presidency in 2001 when we were 50/50 senate we only had the 50/50 sflat for six months and then it flipped over because jim jevered switched to 51/49. but during that period we pashed a bush tax cut bill, major defense, no child left behind. you may not agree with any or all of that but those were four pretty significant things but it took us six months to do that. that's still a pretty good list of things. i hope they just won't get overconsumed with the first 100 days. look, i refer to it as the i's. we have to do immigration reform, we're long overdue, we should have done it in 2007. >> you mean deporting everybody? >> no. that's not what i said.
i do think he's going to do an executive order on that but we do need to deal with how do we secure the border and i'm not talking about a physical wall. i'm for a virtual wall. but i made the comment one time that walls don't work anyway. people are like goats. you can't build a wall or fence big enough, strong enough, high enough that kay can't get over. plus this is america. a wall concept drives me crazy. but we do need to control the flow of immigration in this country. there needs to be a reasonable sensible way to know who is coming and where they're going. we do need workers of h 2 a and h 2 b. with you we need to do that. we need to make some changes and reforms in the tax code. everybody agrees we need to. we disagree about what that would mean. we're going to have to do something about health care. and infrastructure. so just those things, if they could find a way to come to agreement and get those signed into law that would be huge. and if it takes eight months,
ok, fine. >> one more question. so think of your questions. i'm going ask the last question here, which is i get the sense from what you're both saying, strong sense, that if you all were still in the leadership you would encourage each of your members to figure out ways to stray from the party line a little bit or stray from ortsdzo dosmy. what i'm learg i think you say is in general we're in a crisis point because of dysfunction. and also the results of the election give people on both sides some license to stray? or am i oversaying what i've heard? >> i don't think it's necessarily -- i wouldn't characaterize it as straying. i would characaterize it as how do you build bridges? how do you create the chemistry within those 100 people in the senate to get things done in a less confrontational way? that's not straying. that's really sort of recreating what the senate has always been institutionally. and the one thing i would think
we really emphasize strongly is we've got to be in washington a little longer. you're not going to be able to do anything if you leave on thursdays and come back on tuesdays and try to get everything done on wednesdays. we've got to figure out how we change that schedule. that's a function of leadership as well. i would love to see members of the senate and the house work together monday through friday at least three weeks a month. and we used to do that. we used to have bed check votes on monday and thursday night quite off i would and tom too, look we finish this bill tonight we'll be out tomorrow. otherwise i'll see you tomorrow morning. amazing whether or not you can get done in the next three hours. >> we always got to go home early on tuesday because of your favorite tv program. >> now they're nocturnal. they like to come to town tuesday morning, monday night and then work late wednesday night and go fly out on thursday. i always thought when the sun started setting in the west, it's a good time to go home and
have supper with trisha. one reason i'm still married to the same woman after all these years. what they're doing is crazy. they don't bring their families up here, they don't have -- so they don't have a chance to socialize and get to know each other. when i was in the house mike dewine of ohio was in the house on my side of the street across the other side was jerry hucka bea democrat from louisiana, democrats and we were friends. our wives were friends. our kids kicked the can together, they played together, they socialized together. they don't have that relationship. so number one they should work five days a --. now they're being told you've got to raise money, you've got to go home and campaign. the job is here. and number three, the idea that congressmen or senators are sleeping in their offices is the most offensive thing i can think of. [applause] >> i think it's inappropriate,
humiliating and a very bad form of public housing. >> you're preaching to the choir. that's great. i can't see -- who is at the microphone. somebody is there. >> when you're talking about the supreme court, i wantd to ask about the lingering effects, if any, of the medicare garland situation where you had an --maker garl 7bd where you had an unpress dented time where the senate refused to hold hearings or vote on a supreme court nominee so when there is a new supreme court nominee i guess this is more for senator daschle, it could apply to both, how would you address the people who say wait a minute, we should have had this last year, they blocked it, why can't we have some pay-back this time? >> well, i talked a minute ago about norms being lost, and i have to say i will make a prediction.
i hope i'm wrong. but i would predict because this is now viewed as a very successful strategy on mitch mcconnell's behalf or on his part that you're going to see this happen over and over again. no president is going to feel confident about a nominee in the entire last year of his or her term. i think that's deplorable. i think that is wrong. that isn't the way things should operate. but i think it was viewed as a successful strategy in this case and i'm guessing it will be applied at some point in the future. >> i do think, by the way, that the supreme court issue was a key issue. i think the polling -- you can check this. a lot of polling showed that a lot of people that moved over to trump voted that way because of the supreme court. this situation in the senate with regard to federal judges didn't just get to where it is now. it started back when i was still there in the early part of 2000 where we started having filibusters of federal district judges, which i thought was a
mistake, too. i think a lot of people think, well, mcconnell was smart. he played his hand well. we'll get our nominee. i wouldn't have done it that way. i really think that the senate does have a responsibility to advise and consent to have some hearings. you might not have moved him but at least some hearing. maybe payback will come into play. how about a demarkation. let's stop this. democrats and republicans. you say yeah you want to stop it now because you got the presidency and the congress. i'm talking about the institution. one of the most important things that united states senators do that presidents can't do and the house doesn't even participate in or vote on is to advise and consent on federal judicial appointments, including particularly the supreme court. that is a very sacred thing, and i don't think they've been doing a very good job with it for a number of years. >> we have time for one question that takes less than a
minute. >> we say that the vote for trump was a repudiation of washington. how do we explain that they reelected nearly every member of congress to come back? >> great question. >> ok. so i'm going to go ahead and take that one. well, i think in part it was probably -- there is this sense that people still feel some personal identification with their member of congress. they hate the congress but they love their congress person. and it's because of these members are spending over half their time at home mow and they're all over. you know, so they develop these relationships that sort of stranssquend. it's not you. it's them that i'm upset with. so i think that still plays itself out. they didn't know donald trump or hillary clinton or if they did they probably weren't enamored with one or the other. but they know their own member of congress.
and that transcends the -- oftentimes. not always but oftentimes transcends the people's view about the way washington is working. >> i think i agree with that. that's true. i do think that that was a big factor with trump that he represented the real change. michael moore said this would be the biggest go-to that could possibly happen, is that people elected trump. but also, i think that the house and senate candidates played it pretty smart if you go back and look at it. some came out and said i'm for trump. i'm on his team. some were -- tried to just give it the slip. some of them said i'm not going to vote for him. so they kind of got their message in their congressional district or senate races based on the factors in that stated. i think that the house and senate deserve a lot of credit. of course i'm a huge fan of paul ryan. i think he handled it pretty well.
