tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN October 23, 2012 8:00pm-11:00pm EDT
>> want to make sure you were -- >> i hope not. i was relying on them. >> do you have any concern about prior restraints? the first amendment here when it comes to rules that the moderators are -- >> it's not the okay corral. it's a debate. the goal is to get as much information as possible into the hands of the american public. i think rules are good in order to make sure you have equivalent
exchanges but no bound so sightly -- tightly that you're so stuck on the rules, you cut them off just before they say, i killed my wife. sorry, you're out of time. you want to make sure that's exchange. we all function by rules, though. >> judy, you -- raised about the topic. did you like the format, one for foreign affairs -- >> i think given an ideal situation, you think a president deals a great deal with foreign policy, domestic policy, and i think ideally it makes a lot of sense just to make sure that you're not going to be so heavily weighted one way or another. for example in the 2004 election, when iraq was a huge issue, i could say, gwen, remember this better than i will -- that may have been a time when there would be -- when the candidates would want to
spend a lot more time oop foreign policy. right now most voters say their primary concern is the economy. so, i think maybe there needs to be a little more flexibility on that. i know candy, i'm sure, was thinking about that as she was figuring about which questions to take from the town hall park tis pants. >> we went back and looked at what was covered thoroughly in this debate. one of them was education. at one point the president said, we haven't discussed education at all. i said, i'm sorry but discussed it for 20 minutes the first debate -- i didn't say that. so you try -- we knew if an entirely foreign policy debate was coming afterwards. so, we didn't want to spend -- we knew that they -- remember, the first questions all came from the town hall, so we
were -- i couldn't just come up with a question about something that wasn't represented in their questions. but we knew that syria and iran and israel would be so thoroughly covered we didn't need to cover that. gun troll, i was dying to get into climate change. >> but that was the last chance. >> how do you prepare for the debates? i assume each of you have your own methods. >> i make myself insane. i shut myself up in the house with a lot of 5-by-7 cards and read books by the candidates and read stump speeches and asecond guest myself and write a hundred questions when i might get 20 in, and i -- i don't think i got that many. and then i rehearse. they stuck with the rules on my
debate. i'm a tougher -- yeah, not so much. i just -- and then you just absorb it. then after all of that you have to just stop. you have to just know it well enough that you can instinctively know how to have a conversation. in the end, it's a debate but still a conversation. that's what we do every day in our day jobs. you apply your instinks to -- instincts to that as well. >> i did backwards. we got the questions at 9:30 that morning from the town hallers. so, we didn't know what was coming, but you kind of know what's coming because you know what the issues are that are on voters are minds because we have been doing this for a year and a half. so i kind of -- we went backwards, i grad a great group at cnn, and you need to know what they said on these things in case suddenly a wholing in
thing happens. i said to somebody at one point, need to know 100% of stuff and i'll probably use 1% but i don't know which 1%, so i have to know 100's and that's how i felt about it. >> it should be said i paid the price for reading both bayographys or sarah palin and joe biden, because i left them on the steps at home on the way down from the office on the night before i was flying to st. louis, i was very proud of myself. it was my birthday. i had every question ready. i ran down the stairs, slip, boom, fell, broke my ankle, and moderated the debate with my leg a great big splint. they built an elevator to get me on the statement and i was escorted by two football players. >> named rocky and tim. [laughter] >> the moral of the story is don't read their books.
>> how about you, judy? >> i moderated various primary season debates. both candy and gwen, you drive yourself crazy because you feel like you need to know everything. you go back and read everything and you try to think, what's important. but it does depend on the format of the debate. it's different preparing for a debate when you're the solo moderator versus a debate where you're calling on citizens to ask their questions, versus a debate where you're sharing some of the responsibility. it is so much harder than what we do. we love our work, and -- we don't go around complaining. it's hard. you love doing it. if you love being a journalist, you love asking politicians, and what could be more important? and what format, what forum is more important than the two men who are vying to be president of the united states. that's a huge responsibility.
