tv Panelists Discuss the Future of the Republican Party CSPAN August 31, 2017 4:13am-5:21am EDT
citizens what is taking place. we simply have no choice. afterwards, sunday night at 9:00 eastern on book tv. >> next, political analysts debate the future of the republican party. the forum was hosted by zocalo public square in los angeles. usk you all for joining here at the national center for the preservation of d >> thank you for joining us. i would like to begin by thanking our hosts and a big thanks to c-span. [applause] >> here are mission is to connect people to ideas and to each other.
we are a nonprofit organization publishing an online ideas magazine and providing live events of that examine essential questions in an acceptable and democrat spirit. since our founding in 2003, we presented 548 events featuring 2184 speakers, and 23 cities, seven states, and six countries. we do this all on the staff of eight people. [applause] >> so we thank you for joining us today at even number 549. as always, this is free and everyone is welcome. at a time when our country's public sphere and our conversation has become polarized and segregated, it is important to provide a welcoming space, because democracy is as much a culture as a system and we believe in creating meaningful opportunities for people to learn about one another. and in everything we do across
our defense and our journalism, we're dedicated to expanding dialogue, not shutting it down, and viewing the world kaleidoscopic leak. it is not in here with a panel, the discussion is followed by a question and answer session with the audience, as well as a reception to which everybody is invited to grab a beer, a glass of wine, water and soda and continue the conversation with our guests as well as with each other. check us out. on facebook must follow us on twitter -- or follow us on twitter. if you have not already, take a moment to silence your cell phones. again, after the program i hope you will join us in the lobby for drinks. it is not my great pleasure to introduce tonight's moderator, ms. christina bellantoni. she is an assistant managing editor of politics at the los angeles times. she previously spent 12 years covering politics in washington,
as well as a political editor at pbs newshour. she has covered three presidential campaigns and the virginia statehouse. she has also served as vice president of the board of the washington press club foundation. please join me in giving a warm welcome to miss christina bellantoni. [applause] christina: thank you and keep those hands ready because we will be giving a warm welcome to our panel as well. really lucky to have such an esteemed panel and i'm glad to be here. i think it will be a good conversation. in the green room we mostly talked about our children, but i think we will have fun talking about the important conversation in politics right now. what is the future of the republican party, effectively? and what is next? and what does that mean for democrats and those bigger picture political questions so many people are engaged in now more than ever. so i appreciate everybody being here. first in no particular order, i will start with leslie graves, who is the publisher of ballotpedia.
the encyclopedia of american politics. she founded the organization to equip everyday citizens with accurate and objective information about elections and politics. admirable cause. [applause] you probably read a lot of mike madrid's name in the los angeles times, because he is a political consultant based in sacramento at grassrootslab and he has served as the political director for the california republican party and is well known in the state, as is everybody in the panel. [applause] christina: thank you. cassandra pye is to my right, a public affairs strategist and the board president for california women lead. she was also the deputy chief of staff to arnold schwarzenegger when he was governor and political director for the california chamber of commerce. please give her a warm welcome. [applause] christina: and as you know, we will be taking questions after,
so let's engage in a wonderful discussion starting with the premise of this conversation. i'm asking each of you, is the republican party dead? cassandra? cassandra: since you asked the question, um, it depends on where. generally i think one has probably got the notion that there is at least a nail or two of them in the coffin in california, because the numbers are so low. i have a numbers guy next to me so i will have him help me cheat. numbers are low. dems are holding. my view at the state level is that, if the party is any position to nail a successful campaign for a statewide office at this point of any kind, probably not governor corbett maybe, but certainly in a statewide office i tend to think it will help the brand in a sort
of balance out some of what comes from washington and stopped at our borders. that will take quite a few things. i am certainly curious to hear my friends' comments in reaction to this comment. i think it will take a great candidate. i think it will take a lot of cash. it will take good timing and a little bit of luck. waslast race i worked on the u.s. senate campaign. he came in third. i like to tell him that he won at least one primary. [laughter] cassandra: i think he came in with about seven points. if there had been just us on the ballot, i think the numbers could have been around 22% or 23%, and he would've come in second place ahead of sanchez and he would've had a race on your hands. but 2016 was 2016, so he did that with great messaging and he did it going out and is speaking with women's groups, i could go
on about how it happened, but a lot of things would have to happen for us to get a statewide candidate that is viable statewide and then i think there is a chance. i will stop talking and leave it to my friends. and come back to it. christina: leslie? leslie: i would say i am giving a talk in dallas next week, the title of it, is -- i would be making that up, because it will not be happening. but it could happen. the pelican party is enjoying -- were public and party is enjoying electoral success right now. they have 34 governorships as of the week ago. over two dozen states where the governors are republicans, the state senate controlled by the republican party. legislation passing in those estates, achieving a lot of what the republican party has cherished and wanted to do for years, if they had the reins
of power at the state level. one, the reppo can party is struggling in a lot of areas, right? but it is probably struggling less than the democratic party, so you could say it is the party that is in the least trouble, except for the other one. [laughter] christina: fair enough. mike? can -- ihink i remember on november 5 or 6, i had probably a dozen panels unlike this one with the exact title. how could the party come back from the debacle of the november elections. then we woke up and things changed and it are not to be dramatically different than i think most of us anticipated. myself certainly, it was a surprise. and i think the point in that year that was brought up is an accurate one. we are at a time where both