i hope that he and the president elect can get together and have no acrimony. but he didn't just jump on the band wagon. he did what he is supposed to do, and that is look after the house first. that's his constituency beyond his district in wisconsin. i think he had a lot to do with president-elect trump carrying wisconsin. i think the president owes him a debt of gratitude. who would have believed that trump was going to carry wisconsin. >> speaking of paul ryan and donald trump their lunch is wrapping up just about now apparently. so we should wrap this up as well. i thank thi these two distinguished gentlemen. it was wonderful. thank you. it was great. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2016]
captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption contents and accuracy. visit ncicap.org >> tomorrow is veterans day. we'll have live coverage from arlington national cemetery beginning with a wreath-laying ceremony. at the amp ny theater. >> pollsters, reporters, and political scholars analyzed the lessons learned in the 2016 election. this is a little over an hour-and-a-half.
>> good evening, everyone. my name is ruth robin, it's a pleasure to welcome you here. tonight we have an excellent and esteemed panel of experts about to discuss the recent, very recent presidential election and share their insights about the campaign and the results. before i introduce anyone, a couple of quick details. one, if you have a phone please turn it off at this point or silence it. appreciate that very much. and two, everyone wants to sit up straight and look nice and neat and put on your nice smiles because c-span is taping us tonight. you want to look good for them. and last we will have a "q&a" section at the end of the program. just ask you to please limit your questions to one. keep it fairly short. the speakers will repeat the question so that everyone can hear. you do have a handout that has the bios of the
different speakers, in the interest of time i'll keep the introductions very brief. i do have the pleasure of introducing the moderator, kenneth walsh, who is chief courthouse correspondentent for "u.s. news and world report." ken has covered the presidency and presidential campaigns and national politics since 1986. our panelists tonight are jeff, bill, kasie, sarah, and aaron. sunlen, who was in the original write-up, was called to new york. so we were lucky we brought in someone equally as expert, sarah murry. please -- murray. please join me in a warm welcome for ken walsh and our most distinguished guest. [applause] >> thank you for coming. paneliststhank the for being here.
for ruth robbins for organizing and. -- organizing it. it is very emotional time right now. we thought of showing a saturday night live clip but it did not feel right. we decided not to do it. i am sure you are aware of the portrayals of trump and clinton by alec baldwin and kate mckinnon. we decided not to do it. i will give you a couple of quotes from abraham lincoln. it is a very emotional time for a lot of people. hillary clinton supporters really are reeling. they expected to have a big win today. most of the posters felt hillary clinton -- pollsters felt hillary clinton would win.
and now we have donald trump who was president-elect. he met with president obama today at the white house. they met for about 90 minutes in that very familiar setting. for trump supporters, this is a time of jubilation and a small degree of gloating. diligence, i checked the numbers. a little bit of fluctuation. voteshas 290 electoral and clinton has 232. the popular vote was going clinton's way. lead.s a 300,000 vote
had anppened, we almost even split in the country and the popular vote. it reflects this amazing divide we are in right now. 2000, weld trump had that long supreme court bush one inorge w. the supreme court. he lost the popular vote by half a million votes but he claimed the mandate. we have protesters in the streets saying donald trump is not the president. we have people -- i just saw some females and organizations saying we will fight him every step of the way. it is not a pretty picture.
when i have given talks like this before, a lot of people from the audience have said we need some clarity in the election. interested to see if our panel agrees with this. our presidential campaigns have become like pendulums. we go from one party to the other. we have gone from jimmy carter to ronald reagan, george herbert walker bush, bill clinton, george w. bush, brock obama. back in -- barack obama. back and forth, back and forth. other points i want to make. we had some of lincoln's writings today. we would be wise to familiarize ourselves. in his second inaugural address,
the most appropriate for this moment, he calls for the famous lines, malice toward none, charity for all. we have to see if that happens. this moment will be difficult. i want to wind up with a little analysis i wanted to read briefly, and have our panel respond. first, hillary clinton was a deeply flawed candidate. mr. trump a brilliant manipulator of broadcast
benefited from free airtime. pundits consistently underestimating a large segment of our society is deeply miserably angry. they are angry at the arrogance of the rich and well educated, who don't seem to care that the working class standard of declined. they are angry that their children do not have reasonable prospects for dance meant. that is one explanation for what happened on the trump side. and remember bernie sanders, who challenge hillary clinton and lost, appeal to that same sentiment from the left that donald trump did from the right. i would like to start asking our panel, starting with jeff, if you agree with that analysis, how do you see what happened
here? what would happen to -- what did happen? jeff: obviously, there is a lot to what peter had to say. your lincoln quote isn't that comforting because that was after a great civil war. hopefully, that is not what we go through before we have charity to all in the country. the country is divided in a lot of these ways. this election reflected those divisions. the divisions are not only about economics, although there are definitely those at work. in a larger way, it is about what is happening to america --
we are at a fork in the road in some ways in terms of what we make of our diversity is a country. and people have complicated feelings about that. the work we were doing on the lead up to election night, we asked whether people saw her endeavors he is a change for the better or worse. there was nothing that drew a brighter red line than that question. that the more you tended to see increasing diversity of the country as a change for the better, something exciting, the more likely you were to be for clinton, but if you didn't feel that way about the country, you were very likely to be for donald trump. that was being litigated. the other question i was paying attention to thinking about election night in some ways,
defining an election question for election night was how much risk were americans willing to take? it turns out, a lot of them are willing to take out a fair amount of risk. in our survey we did on election eve, the people that voted for donald trump, 21% said he was a risky choice. and they voted for him anyway. in part because they did not have any confidence in the alternative that hillary clinton represented, but also the ways that peter describes. it felt like a risk were taking, even though many of them thought and think that donald trump doesn't have the knowledge and experience or president that a president should have. -- or temperament that a president should have. at that moment, people were
really to take that risk. you will see how they feel about the risk a few months down the road. the last thing i will say that was important this election is that the republican party and right-wing spent a lot of time demonizing hillary clinton. that was on steroids throughout the election. the challenging thing for the media to know how to do what that -- donald trump repeatedly referred to her as a criminal in a cynical and dangerous and demagogue way. at various points in the campaign, she did things either by convention or omission that may have exacerbated the concerns people had. it was very hard with that, given how much of the bandwidth
donald trump had been taking up, for her to break through and provide the kind of confidence peter was talking about in his comments. not possible, but very challenging given the unprecedented nature of trump's contacts on her -- trump's attacks on her. at least since the start of the 20th century indymedia operated environment. -- century in its immediate operated environment. >> let's talk about risk. i grew up in southwestern virginia, in the county that went 81 to 18 for trump. cole county was economically devastated certainly. nowhere near among the people in the high school now as grew up with me.