so that's why they not only pick people who won't be intimidated. they pick people with great judgment. >> i moderated a discussion or debate between justice scalia and justice bryer once, and i prepared 25-30 questions, similarly -- >> they ignored you. >> i got two questions out in an hour and a half. they were -- at it at bit like your observation, candy. they were going in a way that the audience was -- would rather have listened to them than my questions, i'm sure. so it's a judgment call in those instances. you let them go if they're on topic and talking about things. >> make sure they're not off topic. the exchange about what in your bank account and have you looked. yours is bigger than mine. my brain is going, oh! [laughter] okay. >> moving along. >> wasn't until i watch that later i saw the president pause and smile and say, i got say it.
he came armed with it. >> absolutely, he tide. >> what were your observations about last night's debate? >> glad it's over. happy the debate season it over. i thought -- you know, it was a good debate. it was good debate. if your care before the these issues -- a lot of things didn't come up. a lot of things did. it would have been nice to hear about something other than most of the debate being about the middle east and the greater middle east, but on the other hand, you know, they came with a goal in mind. both of them. and in the same way the president didn't show up at the first one, he had to show up at this one and had to make the case for leadership and credible and that what these debate inside the end are all about and the topic its beside the point improve think taken as a group, those debates did exactly that. you got to learn a lot more about these two men and how they enter act side-by-side. when they shook hands at the end, when are they going to see
each other again voluntarily? >> that picnic they have planned. >> i was reminded how much it has benefited governor romney to have participated in the debates and forums in the primaries. he comes across at somebody is who is comfortable in the tee bite format. the president hasn't done it for now years and there's no question that worked to governor romney's benefit. >> it's an interesting observation. leads to my next question which is, in this campaign what do you think has had more impact can debates or campaign advertising? as you know going into the campaign seen a year ago, everybody was talking about money going to be poured into advertising and what kind of impact that could have, hough it could influence the outcome, and there was an escalating spending war going on. do the debates have more of an impact?
maybe a little too early to tell. >> depends who you're talking about. if you live in about a dozen states, those ads are killing you. maybe eight states. there's so many of them it's all you see when you turn on the television. we get a little bit of it here in washington because we're next door to virginia, and maryland had some big initiatives. if you're living in ohio or colorado or nevada or florida, you want to kill somebody. you want those ads off your tv. and it's not back-to-back-to-back. so maybe that's influencing. but if you're living in the rest of the country, those debates, which were very, very well watched, well have a much greater effect on you than advertising because your not seeing the advertising. >> a point of diminishing returns when it comes to advertisings. you become so innone done inundated with it and you tune out. they spend to much money.
>> i do think that the obama: -- that just flood of advertising that the obama: campaign did, directed at governor romney and the whole bain capital theme he laid people off, money was sent overseas and the entire attack on his business background, there's no question that did damage to governor romney for a period of time, and i think in a way it connects to the debate because people were saying, the debates -- they may not even matter that much this year. people are already makes up their minds, looking at the poles, and 0-lo and be hold, who would have preticketed what happened to first debate happened. i would argue the debate matter. >> i think the first debate mattered most. i think if romney had had a bad debate, instead of the other way around, we would not be seeing the race we're seeing today. i think for the reasons gwen, you're right. they do matter in the broad
sense. but we also saw movements in these swing states. i always think that there must be diminishing returns at some writtenpoint where you think -- sometimes the same ad is -- i saw the same ad back-to-back three times and i thought, really? do you not want to say -- who is that for? i'm voting against him. so get them so angry. but they don't -- smarter people than me about advertising, it's like groundwater. they just want tote by in your consciousness in a way you don't even know it. it's a little spooky clockwork orange sort of stuff but i think they wouldn't be doing this if it weren't still effective. >> how many times do you talk to reporters and you ask them about this guy and they repeat to you unwittingly word for word an ad, because it's sunk into their brain and they think it's their