parties are dealing with very serious cleavages in their base. they do not tend to be necessarily just linear, with moderate and progressive's, or moderates and conservatives, the populist dynamic driving both parties is really across the spectrum. and if there is really about four have a five different factions in each party. so the fact that they republican party stands today, and is in a strong disposition nationally in its entire history, this is going back to the lincoln days, the republican party has never been stronger, where it is weak it is exceptionally weak. in california is one of those places. and i think cassandra articulated it well, the many things that would have to break right to have a possible chance for these to change in california, a lot of that, we can talk about that during the course of the evening, but a lot of it has to do with the national feeling that people are going through. it is not just gerrymandering or
gamesmanship. it has a lot to do with, we need to be mindful as citizens of the country, not just republicans and democrats, but we are going through some been extraordinary right now and we are seeing -- i do not want to say it collapsed, but a transformation of the two-party system. i do not believe we will look at the two-party system in 10 years and say things do not change much, i think they are changing extraordinarily fast, i think we are trying to figure out what it means. right now we are kind of stuck in this two-party system that is creating a lot of angst and fear and anger on both sides, and it is not healthy. but i also believe that we are a resilient society, a resilient democracy, and we will figure it out. christina: one of the words nobody has uttered yet, i guess i will be the first to say, president trump -- it is an interesting question.
he is a republican, he won the presidency with an r next to his name on the ballot. when he speaks, he does not say, blank as a reppo can party. he says those guys. as we're speaking with mitch mcconnell, who would be his closest ally in theory trying to get his agenda passed on capitol hill, so i think that question translates to, is trump representative of the republican party? i will come back to mike on that. mike: i think he is now. i will say that for somebody that spent 25 years working on republican politics, he looks nothing like the conservative movement in the conservative party that i joined. i do not think he is a conservative. he may be a republican, but a conservative and republican are two different things and that is the largest chasm between the
factions in the party at this point in time. the president donald trouble is as runninge w against the party in many ways. he was running against paul ryan, taking the gloves off with ted cruz and with very strong conservatives. he was running against everything, so when he speaks and it says words like today, he means it -- like they. i do not think he has an affinity to the party. -- and what he is trying to accomplish and i still do not know what that is. so that unease has created a wide segment of the republic and party that does -- republican party that is not have a home. i am a republican and as we were sharing in the green room, in large part -- this is important because i think a lot of us can say this in our country today -- i am a republican because i know i am not a democrat.
and a lot of democrats can't say the same. there are few people who can identify where they are for. we are increasingly a society that is defining who we are by what we are against. and i think donald trump is a living embodiment to that sentiment. >> can i jump in? argue: i think we could he represents the voters in the countes, roughly -- forin our country -- voted barack obama in 2012 and they voted for donald trump in 2016. i believe that donald trump and his campaign saw that that was a possibility. and that those people who are these voters is to he is representing. and to just add to what you are
saying there is an interesting constituency called the donald haters. those are the people -- americans, right? they hate donald trump and who do they hate even more? they hated hillary just a little bit more and they voted for donald trump and i do not think that dynamic as the lost. so going into november 2018, when they go into the voting booth i do not, i think the democratic party, the leaders are struggling right now during the elections, and the elections in new jersey and virginia this year, to figure out a way to get those voters back. there is a lot of competition going on. but right now the favoring of the democratic candidate is enforced. i am here to keep honest for californians. i have to ask, we are ahead of the curve again with the
nonparty prisons voters on the rise, some of those people, not all of them, but some of those cannot be republican or democrat - mike: no question. it is in low turnouts. if you do not have a message and the democrats are suffering from a huge, unprecedented turnout problem, these are voters that do not like republicans but they are not motivated by the democratic party, they are double haters in reverse. apices -- double apathies. mike: i really do not like republicans, but i really do not want to vote for democrats. mike: what about millennials? cassandra: i am older than michael. whole approve and disapprove rating, millennials -- not millennials, 18-34
-year-olds, 67% disapproval nationally of the president. pretty much everybody else in the 40's and up. the other problem to your point about the way that this is breaking a number of ways, the other problem i think the party has got is whether or not he turns his presidency, his presidency turns off a block of voters that are making their mines up about what party they will belong to and will probably belong to this -- this is my case, i switched parties in my early 20's, and that happens with a lot of younger voters. christina: when howard dean was chairman, he would go around and say, if you can get a voter to vote for the same party for three elections in a row, you will have them for life. barack obama captured two thirds of that and a lot of those voters not only did not stick with the democratic party, they
got so disgusted with politics and mac sort of feeds into this, i feel like we had the antiestablishment, we want change election at the national level. you know, you saw parties get swept out of power very quickly and it had not happened in the last two decades, these last couple of years. so could there be another one? have we seen enough change? or are people generally unhappy with it what the establishment is doing at their national government? mike: i do not think it is unhappy, i think they do not believe in it anymore. whether you're on the right or left, i think we have faith in most of our institutions, whether it is religious institutions, civic institutions, political institutions, financial institutions, i could go on.