i was talking to my wife. she said, you know, those people got a lottery ticket. i think to some extent they are right. if your expectation is some sort of incremental change, the situation is sufficiently devastating. that is not good enough. you are willing to risk quite a bit for the hope for dramatic change. >> [indiscernible] >> try to speak up. one other point in terms of this historical perspective -- this should have been a republican vote. -- a republican year. the last time a democrat got elected after a two-time democrat had served was martin van buren, i believe.
it did not happen in the 20th century. last time ironically, martin van buren was the first professional politician. on the second side, to study what they might call fundamentals. the movement of the economy, how long a party has been in power, the average predictions for people who have worked these out several months ago was that the democrats win 51% of the popular vote. if you look at the last nine elections that were open seat election where there is not an incumbent running, the range is 54 points to 45. the median is about 49. from us historical perspective, it actually outperformed. this is not a surprise from for most productive. -- from a historical perspective. it is his rising from what we
-- it is uprising from who the candidates were and what we thought the race was going to be about. >> i think one of the things that has been not focused on as heavily -- we know about the immigration argument, we know about the economic angst by both parties. it is worth remembering that donald trump is not a republican from an ideological standpoint in many ways. we underestimated the impact that an excessively brutal and deeply personal election with two flawed candidates was going to have on the shape and size of
the electorate. there were millions and millions of people that were modeled to show up on election day who stayed home. maybe those were republicans who could not wrap their arms around trump. we know there are millions that voted for mitt romney that did not show up for donald trump. and there were even many more millions of democrats that voted for barack obama and did not show up for hillary clinton. maybe the crooked hillary argument and the amount of time mpnald home that she was a criminal -- even though that is not what the fbi decided -- that stuck with people. it wasn't that they could not bring themselves to cast their ballots for one candidate, they could not bring themselves to show up. we made a lot of assumptions about the direction that turnout moved. that was not true. it was through negative campaigning and so negative, so divisive. it has an impact. it does depress the vote. >> i get to work on nbc wall street journal. one of the questions we wrote
this year, how do you want to vote? a candidate that forms major change -- and here's the kicker -- even if you don't know what the changes going to be? or do you want to vote for a candidate that is steady, predictable, and keep going in the same direction we have been headed? we heard of it better than that, but that is the choice. in the last track last sunday, 54% of americans say, i want change even if i don't know what the changes going to be. 41% say i want steady progress. i think that is a powerful underlying thing in this election. the other thing that is quite unusual -- i said oh, by the way, we have one in five candidates that have an unfavorable idea both candidates. that is not normal. the highest poll result was in
1992, there was a time when bill clinton and george bush had 12% who didn't like either of them. in 2012, only 6% of the population were unfavorable to both obama and romney. when you are at 18%, that is three or four times the normal. if you are a voter, you just said you have an unfavorable view of the candidates, what do you do? they voted for donald trump over hillary clinton. underlying change means she is the status quo in a third-party term. if i don't like either, i am going to vote for somebody new. and i think we should, as we always do, respect the american electorate. we have people that went to vote for the candidate that they
thought was best represent their economic interests. and in parts of the country that feel very disengaged from this kind of success. the doctor was kind enough to talk about his own county. 81 to 19 is a huge number. even obama was probably 72 to 28. so when you go from pennsylvania, ohio, michigan, wisconsin, and you are taking these kinds of margins to that level, you start tipping. the last thing i will say, how could it get so close? the mitt romney-kerry grabbed college graduates by 25 points. you would expect a huge vote. it turned out to be 27 points. if you were a white noncollege
graduate, you voted for trump by 37 points, bigger than ronald reagan against mondale. if you are looking for benchmarks, that is wow. if romney carries them by 25, you carry them by 27, that is a net points. the obama margin disappears in one subgroup. it is a dead even race. >> those voters matters even more. they represent a larger share of the electorate. >> that would buy my view in terms of the reaction. -- be my view in terms of the reaction. >> the idea that trump was dangerous. that did not seem to register. that is what everybody was thinking.
>> not the word people used, but risky. people knew they were taking a risk. he is lacking in the knowledge and experience that a president ought to have when he faced office. >> he or she. >> people worried about how they act in commander-in-chief. they worry about his temperament and divisive impact. but for the reasons we have discussed, there were a group of voters that said, you know what? everything else sucks pretty much, so let's take this risk. can i fact check you on one thing? 100 million people voted for either clinton or romney, but a little over 5 million voted for another third-party candidate. the vote is about 125 million overall. it is possible, not likely, that
this will be the first election since 1948 where fewer people voted in the election eight years previous. think about the amount of population growth that occurs in eight years. that really goes to sara's point of people voting with their feet. >> i think washington, and by that i mean it's ecosystem most of us spend our professional time living in -- is a negligent or. most of us was way too slow. -- is an echo chamber. we were too slow to figure out what was going on outside the echo chamber. a lot of campaign professionals were frankly looking at the same sets of numbers. going into election nights, you can talk to republicans who do this for a living. democrats are going to win the senate and hillary clinton is going to be the next president.
there were lessons that we learned through the course of this election that the hillary clinton campaign in particular completely missed. when we started out, it was going to the jeb bush versus hillary clinton. two giant professional campaigns with $100 million or more, $100 million for the superpac. they knew how to do it, here are the demographics, we will put those groups together and it will be a victory. jeb bush failed so quickly as i dynastic candidate. he struggled on the stump, even though he did everything in theory that you could ever want in terms of name recognition. people knew his name, and he failed. and the clinton people that the process that would not matter to them later on. and they were surprised that bernie sanders was so strong. and they wrote him off as
somebody who was on the french. -- on the fringe. when you're dealing with capitol hill, there is a sense that you have people on the edges that do not matter. sometimes they hold stuff up, but they are never the people running the country. i think the clinton campaign treated bernie sanders a lot like that. i covered him for four months. i felt like i was marooned on an island. no one seemed to be paying attention. we were looking at the day after the michigan primary, which bernie sanders won. getting on a conference people with everybody at the office. they said, we are so surprised by this, we can't believe this happened. i said, well if you look when i was saying yesterday leading up to this, you will not be so surprised. [laughter] we were not surprised that it happened. i think the clinton campaign missed the action and that disconnection -- clearly there is an ideological disconnection between those who vote for
bernie sanders and donald trump. they are likely to tell you they were on opposite sides. what is driving them is feeling like the system in washington is ignoring them, and people would not even listen. there was no way to fix it. the only way they could say anything to change it to something like support bernie sanders -- i think donald trump voters felt the same way. the clinton campaign missed it entirely. you see it in john podesta's attack e-mails. they were trying to figure out, how is she going to stand on tpp? there was a 12 e-mail chain figuring out where they would put her on this issue. i remember every time driving to a hillary clinton event, we drive through the airport, usually in the us of the city, or driving through a rural area, all you see are trump science.