idea. >> do do do do do do do do. >> we have, gwen and judy, two clips from your convention coverage, historic convention coverage, and a enemiable exchange with one above your regular paneles, mark shields, and we also want to show the audience how you both closed out your coverage of the dnc convention in september. so, now let's roll those clips, please. >> playing to the constituencies, not to the middle of the independents or the swing voters. at some point when does the turn the corner? >> i think david made the key point front seven to ten it's been nothing but base and then 10:00 on they try to talk to a
larger zone. then they go on to caressing the -- >> they have constituency coddling and this speech cannot be constituency coddling at all. >> he is out of controlled. >> with that we end our coverage the the final nile of the democratic convention. >> thank you for being with us. good night. >> major funding for the pbs news hour has been provided by: [applause] >> we were so -- did it after both conventions. we just wanted it to be over. we had spent two weeks by then in a little tiny booth with our dearest closest friends, and we got on the air every night at about 6:00 and would get off every night win it was over, which was 11:00 or so, so it was lot of time -- i won't say what
i was going to say -- but things didn't happen because we were trapped in that booth for several hours and we were happy and the conventions were very exhausting but we had a great time. >> seems to long ago. >> did you have a special sense of accomplishment, the two of you, covering that? >> gwen and i have been asked about that. we like to think we were chosen because we have lots of experience between us, a couple of hundred years in -- >> wait a second. >> well, for me. for me. >> yeah, right. >> she's only been at this for a few years. because we have been doing this for a long time, we covered politics, we love covering politics, we were both very excited to be going to the convention, and it is a fascinating campaign. even back at the point when one candidate was ahead of the other one, or somebody was behind, and
enough it's close. it's been fascinating the whole way. >> the news covers the conventions in a more exhaustive way than we do. we're between c-span, which does a fixed camera on the podium, and the cable networks which have people talking. we have people talking but also showing what is happening on the podium, and as a result we make more of an investment in it, and judy and i have -- judy was at the news hour, left, came back weed been there a while and it was a natural evolution for us to do it together. >> we know you were chosen on merit, but i would add that you were an inspiration to young women. >> we'll take that. >> similar as separations. it was great for them to see, and all of us who watched your coverage. the news media spends millions of dollars on covering the conventions, but some say now that the conventions have become more of a stage to commercial for the candidate rather than a news event.
i'd be interested in your observations about that and do you think the coverage of conventions is still important and how is it changed over the years? >> i have this really old fashioned view of conventions if believe it's not asking too much for each political party to get a few days every four years to say to the american people, here's what we believe. and, yes, they do it in a much more staged and orchestrated and carefully script way when they used to. the first convention i covered as a local reporter working for a cbs affiliate in atlanta, was the 1972 democratic convention in miami, when i didn't have a credential. i sneaked in on -- this was the night george mcgovern was speaking at 3:00 a.m., accepting the nomination. i was there to cover the georgia state delegation, which was having its own turmoil over who was going to be seated and who wasn't. so, contrast that, when it's so
unpredictable, when today everything is by be book and down to minute. we're given every day, a book that tells you by the minute, by the -- practically by the second, how long each speaker is going to speak. so it's a -- >> by the way, they never do it. >> right. >> but we didn't know clint eastwood would talk to an empty chair and we didn't know bill clinton would be the all-around, you know, winner of the best speech, and even though it's perfectly orchestrated, but the thing is, you watched the -- let's take the democratic convention. i was fascinating the entire convention was about women, but it was about two states. ohio and michigan. i don't know how many times we heard about the auto bailout. does every speaker mention the auto bailout.
>> the nun didn't talk about it. >> exactly. but it was just astonishing. so, what they are saying and how they're presenting themselves is a story. you don't have to say, let's open the mic and let them all say whatever they want. that's why you have people with experience to go, okay, here's why they're doing this. >> we long gave up the notion that the nomination takes place at the convention. because of the republican convention, because of the collapsed convening because they thought a hurricane was coming and didn't come and they lost a day? there were a couple scheduling changes. governor romney had a wonderful video about his life which toll you as much about the romneyed and him in the most flattering way possible that almost nobody saw who wasn't watching pbs or c-span because it came on the air before the networks came on.