if you say bake anything on the left, it is evil. big plastic, big oil, big water, whatever it is. there is a reason for that. ist is not -- there something to listen to, people are saying we do not trust our institutions. and i think it manifests itself on the left. on the right it is anger. ande is anger on both sides frustration and it is a complete loss of confidence in where we are at. i will give you a couple of other brief examples. the economy on paper, you keep hearing that things are doing really well. in the polling we see issues like crime, homelessness, poverty. in california rising to the top. we just passed the in on this homelessness packed -- tax. a homelessness tax in los
angeles county, that is raising a wife like. -- white flag. let's their money at it and take care of the problem. i said that because when you leave confidence in your institutions, you are also losing, i think we see it in the republican party to your point, it is easier to run against the whole thing without any sort of solutions. leslie: just to clarify, people lost institutions -- lost confidence in institutions. cassandra: we had a conversation about real-life problems when we were talking about our kids. leslie: i was around during the vietnam war and at that time every family in america knew at least one other family that lost a son in vietnam. my family knew many families that have lost a son's in the war. now every family in america knows other families that are
struggling and in really deep and serious ways, that was not the case 10 or 20 years ago. people see it in their neighborhood, they see it in their family, or in their church. they see a lot of struggles that was not as widespread 20 years ago. until that changes, you will see these elections. christina: when you say they think the government is not working for them, is that the do-nothing congress, like they are not passing enough bills? or is it frustration that they are not repealing the affordable care act? what specifically? leslie: you can talk about what they want to do nationally, looking at the dysfunctions that are sort of interesting to look at coming out of washington, interesting for us. people who vote in november, they are not basing it on that, they are basing it on a live the life on a daily basis. and until that changes, they do not care what kind of games are
being played in washington dc. mike: about five years ago we started asking a question in our polling. we knew that people do not trust politicians to do the right thing, democrats the same as republicans. we started to ask the question, do you think that our government is capable of solving the problems? and overwhelmingly people said no. it is not like people, you are right, what has driven that is people seeing the dysfunction between the two parties and fighting and acrimony and doing nothing, and not listening to the other side and it is the height of hypocrisy for me to have one side that says, you will not even talk about it, and the other one takes over and says the exact same think much of it as a tennis match going back and forth. but when you believe it is not capable, even if we started to work together, can the government solve these problems? people are saying no.
leslie: the millennials. i will call them uber voters. they are choosing not to vote, because whether a 25-year-old is democrat or republican, they get together to look at how their life has been made better by things like uber or all of the, or by different ways you can clean up your house so that you can have a nicer evening, they are looking for ways for a happier life that work for making your life better today, next week, and they work. unlike our generation, which believed there was one way to make the world better place and it was get involved in government, none of them believe that anymore. they have some reason not to believe that. they are getting disaffiliated with government as a solution to the problem. cassandra: and he is not making it better. christina: president trump? cassandra: correct. christina: for a long time, for some years you would hear about
social conservatives and people today who say do not worry about what is going on in the bedroom and that was a schism and social conservatives seem to have less pull in the party, here in california and especially when it came to primaries for presidential elections. sawour rick santorum -- you rick santorum and mike huckabee not doing as well outside of the base. but how does it look now? there are different types of social issues, inequality, poverty, people feeling like they cannot get ahead, and not so much abortion or gay marriage in the same way that you are talking about them even 12 years ago. cassandra: it is the economy. it is some of the things we just spoke about. it is real-life issues, either the public sector or private sector should be addressing, it is things we look at every day, it is homelessness.