-- trump signs. every clinton event was very small. it was like covering mitt romney in the final days. people were affected in getting donald trump elected. that was not true on the donald trump -- on the hillary clinton's. >> benefit of hindsight not having worked in the campaign, it is amazing when you look back at how hillary clinton ran her campaign between the end of the primary, how much the notion of the system being broken, how much and message of economic populism that carried bernie sanders totally evaporated from her message. it was nowhere in the general election. >> it showed back up in michigan two days before the election. she started saying hey, working people, i feel your pain, i promise i do. >> i was out on the road to some
extent. not as much as my colleagues. but there was a tremendous amount of excitement for trump. i was brought up in the school of analysis that you have to be careful at rallies. people that shoulder rallies doesn't mean that that person is going to win. kasie: you can feel a crowd. a good political campaign knows how to build a crowd. kenneth: right. this was a much different intensity from what hillary clinton was dealing with. michelle obama was at a rally, and even then, trump did one rally -- i don't know if you were there. he did a giant rally. even at that the intensity was much different from the hillary
rally. and i want to come back to this a little later the kind of analysis we do as political reporters and political strategists. >> and things are okay for the most part. the economy has been insulated here for a wide variety of reasons. there are these people -- there are not as many people feeling this kind of hate. and i met so many people at bernie sanders rallies. people that you see and you say wow, i should start thinking about how hard it is for people. people working three jobs, making less money, and paying more for their health care. it defies belief. >> i want to ask our pollsters the gender question. what were numbers on the gender gap?
>> the exit polls have the gender gap slightly larger than 2012. clinton won women by 12 points, which is two points larger thing obama did. -- than obama did. the exit polls are not perfect. but they are what we have got. 12 points for clinton among women. 12 points for trump among men. that is a net difference of 24 points. it was 17 points. a larger piece of that is more men voting for trump and more women voting for clinton. >> if not to ask exactly that, what was the turnout for men and women? >> again, the only tool we have to know that is the exit poll. the exit poll was 52 to 48.
but it is so imperfect -- what will happen in a couple months from now is we will have voter files that tell you exactly who voted. that will provide a much better analysis of at least the composition of the electorate. the exit polls in 2012 we know over stated to some extent the share of the electorate under the age of 35 years old. some states understated the share of the state that was african-american. this voter final analysis that will happen later on will be much more reliable and meaningful than exit polls. >> i want to put about some controversial science that the y chromosome makes people lazy. it is one more thing where men
and -- where women -- they vote, they do their stuff, and men, and the differences get especially large by ethnicity and age. early to mid 20's, they are a little drifty compared to women in that same age group. i think as normal, we are going to see the women number go up. >> i think we have polled that before, right? just stepping back again and looking at this amazing year and a half. where there are one or two turning points that make a difference? i mean, at the end you had the fbi on again off again investigation, trump's tape on
the bus where he talked about groping women. were there turning points? maybe we can start on this end. kasie: putting me on the spot. this may not be your question, but i think one of the things that says this in motion is what happened at the white house correspondents dinner with donald trump and barack obama. a lot of this, especially in the beginning, was a drive-by donald trump to prove that he could do something that a lot of people thought he could not do and would ridicule him for. people started focusing on the character traits of, trump -- he seems to be driven by making sure that people taken seriously. i think voters identify with that. a plan of people that were
motivated feel the same way. they feel like people discount them, dismiss them as deplorables, or pick your word. i think there was a kind of anti-elitism or whatever it was driving at. i think that is how this got set in motion. >> i think it would be helpful in terms of balance how much of this was built in by those strong structural factors, versus campaign events. i think the comey thing helped in one regard. as a group, the news covers a story. there is a narrative and a storyline.
switching to the comey thing snapped the entire thing about trump's behavior to women. it just stopped. by the way, he gave him 10 or 11 days to run a coherent campaign where he spoke from a teleprompter and stayed out of the news and ran a competent campaign for the last two weeks. i think that's which made the difference in terms of how we got in the campaign. sunlen: i would argue that started sooner. i think the access about donald trump talking about women that way, the fact that he was asked if he didn't to women, and it doesn't women came out and said that he made unwanted sexual advances to them, that made a difference. internal public polling showed donald trump dead in the water, down 10 or 12 points, tracking down the senate. there was no recovering from that moment. that is what things were looking
like on election day. before the comey thing happened, the obamacare announcement came out. that said so perfectly into the notion that washington is building these systems that are not designed to make your life better. they sell them to you and say, we are doing this for you and it will improve your life, and you find out it is not going to work that way. your income isn't going up, but your obamacare premium is going up. donald trump looked at those numbers and he went to a teleprompter. he said, let me tell you how much obama care premiums are going up wherever he was. and comey came right on the heels of that and completely changed the narrative of the campaign. questions about hillary clinton and the legacy she would carry on as president, rather than the question about donald trump. >> in the clinton response to that was to turn their fire onto
comey rather than explain why she was innocent. i don't think she ever got to the point where she was answering questions about her e-mail use in a way where people felt okay, she's right, she didn't do anything wrong, or two, that they could forgive her for what she did because she was always so defensive. >> access hollywood tape turned out to be a turning point. but much more for kelly ayotte and those in new hampshire than donald trump. what is shocking to me, if donald trump behaves himself for five days, everything that happened before those five days was forgiven and forgotten. regardless of how horrible the thing was. starting with the primary, we said this will be a strong that breaks the camel's back.