okay, cnn, too. so, here this problem. an opportunity to tell you who he was. the night that ann romney spoke, that was supposed to be the big night. instead they ended with chris christie who was mean and bullying and left a different taste in your mouth than was intended for that evening. so, they spent some time making up for those miscues. >> we don't want to suggest we sort of put it out there and say here's what they're doing. we're there to look at it and it weigh it and analyze. >> three days i plenty. i don't -- they're going back to four days. they've each done three-day convention. the democrats voluntarily decided to do three. >> one of our favorite interviews is when rick santorum
came by and decided to be honest about mitt romney. he said, he was kind of stiff. and we kept looking at him saying, really? do you want to say and talk more? he said, okay, and he just talked. it was kind of clear that even after all the republican debates, all the republican primary encounters, that the people who were against mitt romney were not really fond of him still even at the convention. >> we hod john boehner tell us that he -- he said i never read those platforms. they don't -- this is after the convention -- i don't read them. get it all on one page. he said nobody reads the platform. >> he didn't realize, we did. >> what can we look for the next two weeks between now and election day?
what are your anticipations. >> fasten your seatbelt. >> i think you've seen the silly rhetoric we're going to get for the next two weeks, but more than that, what you're not seeing is what is going on,. , and that is the get out the vote effort, and they're doing some done both campaigns are doing something that i don't understand. the 14-year-olds who can talk to the entire world with a tweet and this way of having them all tajh to their friend on the social network, and there's a lot of this going out there that is just not obvious to the cameras' eye, and that's where this election is right now. this is about -- to me this has always been a bay's lex. this is -- base election. who is more excited. president obama had a storybook
turnout, election team and system. i don't know if it's there because those systems are driven by energy and driven by passion and we're not really sure if it's still there we're not seeing it in the polls yet. so, this is about the phone calls, the pickups at the -- we'll be buy and -- bi' pick you up at 8:00, bring your friend jazz. >> binge your i.d. the polls. and we wonder how to tell the story and it's hard to tell a story in hiding. we followed the candidates and we gage what they think is important by where they campaign think show, the daily show. and a couple of states in between, and mtv. >> i didn't know people still watched mtv. anyway. the point is -- we're trying to figure out, how do we get to the story that doesn't want to be told? and that's the hard part.
we were having a discussion today, how you get inside this voter turnout operation. how do you figure out how people are using technology to get to voters? what are we missing? that's going to be the thing that there's going to be some crazy thing out of the blue that throws away off and they'll yell at each other. donald trump will say something. but what's really having -- is going to drive the turnout and the outcome, die -- i do agree it's the base, and who is more excited and who ised, and now that the republicans think they can take this, they're more excited. >> one thing to keep on doing, all three of us have done it, and we'll do it between now and election day and that is talk to voters. i'm going out the last weekend before the election. to me that's the point of contact. if you can get voters to talk to you about what they're thinking and you talk to enough voters,
you'll get a sense of what is going to happen. granted, it needs to be an area where there's a variety of views but you'll pick up from the republicans and democrats, there's an honest there and that will come through. >> go only and see the great story by judy about the voters in florida, the vaunted corridor, and talking to motorcycle bikers can talking to people at sun city who are standing in long lines in shorts and white sneakers. but in the end, you talk to them and they're speaking in real ways that strategists and pundits and we don't, and we need -- if we're smart we listen. >> i still get -- i will tell you, i confess, on election night i get this tingle up and down my back, and i get teary when i think about we're the one of the very few places on the planet where we can change our
leadership without firing a gun and without a drop of blood, and it's still, as many years as i have been doing it, i still get so excited. [applause] >> it's amazing. >> i would agree, it's who is most motivated to get out the vote. one of your observations, 2009, after the primary, the defeated candidates weren't too thrilled but they're enthused now that the race is close. going to be very interesting to watch what happens over the next couple weeks, and now i'd like to take some questions from the audience for our distinguished panel. >> we have to have to talk to voters? >> this is our own town hall version of the program. and as those the audience approach the microphone to ask their questions issue'll -- i'll ask if you have twitter handles
and has the social media changed -- affected the way you cover politics? and -- >> well, we -- i said that ahead of time. i have a twitter account and i have on occasion tweeted but i feel like 140 characters away from being fired most of the time, and it just seems dangerous. and so i look at it it and i follow the conversation but i am pretty darn cautious about the sorts of things -- 2009 was misfeeted. >> i did tweet but i'm not as arch as candy. twitter is one of those things i use as a news gathering tool. if you follow the right people and spread your understanding out, you can use it as a process motional tool, and if people say rude and nasty things to you, as they will, you block them.