they voted overwhelmingly to resolve the issue in the area and that tells you that people are focused on it. it is real people stuff. it is not just the economy, it is the fall out from 2009, it is -- it is all the data that we know, it is not having, it is not moving out of the home, which is happening to young people. it is real life stuff that the economy has led you, that nobody seems to be resolving and i daresay even talking about that much. leslie: including record high rates of incarceration of black and brown, which we spoke about this morning. which destroys the opportunity for families to get ahead financially. mike: one thing, an observation, you remember there are public and primary that looked like this clown car with 70 different candidates, right?
the fascinating thing about that huge primary is everyone of those candidates really represented a different and unique sliver of the conservative coalition. think about it, you had rand paul as a libertarian, rick santorum as the social conservative, you had jeb bush as the establishment, you had marco rubio as the emerging demographic savior of the republican party, and on and on -- every one of those was a legitimate constituency. there was overlap. and there was donald trump. cassandra: and ben carson. mike: i forgot about ben carson. sorry. who are you voting for, cassandra? [laughter] mike: in many ways the democratic party needs to go through that process and i think it is going to. you already see it lining up, 20 potential candidates that will be running and opening up committees for president. christina: one maryland
congressman already in. mike: you will see the same think mother it will not be a rush to be president, they will it legitimately be speaking to a different segment of the centerleft or far left base. that is important because it really does speak to the segmentation or fragmentation of our society. i believe, for those that remember ross perot and george bush and bill clinton, we are seeing the two-party system, part. that is what is happening. if you thought it was going to happen in one swoop, you are wrong. it is a process and it is coming apart. it does not mean armageddon, it might be a different reason why armageddon is coming, but that is not what it is about. it will dramatically change the way that representative government looks. and i believe that. i do not know if it will be a european system, or if we will establish a center, but i know it will be very different from what we have experienced before as americans.
leslie: i agree with all of that. on the other hand, there is something about traditional. thein november 2018, national spotlight in terms of whether the united states households stay in republican hands or go into democratic hands, it will be thing of italy determined that sin of italy determined here in california. and how are those elections going to be run? the same way i have always been run. knocking on doors, regular politics -- christina: get out the base. leslie: get out the base. cassandra: a lot of the same things. leslie: yes, exactly right. arell think that parties demanding change and looking for change, but there is little turnover in the united states congress, at the same time they were demanding change. christina: people will say, i hate congress or they should all be thrown out, except my congressman is fine, even if
they cannot name the congressman. leslie: i do not know if they say that anymore. mike: i think they did in the 1990's. i think what is happening now, if anybody has read the book "the big sort" where people are self segregating. it is not just social media, it is a geographic phenomenon. out.e data there is that -- bears that out. people are self-selecting the communities they want to live in and it has gotten to the point are not just saying all congressman or bad, but they are just -- in the best motivated to keep the seeds. is nancy pelosi unhappy as they may be, as angry as they are with congress on their own party, and they are, you say, ok, do you want nancy pelosi to be the speaker? no, no, no.
then they go back to their own corners and they vote the party ticket. so there are very few -- ticket voters anymore, like low single digits. so what happened in that environment is you have to focus on turnouts. you have to get your people to the polls. the best motivators for that, love it or hate it, is fear and anger. if you are watching fox news or msnbc, stop, because it is junk food for the brain. it is just getting you motivated and angry and fearful as they possibly can. and -- christina: l.a. times. mike: it is turnout mechanisms to drive the base to the polls. christina: we will talk a little bit more about that, but i will use it to a transition for california. the seven rep. pocan: seats we are talking about, a good number of them are in orange county which for the first time back a democrat for president in more
than 40 years. and hillary clinton was able to win, it was a huge change from us republicans, they do just fine. i looked at the numbers yesterday. in many cases they outran trump. was this a fluke in orange county? you look at the numbers, and republicans did not show up because they do not fill a donald trump was there candidate? or the hate situation, her country, the people that liked her showed up and everybody stayed home. is there an opportunity in there's numbers for -- those numbers for democrats right now? cassandra: my recollection is just before 2016, the dems at the state level invested heavily in registering democrats. theso, those seven members, seven republicans won their seats. i think the second closest was
knight. and we talked about this amongst ourselves prior to coming out, i tend to think at a minimum those are the only two at risk. i am not even sure knight is. we probably disagree ther. e. they are candidates that are strong and they can raise money. mimi walters is raising money like crazy. they have been around the block. she i think is probably the closest to a freshman, she is on her second term. they have a lot of things going for them and i would go back to the theme of, what we have really already talked about, of democrats do not necessarily have a good message to run on. candidatessouthern who have that much going for them. christina: and we referred the darrell issa who represents, he is from vista, and mimi walters