this kimmel had the strongest back in history -- camel had the strongest back in history. [laughter] and hillary was the opposite of that. as short as people's memories or about donald trump, they were just as long for hillary clinton. >> there was an argument in the media that we jumped from things too quickly and did not focus on these donald trump issues. it was like dripping from a fire hydrant, there was one every minute it seemed. you are putting these are constantly in the battleground states right? you are advertising about trump's remarks on women and one group after another. that did not vanish from the radar screen. it is just people were paying attention to other things. >> yeah, we spent a lot of money
reminding people in it different ways. the super pac for hillary clinton, reminding people about the different things he said about women in his life. the other point of focus for us at to do with his temperament as commander-in-chief, which was truly worrisome to people. came up organically in focus groups. just his general divisiveness and trump tenor. >> what was amazing in talking to the donald trump voters, it serves your point how quickly they forget him for things. he became a vessel for whatever folder issues -- whatever voter issues were. you used to vote as democrat but you don't feel like you are getting ahead, then donald trump became your economic vessel. you could say, i don't agree with things he says about latinos or muslims or women, but he apologized and he has the
right message on this. we have heard people say that time and time again about whenever their core issue was. >> there is a phenomenon in social psychology called cognitive dissonance. if people really want to do something, and they really wanted to do something, they find a way to do it and explain it to themselves. it is a powerful force. >> all eyes point to you now. >> trump's candidacy completely changes the race. what i worry about, given the nature of the historical dynamics, it seems certainly possible that another republican could have won, might reasonably have won, but it would not have been the same constituency.
is this a situation where you continue to double down with the twin cities that are becoming -- with constituencies that are becoming increasingly smaller, but you get more and more of them? or more of a position towards the party, or you don't get working class without a college education as much as trump does, but you do better with latinos, women overall. in essence, you win, but you win with a different constituency. i think some people would say, that will never be possible. i don't know about that. >> that would be your nightmare. >> for a democrat that is really troubling. >> i know i have talked too much
but it really is my anxiety about donald trump. [laughter] the states that made the difference in breaking what people thought of as the wall -- pennsylvania, michigan, and wisconsin. donald trump is a much better candidate for those states than mitt romney. mitt romney is culturally alien, more culturally alien than clinton or barack obama. kasie: he kept saying things that reinforced that. >> but donald trump was their guy. for the change in complexion of the vote in those three states in particular, donald trump was probably a really good candidate for them. and all the other republicans have been much more vulnerable to the blue wall aspect. >> what does it say about hillary clinton or the
electorate that donald trump, who lives in a penthouse in manhattan, who europe with -- who grew up with a cushy life, whose father gave him a multimillion dollar loan for his business captured the heart of the working-class american better than hillary clinton, who has a operating that looks a lot more similar to those people? >> issues matter. the republican party that existed before tuesday hasn't changed. the republicans, everybody becomes its president. donald trump has shifted the orthodoxy of the republican party. on immigration, on the border wall in terms of its priority, on trade, in saying that we will be less involved around the world. those are five incredibly
powerful differences from the previous republican parties. the reality is those five policy positions, when bonded together, uniquely fit the voters across the state in a way that they said it would. they said we are going to do this because no republican has ever sent this. these are things we think we should do. and he's going to try and get those things done. the donald trump republican party is going to be a very different looking vehicle than it has been from reagan and bush eras. these will be unbelievable changes in what it means to be a republican. the thing about this country, it will have a four year decision and two year decision. >> in the immediate issues where
trump is redefining the orthodoxy of the party, does that mean that the freedom caucus and the members of congress will roll over? they have been on the other side of these issues. they genuinely felt this for a long time. do they say, never mind, we have a new president, or army in for the same -- or are we in for the same kind of stalemate? >> when everybody is feeling their worst, we had that shift in 2009. republicans woke up and said wow, democrats run everything. the constitution is the genius of people in what would terms of what you have done. take 60 votes. obama was operating temporarily with 62 votes. i mean, things are not going to happen as radically as we think
if every vote became a 60 vote. the republican party historically has been pretty responsive to its president, and i think -- here is the other thing that happened. geoff mentioned two candidates. those are two republicans who withdrew their endorsement after the access hollywood story. point he is making, those are the two republicans who lost. my candidate john mccain went -- withdrew his endorsement. but kelly ayotte was a senator,
then john mccain was a personal brand. >> the point being that in the republican party, that it catholic -- it tells you how hierarchical it is that a republican can insert themselves into the congressional leadership. >> where does this leave the democrats? >> great question. do you want me to speak? [laughter] i think there is a short-term answer and a long-term answer to that. the short-term answer is that this is -- when donald trump is going to do a lot of things that are harmful for people that democrats people represent, and harmful to the values they hold dear. part of it is in the near-term, how can democrats most effectively extend up to that and rally the country against that. there will be opportunities for democrats to do that.
people did not sign up for all the things that donald trump is going to do as president. more people in our election at the polls said that hillary more people in our election at the polls said that hillary clinton gave them a clear idea of her priorities than donald trump did. so that he is going to do things that will really test the country and depth of his support. that happened to president reagan early on. you remember all of that. but then the longer-term -- i spoke at the center for american progress a week before the election and said i was haunted by the brexit election. in some ways, this was our national identity election in a same way that brexit was.
the remain campaign was a campaign entirely based on fear. so the people that felt that things were working for them, there is nothing that was given people hope. i am haunted that we are in the same position. we are not giving people hope, who are really looking to us for that. and for the longer term, that is what the democratic party needs to figure out. the things happening to the country are real. the things that make people anxious aren't fantasies, they are realities. really, the emergence of new voices and new thinking. >> looking at polling of the most and least popular institutions -- [indiscernible] >> i think media was at the bottom.