who is in the irvine area. and steve knight who is in palmdale. once,e: they already onwon so the idea some people might have been november 2018 will be brutal for them because donald trump is in the white house is not a, probably not the best way to analyze next year. mike: let me be a little bit of a down a nerd. -- data nerd. we have a term what we call the under vote. that is when people go in and they vote for their republican or democrat at the top of the ticket, then they stoppe voting down ticket because they do not know the senator or supervisor. that is called the under vote. what we saw for the first time,
people were not voting for the republicans but they were going down ticket. where i think people misunderstand the data point is that is a very strong indicator that the republican base is secure. it is not a weakness. what you see is the national democratic party saying that they are vulnerable. it is the exact opposite, in my opinion. point,, here is another that was the first presidential year since 2000 were no republican members of congress in california lost of their seats. at a time when their candidate did worse than any time since roosevelt ran for his last election. what it tells us is the republican base is very, very secure. even if it is not like donald trump, it is not going anywhere. they are showing up and they are voting for their party because of their fear of what the alternative is. so when you look at it from that
perspective and understand that turnout will be lower, considerably lower in the off cycle, most republicans are in for good shape. there are two of them that i am not saying that they will not hold, i think they will, but if republicans lose seats the two that gave me concern are issa and knight, which we are not even on the radar for 2016. this is important. the reason why, those districts have the highest level of college educated high income republican earners. that is not the republican base anymore. be mindful of another major change. when i was a younger person running a campaign, the republican party was the party of rich, old white people. that is not the democratic party. think about that. it is true. the republican party is working class folks and poor people. where the pockets exist the
fastest shrinking demographics in california, and nationally. the republican party is strong and it is holding. i think it will continue in those districts, but those of the two that we need to watch. cassandra: that is where i live. which was also ground zero. [indiscernible] christina: also very close results. cassandra: very close. and you grant is working on the republican side, military background, good-looking, engaging, sort of central casting for a congressional candidate, and i think my opinion, and the guys that rain before our friends, but i think this is the strongest candidate the republicans have put up. christina: interesting. us to lookust allow
at california a little more for a second. you alluded to the democrats running, strong incumbents. and the way with the primary in california, you will have a valid that will have a member of congress on it, maybe a republican or two trying to challenge them from the right, potentially there is one running in rohrbacher's district, in order to county, and some others, but none of them will be financially stable compared to an incumbent. but the democrats, in some cases there are more than a dozen candidates running, so they will all appear on the ballot, and if you are a voter you know you pick one, and whoever is the top two of them -- you do not know which one will emerge as the strong one and there are other elements that are important, so in that race it will be interesting because it will determine a lot to see if the incumbents have anything to worry about. leslie: it calls for discipline. cassandra: it goes back to my
comment about the statewide for republicans with congressional seats. you have the clear the field folks. and allow a person to run. mike: or not. cassandra: of course. christina: we will go back to national, then we will have some california specific questions. we are looking at, donald trump has, as we framed it in the invitation, his -- was white nationalism, so does that threaten to alienate younger voters we've talked about and the diverse generations of americans that will potentially join the republican party for economic reasons? ok.andra: we will let the black girl answer the question. [laughter] cassandra: i think that is the problem. i think his disapproval rating is so low with young voters and that is why. i shared this with the group, i have 4 adult sons.
my husband was a democrat for many years. we are a split family right now. and so i did my job. [laughter] cassandra: i won. all four of them are turned off the rhetoric. that is not partisan. to a numbert goes of things. they are turned off by the rhetoric. and i think that will be a challenge in the long run. i think that is why the disapproval rating is so low. mike: i -- leslie: not to be cynical, but starting with white nationalism, if it would cause the death of one of the national parties, then those would already be dead because both parties have had that experience of high-level people who harbored white racist views. that is one way to answer the question. another way to look at it is
when hillary clinton made her inket of deplorables remark late september, early october, it was instantly regarded by her own campaign team as a gaff. and you know the group that really embraced that is the group that we all refer to as the alt-right. my point is, the idea that there was some sort of thing going on there, which was known to voters when they enter the voting booth in november of 2016, and donald trump still got elected. i do not look at it as the party is going to die because of that. if it was going to, it would've already happened. cassandra: and it goes back to your point of the base being so solid. mike: i do not think it is helpful. i hear what you are saying. that is an accurate perspective for a couple reasons.
look, the demographic, this will be the first generation of majority that is a white, european descent, that is leaving america to a majority nonwhite european dissent and that change is going to be extraordinarily disruptive for any society. what i think we are beginning to see is the first sign of white, particularly for non-educated white folks, beginning to behave like a racial minority. ok? christina: to vote tribally? mike: in large part, correct. but also to publicly feel like it is ok to verbalize and express that sentiment. my life is not good, my opportunities are not good, and i believe systemically that this system is working against me. we have never experienced that
in this country before and it is not a justification, it is a warning to all of us to look at each other as people and begin to adjust those problems-- add ress those films, because if we do not, those situations have never ended well in history. we need to be mindful and that is the beginning of what i am seeing and i think it will continue for a generation, especially when we leave politics of to the politicians, because they will do what they are going to do with it. cassandra: if you are right about that and we have social communities of people that all agree with us and you say we are also living in communities where people tend to agree with us, ok. it does feed into that. mike: right. landedna: so if aliens in los angeles and said, explain your system of government, it looks like you have two major parties, what does the republican party stand for?
and maybe some it up in a sense because we are short on time -- in a sentence because we are short on time. leslie: it stands for not being a democrat. mike: and vice versa. it may not become double to hear, but that is a driving motivator behind a large swath, i would dare say in majority of the voters that are showing up. if you do not believe that, look at the remarkable change that both parties are willing to adopt in order to adapt to prevent the other party from taking control. we have created a situation like a sporting event, not a political engagement, and you would rather have the dodgers win at all costs. if you told me a year ago that the approval ratings for russia would be in the 60's, i would say you are crazy. that tells you how deep the sentiment is. if you think that that is, that is the province other public and party, you are sorely mistaken. it is driving both parties and
it will continue to do so. the democratic party came within 6 points of electing a man who is not even a democrat if you months before he decided to run and he gives no credence to the democratic party and frankly it is pretty clear how it is split up. so it is not a republican thing. that is my message. we are seeing something transformative in the two-party system, both sides not even going right or left, it is a top-down sentiment. our politics are no longer on the right or left scale. it is about populism, it is about people who feel like they have a stake in society and in those who do not and it is crossing the typical republican and democrat posturing. cassandra: i will say look at the distribution of income, particularly in the last 15 years. it is no surprise it is driving it. christina: one thing we have not touched on.
we are about to go to questions. i will touch on sacramento right now. you have, you have -- [laughter] christina: you have a proposal from a democratic governor embraced by democratic leaders that only became law because of republicans helping. it became, it passed by a big majority that protects it, the trade program which is a signature climate change initiative was able to be extended thanks because a handful of republicans. and now in some hot water, but some hold him up as a champion on the issue of the environment, which we have seen republicans champion over the years. arnold schwarzenegger made it one of his issues. how is the republican differ on this issue? what about future compromise? was it a mistake for the repose can party because the politics are messy?
cassandra, you have to answer this one. cassandra: this could be 20 minutes of just the circus that led to. two schools of thought. the first was it was the right thing for him to do. and i would argue that, that is my point about a candidate that is marketable for a statewide race. somebody that is viewed as something working across the aisle, probably going to get more support from independent voters. that is a sweet spot. some of us thought, i put myself in this camp, it was probably the right thing to do because that is how the government really should work. the other side thought that it was completely irresponsible of this leader to put up, or have members put of votes before democrats did. and those democrats are now able to run on the fact they did not vote for higher taxes in districts that will be competitive.
wo national republican committee persons have weighed in and asked not only for his resignation, but for him to resign his seat. and he has gotten calls from folks in an uproar. it has gotten ugly and testy very quickly. the picture that is on the top of the letter from those two people had the republican leader sitting with governor brown and the two democratic leaders, and that is sort of why you should be angry. we have decided, our party has decided that in california you can only be a conservative republican, you can only be anti-tax, you can only vote the party platform. and while i think it means we hold congressional seats, i do not think it does well for our ability to win the elections
statewide. and i am frankly disappointed. mike: i will agree with all of that, but i will add context to the previous point i made, because this last month in sacramento has made the point very clear. as cassandra pointed out, we have a republican leader that dared to bring other members to work with the democrats on in environment the bill. and it is, it is a serious threat to his leadership. other words, he will be punished for working across party lines. be mindful of this. three weeks prior, the speaker of the assembly, a democratic member, is now under recall and was facing death threats and the most vicious, vicious social media attacks i have seen for having the gumption to delay a vote on single-payer until next year.