>> we were right about putin. [laughter] >> what extent was this notion that trump embodied, as you were saying, a vessel for anger and resentment? what extent was this a repudiation of wall street business, washington, congress? kasie: it was entirely that. 100% that. if you look at -- i forget who was making this point. i should be giving them credit. there was someone who pointed out during election coverage on tuesday night that both bernie sanders' campaign and donald trump's campaign had enemies. there was an enemy -- topple the thing that is making your life harder. for bernie sanders, it was wall street.
big banks in the case of -- and because of donald trump, it was immigrants. you name it. those things were absent from hillary clinton's campaign, and for most of the primary challengers. there was no acknowledgment where people could say, that guy is scaring me over and i want -- is screwing me over and i want to fix it. >> do we all agree it was a repudiation? >> i would like to be a little different spokesperson. our job is to listen to people. we wrote a question in 2014 and said hey, we just survived a great recession. how much impact that that have on your family? 64% said so -- we asked, when you say that, what do you mean? we got, i lost my job, i lost my pension, or i have my job but in
making have of when i used to make. page after page in which the lives have been interrupted after that horrible economic episode. we said two years later, how much impact did it have on your family? it dropped to 61%. we read the same stories. when you read 80 pages about how the great recession and what it meant, these are profoundly personal difficult stories. that 60% of the country is years after we think the recovery has taken place. that kind of economic dislocation, and what that has unleashed i think is something we need to speak to. i hope i am not being difficult with my panelists. i don't want to look at it as
being anti-elitist. people are expressing this profound dislocation economically on how they felt and how they want that addressed in their lives. sara: for me anti-elitism is quite right. people who seem to be using the system to enrich themselves. obviously 40% must have told you, i wasn't affected. those are pretty stark lines. >> stand your ground, you were right the first time. [laughter] i would not suggest that i predicted donald trump. in 2014 we did a lot of research
about trust in government. one thhing -- one thing is that he will really believed, all of america believed that washington was for special interests i could update -- is working for them at the expense of other, regular americans. the other thing is that there were a lot of americans who felt the economy was not working for them. there is a group of people who expected that after eight years, they would have been made whole by now. and the fact that they hadn't been made whole. it is not just about their incomes, it is about their assets. their homes and retirement accounts are not worth as much. the fact that they have not been made whole when other people are
making off like bandits. that is what makes wall street the center of the eye of hurricane. the combination of those two things, the economy not working for people, and the government not working for people -- is toxic. it was the backdrop. >> for democrats, barack obama was on the campaign trail saying hey, i saved us from the great recession. some said clearly he made things to make it better, but a lot of people were not feeling that. certainly that is the argument hillary clinton tried to make. she did not say any negative things about the president for fear of alienating her coalition. but on the other hand, her other voters needed her to say something that the president did not fix it entirely. >> years of talking to consultants and strategists, americans want to be rich
themselves, so they don't mind people getting rich, as long as it doesn't pull them down. when they felt like someone is getting rich at my expense -- is that what happened? >> i worked for some very wealthy candidates across my career. they follow two camps, people who give the money, and people who made the money. when i work for candidates that are very wealthy -- i worked for a mayor of houston that started working when he was eight years old. he never finished college, collated into the oil industry, and was conspicuously wealthy. people said that is ok, he worked for it, i don't find that. that is the wealthy candidates where they are given money,
where there is resentment. i don't think americans mind that you worked hard and found a way to make a lot of money, that is ok. when you have been given the money, or if you delete that, our entire system is so twisted that people who have the money are the ones getting massive amounts of money, that breeds anger and resentment. it is palpable. >> part of it is what you have, and where you think you are going. the polling i have seen suggests that is a different idea of what is ahead than white americans if they had the same amount of
money. you have to ask yourself, you have certain groups they can feel like there is promise in the future, where other groups don't. i see from campaigning standpoint how important it is to identify particular individuals to blame for what seems a severely complex problem. cap becomes particularly dangerous if you actually get elected. there is some expectation about addressing that particular individual or group of people to solve a problem. if the problem does not get solved, where does that leave us? >> a couple of other quick things. the idea of race. for many years from the senses we get the idea that -- from the census that we are becoming a majority minority country. white people will no longer become a majority in the united states, roughly around 2030.
the feeling that the republicans are on the wrong side of the demographics, latinos in particular were going for the democrats, trump was stirring up latinos against the republican party itself. and african-americans were solid for the democrats for a long time. how did this election strike you as far as race goes? is there a cause a permanent divide -- quasi-permanent divide with minorities? >> it is developing. i think it is a central feature of the election. we talked before we started about how people felt about this exact change, whether it is change for the better. white people are very divided
about this. it determined people's votes, or at least predicted people's votes. there is another side of this from the democrats. letting go into this election, oh, we've got this big blue wall, plus demographics. and with combination, we cannot lose. the world is changing in our collection, the electric will get younger -- the world is changing in our direction, the electorate will get younger. that was not true for this election. >> more than half the kids being born in the country today -- this country will be going through an incredibly sure change. we have according to the u.s.
census the highest amount of people born outside the country since 1880, and the highest number of people speaking other than english in the last 80 years. i believe in the american ideal. i believe america is founded on the principle. we are infinitely stronger because of this incredible influx of new people. august what has happened in every way above immigration? every wave has led to social tension, dislocation, a battle as we assimilate people. we actually the irish with of immigration. guess what has been a happy
outcome over a generation? our country capacity's to function as a nation. i think that will happen over time. we're watching the same dislocation that took place with each part of these immigration waves. i think there is a right side to history. the right side is no party is going to survive as the right party. if you do not find a way to have some inclusive message, and some capacity to motivate people around these divisions, you are not going to survive as a party. >> can i add one thing quickly? you asked about turning points. i think the emergence of the black lives matter movement was a turning point. especially when black people were being killed by police, and when police were being killed by assassins. it came front and center for people and their way of thinking about the world. to me, donald trump did a lot of unforgivable things in this category. a a lot of them. but the most unforgivable thing he did in the campaign was to rub these racial divisions raw.