something that he agrees with. $400 billion to pay for it, the state budget is $140 billion, and this will cost $400 billion, and the fact he is not willing to go down the road on this puts his own leadership in jeopardy. that is frightening. the fact it is happening again on both sides at the same time, is something that we as californians and americans need to pay attention to. christina: good story. mike: both sides literally ripping down their own institutions and they do not know why. if you ask the average republican voter what it is, they do not know. if you ask the democratic voter, they have no idea. that is where we are at. so when the statement is made, i am this because i know i am not that, it is absolutely true. it may trouble you, but it is your party as well, regardless
of what party you are in. leslie: when the establishments of both parties are behaving in this way, then the political scene is ripe for disruptive candidates like donald trump. so if i was a disruptive kind of individual and i lived in california, i would think about running for office next year. christina: good know. leslie: arnold part ii. christina: lightning round. will president trump face a republican primary challenger in 2020? mike: i do not think so. christina: any of you? mike: i do not think the math is there. leslie: i agree. cassandra: i think a year is a lifetime. mike: a month is. cassandra: i think a month is a lifetime with this president. [laughter] cassandra: i would not go out on a limb on that one at all. christina: ok. we will turn it over to questions. we have microphones.
if you have a question, make sure it is in a question mark. [laughter] christina: place a first and last name before asking your question. it is being recorded and it will be published on our website and it will be rebroadcast by c-span at a later date. this question. >> my name is mark jaffey. i love your, about how the republican party is a party of poor white folks. what i am unable to reconcile his with tax policies and even health care policies struggling, favoring rich folks, why is it poor white folks that would be attracted to the party? mike: it is the what is the matter with kansas party? how can kansas voters that are generally you know, generally they meet the demographic criteria, why people voting against their own economic interests? what is the matter with connecticut? why are the white, with the people willing to tax themselves
when it is not in their interest, right? it is a values proposition, that is what matters. if you look at simple economic terms, it is underestimating where the voters at and the way that they do themselves in society. if people voted only on their pocketbooks, we would have a different discussion right now. that is not why people cast their vote for their candidate of choice. increasingly, and we have seen this grow exponentially since the mid-1990's, people are increasingly value to voters. they want people to represent their values on both sides. good question. christina: next question. >> mike feinstein from santa monica. as a green party member i want to remind you that we do not live in a two-party system, we live in a single person take all system that promotes the two parties and then hit each other and then you have the double hate that you have been talking about.
why isn't there more discussion about moving to multistate districts, which would seem to provide the flexibility for the realignment you are talking about, instead of fighting over to dead carcasses? christina: i would say there is probably plenty of hate for the other parties as well. i think that is a good question. leslie: there is increasing dialogue among people that look at the election results we have been getting and thinking there could be a better way. and maybe an election system that leads to a different kind of result and the one that you mentioned, ranked choice voting is one of them. i think you will see it may be good on statewide ballots next year. in maine. and -- so that is really interesting and i hope that americans learn about those systems. it sounds europeans, which americans think, that does sound like a european thing. but the change when it comes
that way comes fully. and so we are going to have that kind of politics that we have right now at least for a couple more decades, even if those do well as they possibly could. cassandra: in california that could only happen if it was on the ballot, grassroots movement that was well-funded, because as you all know people in power do not like to give up power. in my opinion. mike: next question. >> hi, dave -- other than the self election that youn't it also talked about the republicans having to vote the statehouse and governorship where they voted in a lot of states to put in voter suppression, and the gerrymandered districts, so you created safe districts where basically winning the primary, whichever party you are in,
tends to get you elected to the , the leading to more uh more hard right and more hard left? leslie: without a doubt, the republicans in this estate did a brilliant job after the census. the question -- you know, barack obama is trying to figure out a way so that after the 2020 census it leaves the democrats, but that is going to be a tough uphill battle. christina: it is important to remember that the 2010 tea party election that brought in that wave, that is where a lot of the legislatures started to flip. those kinds of elections have consequences, people stay home and they hate washington, but if they care about what is happening in their districts, they are looking at the legislative level. mike: let me, if you look at this topic, because this is
getting a lot of coverage lately, i will challenge you on some of the language that you used, there is something called the big sort, written in 2008 by a progressive author. the argument was trying to figure out fi redistricting is what is driving the representation challenges, or if there are bigger issues. his ultimate answer was, it is far more have to do with societal issues than manipulating or gerrymandering lines. what concerns me is there are two words coming from opposite sides of the aisle and they are deeply troubling to me. one is republicans talk about voter fraud. ok? that is a mess -- myth. liberals talk about voter suppression. equally a myth. ok? [indiscernible] to quantifyis data all of it and i am happy to talk about as a practitioner. when you hear the emotional
exchange, it is because what it is designed to do is rip apart the integrity of our system. when we can take a look at this, the african-american voters who were suppressed in north carolina was the argument, there is no differential between what african-american voters voted in the country. lowestfornia with the voter turnout president minorities in the country is overwhelmingly dominated by democrats, republicans really did not go through these precincts, what is explaining that? when you look at it objectively you have to remove yourself and ask, what does the data tell us? how do we stop this accusation that the legal immigrants are voting and dead people are voting, and people are trying to stop people from voting? it is frightening. cassandra: our secretary of state agrees with you.