and to run a campaign that was designed to exploit them for his political advantage. that happened, and it made a difference. he won votes on that basis. but it does an unforgivable thing. i don't think he can make up for it. if he's got a job to do as president, making up for it is a good one. >> that is a good question for donald trump. i would love to know what is going through his head as he watched people spilling into the streets and protesting. we've heard from african-americans, muslims, latinos, young women, who woke up the next morning and cried and were afraid. that is something we have not seen in this country for a long time. we saw a plot of strong feelings when president obama was elected, but this is a different story of sentiment. republicans will say it was
because democrats spent a lot of time casting donald trump as an unacceptable person to president. the reality is that donald trump supported stop and first, called for a muslim ban, said horrible things about women, and he did a lot of things that gave all of these groups of people real reason for fear. but now he is a president-elect. when you see these people having these reactions, how do you handle that? if you want to be president for all people, does he understand the amount of work that is going to take? >> feel free to ask about this in the questions, but the final point i want to make is about
governing. what is possible? are we headed for more deadlock? is anger going to paralyze everything? is there any insight into what can be done? >> i think it is smart to focus on infrastructure. there is consensus around that-- there is a start at least. but once you get past that, the list gets long. >> what will be interesting is how the republican party on capitol hill responsd -- responds to how donald trump changes the traditional orthodox pillars on which the republican party is built. mitch mcconnell embodies what the republican party has been. now he is going to have to figure out -- they were on capitol hill today. i encourage you to look at the photo. [laughter] it is quite illuminating in showing what the republican
party in washington has been, and what it is becoming. you talk to republicans, and they have no idea. [laughter] >> we have seen gridlock before and we were probably see more gridlock going forward, but it is important president obama into the white house a man who is questioned his birthright to be president. and he said kind things to him in front of the camera. hillary clinton told people you need to give donald trump a chance to govern. we were on top of the chamber with the white house in the background. the white house is still standing. the peaceful transition of power still happening. america is still america. >> we will see if he gets his twitter account back. who knows what will happen? you had your hand up earlier. >> what was the relationship between the -- questions like legalization of marijuana and
assisted suicide with the people coming to the polls, even if they did not like either of the candidates. >> did you hear that ok? >> the question was, we had a lot of initiatives on the ballot, marijuana and assisted suicide. i do a lot of those initiatives, i did the work in arizona, the only state where we defeated marijuana.
it does change the composition of the electorate. for example, an arizona and looks like you had a higher turnout with 18 and 29-year-olds. and so -- [laughter] but what happens is a lot of times in a presidential election, the impact of the deferential turnout that an initiative is muted because we have such a high level of turnout. you see it much more dramatically in the off years. jeff does a lot of work, i'm comparing nose of people who run campaigns. i don't know of a state where i think the initiative change the composition so much that it is a different person running for president because of something on the ballot. i do not know a state, i do not think of a state where the elect or results is different for president because of something on the ballot. >> are any of you troubled by the fact -- any of you troubled over the last 16 years there have been two candidates who have won the popular vote but not the electoral college vote? >> i'm sorry. let me answer that. when i talk about the founding genius of the constitution, it was a document that was meant to
create legitimacy and a mandate for the president. so, they deliberately -- let me defend the electoral college. i think it is a piece of genius in this regard. they did it so that california and, california and new york and some states, could not elect a president because of votes. they wanted to create a president who would govern with some kind of majority. they made up the electoral college for that purpose. there were 15 minutes where that was possible. they put in the house of representatives where we go one vote per state. maine and california get the same vote because they want the president to serve with some majority creating that presidency. so, i believe that has worked to create the capacity for every president to have a majority that elected me. i do not think the popular vote would do that. in new hampshire, god knows, there must be 300 or 500 counties. nobody would ever go to some of these states. i will see if other people are
troubled. i believe powerfully we should not change it. the electoral college serves the purpose of allowing every president to say that he or she starts with a majority that provides the power to govern in the country. >> i wonder what you think of that notion of the electoral -- >> i tend to be on your side. but i'm also a pragmatist. so, i think it will get changed when both political parties see it in their interests to change it. >> which will probably never be at the same time. >> there are a lot, the problems associated with it, can you imagine this year if you actually had to deal with recount issues? the actual popular vote, half a percentage point. you have got to recount everything, literally? i mean -- >> real quickly, it is never
going to happen because the constitution requires a constitutional amendment that requires 3/4 vote. do you think south dakota, north dakota, any small state would vote for it? it is never going to be changed because of the process you have to go through to amend it. >> i think the biggest divide, you guys correct me if you think i am wrong, it seems to me the biggest divide in this election was between rural america and the rest of america. one thing, i think, for democrats it is very clear, a lot, especially in these blue states, it was people who used to be part unions or white blue-collar workers went for donald trump because the democratic party got completely disconnected with those people and their priorities. and instead, they fell to demographic destiny in cities.
you can see it when you look at the map. it is very dangerous for any political party in america to get to the point where they are ignoring the wide swatch of land in between. >> let's give someone else a chance. yeah, go ahead. >> so, we know that trump won a lot of blue states like wisconsin and michigan. why did hillary perform really well in nevada? >> it is a great question. you know, part of the theory of building a new hillary coalition that would be slightly different from the obama coalition was to do really well with hispanic
voters. and those voters really matter in nevada. and they turned out at a very high level and at a very high level for her. some organically, some organized through their labor unions they along to. but in the states you mentioned, michigan and wisconsin, hispanics represented a much smaller part of the vote. bill put some information together the other day about the lower turnout in some key democratic counties and states like that. so, the composition of the -- nevada electorate worked very much in her advantage in a way that was not true and those other states. >> i think one thing to remember, blue states are only blue states until they are not anymore. and red states -- and voila, what we saw was the beginning of a change in the map of a lot of folks who work a lot of data and
new polling, what was going to happen. it just happened faster than we expected this election. they expected democrats like hillary clinton to do better with latino voters, making inroads in places like nevada. be able to make places like arizona competitive or maybe republicans appealing more to white voters and begin to make more inroads in places like wisconsin and michigan. i don't think anyone expected it to happen this quickly. and with such a break from the data we were seeing publicly. >> go ahead. >> so, several members of
congress, including republicans, have expressed doubts that trump will. what is the feeling on how his base will respond to some of those goals not being achieved. the ability to forgive him quickly will extend into his administration? >> yes. i do think that. i do think that ability will extend, because when you talk to people, specifically about a lot of these goals, they will say, people have told me,we know he is not going to deport everyone here illegally. we nkow he is not really going to ban muslims from coming to the u.s. we're angry and he is filtering that anger. and this is of the people have said over and over again. he is a negotiator in your new starting point. and he is going to make it feel like this is his starting point in that negotiation. i think one of the things that will be interesting looking on capitol hill is who he works with to get these things done, like some of the things that donald trump is talking about are not pillars of republican ideology. so, it's possible we see, you
know, if he wants to be an effective president, will we see him siding with democrats on some issues, siding republicans on other issues? >> that is something republicans on capitol hill are already raising with me today. we're really interested to know actually whether donald trump is willing to have a conversation with elizabeth warren. you read what bernie sanders said in his words, he is going to use racist, misogynist policies. i have no interest in that, but if you want to do something that is going to help working and middle america, then ok. i will work with the guy. >> let's go somebody in the back. let's go to the gentleman in the middle. >> can you repeat the questions because we are not hearing them? to what extent do voter i.d. laws reduce voting times, have any impact on the results of this election? has any research been done into that yet? >> how much do voter i.d. laws and other voter suppression efforts have an impact on the
election? anybody? >> we think they have a substantial impact in north carolina in reducing the african-american vote. you have seen the pictures of the long lines at polling places. when you set out in a deliberate way to make it harder for people to voter, it is not shocking that fewer people end up voting. and the courts mitigated some parts of the most blatantly racial parts of the north carolina voting law, but not all of them. not things related to voting hours and access to polling places. those things matter. they were done with the intent and the intent was accomplished. >> did it determine what happened in the state? >> that you have a governor's election in north carolina where the democrat is ahead by 4000 votes.