mike: i have talked with him multiple times. it is a rational conversation. cassandra: he is saying the same thing on twitter and facebook. christina: next question. >> my name is stuart davenport and i teach history at pepperdine university. cassandra: that is a cool job. >> i feel very lucky to be teaching history in malibu. [laughter] >> i have two questions, what about the past and one about the future. about the past, i am trying to understand the last 10-15 years, the shortest version i can come up with as a storyteller is it is the age of reagan is over and the recession killed it. my first question is, would you agree with that? many of you spoke about economics and my version is that the recession layed a sledgehammer to the reagan consensus that split into the 17 person clown car that you are speaking of. my question for the future, if economics is not working and we are splitting into the house and
-- haves and >> i think we're going to find out because we are going to have large pockets. as larger economic forces make themselves even more so, i do not think that is going to go away anytime soon. >> i also think california is a microcosm. yet the highest poverty rate in the nation. central valley, from top to bottom, is not experiencing that same kind of growth. i feel like this is another place where we are going to see what happens here happening in the rest of the country. i am can from -- we have both
of the establishments in those parties losing ground. who is gaining ground is the extremes of each party. i am trying to find a way where we come back to some kind of understanding. i do not know if you can shed any light on that situation. >> i do agree if a disruptor can along. i think this is completely different. if interceptor came along, things could change very quickly. think.r what my comrades that nonparty preference voter, they continue to expand slowly. i wonder what happens when that reaches critical mass. those people really vote and you get if you hear and if you hear. again, it will take a special candidate in a state like
california because it is such an extensive place. >> what about civic participation? makes every society better and whether people are doing it now because they are angry about president trump or doing it before because they were angry about president bush's immigration policy. that helps people come together and have their voices heard. i think the first thing we have to acknowledge is that the system does not work for a rapidly growing segment of our society. the way we talk to each other and the way we handle it is universally dysfunctional. that is not going to solve the problem. it may make you feel good, but probably not. we are all in this together.
a generationk in we will be saying republicans and democrats came to work together. we will not view politics that way. a are beginning to see tremendous transformation of the way we will have to govern and live together. what exactly that means or looks like, i do not know. thatirst part is excepting -- accepting it is not working. >> we have to. is, what is your opinion of the influence of the brothers political machine on the republican party? >> i've not heard that one in a while. i thought they did away with them. they may have been ascendant at one point, but i think cap washed all that'll -- trump
washed that away. --n i see is an oligarchy what i see is an oligarchy. billionaires who are manipulating the system. they are manipulating what we are watching. they manipulate what we feel about issues that are not really issues. they are driving all of this. symbolic of a dramatic separation of our society anween those halves -- haves d have nots. it are talking about happening on both sides. verye l.a. times has a soon forthcoming story in the next few days. keep your eyes out for that. , left-winghe things and right-wing billionaires discovered is that it would be
.ossible to pull the parties they discovered by building a range of organizations outside the party, if they could pull the party in the direction they wanted. anything that has proven to be difficult and challenging both parties because if you are job is to elect republicans. if you are a democrat, your job is to elect democrats. wealthy people are able to exert on both sides. no one has mentioned the situation in france. you had to parties, left-wing and right-wing. come out ofon
nowhere. the majority of their version of congress, do you see something like that happening here in the next 10 years? is that possible to happen here? are we too much of a two-party system? i think institutionally, it is very difficult. you are at a breaking point. you are starting to see the look nuts come off. uts come off. you are seeing it very clearly. -- know think it will if it will go to a european model. we do not know. strongly convicted. what we see right now is not what we are going to be seeing in the medium to short-term
future. >> that is all the time we have. i'de he and -- we end, like to think the museum for hosting us. i would also like to thank all of you for joining us and invite all of you to stick around for this reception. not get a chance to ask a chance to ask the question tonight, please continue the conversation with us over beer, wine, water. let's get our amazing panelists a round of applause. [applause] ♪
on c-span. c span-2, a conversation on excess. the brookings institution will an at ways to include exclusive economy. you can follow bodes events live on c-span.org and with the c-span radio apps. >> prumple was in springfield, missouri to talk about changes to the u.s. tax system. the president called on congress to move forward on the tax legislation this fall. president trump: thank you very much. thank you.