it was 4000. if it ends up going the other way, it clearly would have mattered. >> the gentleman in centerfield back there. >> you talked a lot about -- trump voter and who he is. who is the clinton voter? they are slightly more. >> the question is who is the clinton voter? who turned out for her? >> as you heard, she did better with women. there tended to be more female, better educated. >> a lot better. if you pull the numbers from postgraduates, it is stunning. >> did anyone in this room vote
for donald trump? one. two. anyone else? >> that is the shy trump effect. >> you all are hillary clinton voters. [inaudible] >> i don't vote in elections that i cover. that i think you just answered your own question, because the country is so divided and so -- that question was pew who did the work on whether you had a friend, you knew somebody who voted for donald trump or you knew somebody who voted for hillary clinton. hillary clinton won people who live in cities, won people of color won people who are well educated, she won the kind of an people you come across every day. and this is a particular kind, and you walk into hispanic community, it is little bit different. potentially, this is -- so there's a difference there. i just cannot overstate the degree to which people who voted for hillary clinton and who
assumed and thought there was no way she could never end up president of the united states different in their outlook and the people they were talking to and surrounding themselves with than the people who voted for donald trump. >> it does make me wonder of those democrats that did not stay home, how many stayed home because it was unfathomable that donald trump would win. >> you think it's unfathomable to the clinton campaign. flying on the plane for three days having a party. >> there was a couple of weeks, a couple months before the election, the late-night shows -- you cannot imagine a donald trump presidency? did you ask everyone in your yoga class? you know. we live in our own bubbles. our bubbles do not look like the american electorate writ large. >> that is the danger that this divisiveness and lack of understanding between those two groups. >> [inaudible]
>> -- the children's health care plan. law enforcement and many think she did, and yet you barely heard them on her advertising or in her speeches. unemployment, went from 10% down to 4.8%. while most people i think in the rust belt think it is 40% and worse. she, if she highlighted that, i thought she might have done better. >> a lot of people in the rust belt feel it in their lives in this negative way, independent of the numbers. there is always controversy about that on employment rate. underemployment, people do not look for jobs anymore. a lot of people you are
describing, yeah, they pay attention to the positive numbers but the trump people, that did not reflect them. they must've felt the elite world does not understand them because it does not reflect their lives. i come from a working-class background myself. it's very rare in the editorial meetings in washington, these days, i must say. that is part of the diversity we need in the media. right. but the, i think a lot of people have not been living those unemployment numbers below 5%. and i think that is a problem that the hillary campaign did not address properly. >> income has trended down since the end of the recession. there's good numbers and not so good numbers. it's not like income has been up by five point. >> she did run a number. her advertising was a pretty
good mix of positive and negative ads. she had some very good positive ads. the difference between her two minute closing ads and donald trump's closing two minute ad was night and day. literally, hers was quite hopeful and positive. his was really quite dark in terms of its view of the world. in terms of her, i'm interested in what sarah has to say. in terms of her speeches, it is very hard to communicate a positive message in this environment and this media environment, in particular. do you think that is true? >> i think it is true that it's hard to convey, but i don't think hillary clinton was running a positive campaign. i do not think donald trump was running a positive campaign.
it's hard. it was difficult for her to run on the legacy of barack obama. and to be out there, the positive things you want to say is the economy is getting better. people are not feeling that. >> we have some people in the balcony. the lights are in my eyes. i can't point to you. you will have to sort it out yourselves. let's go to the balcony. >> my question is this, first of all, let's face it, two identical products, one costs $12, one cost $24. i think we would all buy the $12 one if it comes from china or somewhere else. we will always buy the lower-priced products if all
other things are equal. my questions are this. how do you -- what do you account for the fact that polls were so wrong, number one? and number two, do you think it was a good idea for hillary to switch towards the end of the campaign to advertise more the senate races instead of spending more and her campaign as president? >> i think we all heard that question. why do you think the polls were? >> the last two days have been very bad. >> i have a not popular point of view on this. which is that jeff and i will keep our clients because our private polling was correct. and helped direct the campaign. and i think what people
understand, and let me speak up for nate silver. when nate silver, his final prediction, he says there is a 30% donald trump can win. she's three points ahead. in these three of the last four elections, the last result has been three points different than the last track. three points is a blink. what he said is it was this guy because either it was tied, three points better or the person or one to three points better and no one noticed. the reason there was this meltdown is because people said, my gosh, everyone said clinton is going to win. how could trump win? let me give you -- i will give you my small example.
she is three points ahead. you carry white, noncollege voters by 10 more points and win by more than ronald reagan and that is 3%, 10% more, 3.4%. it's tied. and polls, by the way, i'm sorry, polls are not great at saying i know for sure that there will be higher turnout in these areas. and even by the way, all these analytics. i have made 100,000 phone calls. they are not that great down to one or two point, couple points level. so, what i am suggesting is there is, i understand, i also understand, believe me i'm getting it, i understand all across america people are saying the polls were all wrong. i just think if you do this for a living, the internal clients in each campaign were not shocked. i do not have jeff's poll. but i had a poll in michigan four days out that had trump ahead. my client said, that cannot be
right. i said, guess what? you paid for one poll. she's in detroit on friday. if my poll is wrong, what is she doing in detroit on friday? i said the reason you should believe -- there is something big going on in michigan. and this poll picked it up, because the people that run the race with more money than god are putting her in michigan on friday, and detroit. that is telling me this poll is correct. >> their numbers are usually not necessarily better than public polling, but the polling you guys see every day in newspapers and on tv, there tends to be a lag because news organizations are not doing a day-to-day, they're not spending the kind of money that the campaign are doing, minute by minute. but they do different kinds, tracking phones. a lot of times, that is why often will just survey people like jeff and people that work around him to say, what you guys seen? because i think your point is very much taken. in the last couple days, it can actually move. if y'