you just stop following them. no reason to get offended. life is tough. so i fine it useful. i find it as a way -- i find out things from twitter i want otherwise know. it takes me to stories i wouldn't otherwise read. so its useful to me. >> as candy described the campaigns are using it big-time now. all the social media. >> we're going to take some questions from the audience, and i just would suggest to our panelists, if you get up and start circling each other i'm going to call the police to separate you. >> i'm emily whiting. i want to thank the three of your for your excellence in journalism. i've been a fan for a long time and i appreciate what you're doing for women in journalism. my question is, based an your experience, what you think needs to happen in contemporary society in the u.s. before a woman can be elected president? >> someone has to come up with a
campaign that wins. i'm not sure it's a question of contemporary society. i think hillary clinton came remarkably close last time because she want a good campaign right up until the time she did not. there is -- [laughter] >> there's always going to be something that is a block. none of us, i don't think, can say this time four years ago, or maybe five years ago, that we thought that barack obama would be the first african-american president. just didn't seem like society was ready for it. society is ready for the case to be made, and so it could happen if it's the right candidate, running the right campaign. i don't see any reason why we wouldn't see a woman president -- could happen in 2016. could happen very soon. >> i think both conventions demonstrated a real depth of potential women candidates. that's one of the things that came out of the conventions from both parties. yes, please. >> tracy powell with the pointer
institution. i've talked to members of the commission and have been told, one of the problems is the journalists moderators want to keep trying to ply their trade. so my question is, well, i'm glad you're trying to ply your trade because i think voters want advocates, and i wonder first, do you see yourselves as advocates for the voters and second, do you see the commission or the campaigns trying to get rid of the problem of the journalists trying to ply their trade? >> well, all right. you know, i don't know. i committed acts of journalism every day and it's sort of a -- [laughter] >> natural to me. so i don't think you -- i think they want journalists. i don't -- the commission was
gate to me and i never felt smushed by the commission. i never felt like they didn't want me to go out and moderate in the broad parameters of what they gave. so i don't have at all any problem with the way the commission did this. and i -- look, i'm an advocate of voters. i consider myself, a., incredibly privileged to do -- have this with marilyn smith called the front-row seat in history to have seen what i have seen, and i feel an absolute commitment to share what i see, to share what i learn, with whoever is willing to listen in as honest a way as i can. as the moderator, you know, bob's a journalist, jim lehr is
a journalist, so they had fourth journalists who brought. thes to the plate. i don't think we all went there to be somethingful we went there to be who we were, and have a debate. so i didn't feel that they're trying to make journalists go away. >> it's not advocacy per se but it's doing what we do every day, which i providing clarity, asking questions and hoping for a and pressing for answers. at it just a different format for doing that. >> yes, sir. >> edward from washington. this year we've seen the rise of the fact checker, and increasing misstatements in both advertising and by the candidates. it seems that that's been on an uptick for a long time. and i wonder, the thought occurs this might be because the people in each candidate's camp don't
know each or don't socialize with each other, don't bounce ideas off each other, so they say things that had they been hanging out in a bar or at aedine party with each other, they would have tried to -- before it went public. might it be a good idea for the bipartisan policy center and the knew seem to sponsor get togethers of a social nature between, say, members of the heritage foundation and their families and the center for american progress? >> i wish a beer could solve it. i think you understatement our partisan and polarized things are, that people wouldn't say things if they just knew each other. >> i think a lot of the misstatements are -- >> misunderstandings? >> literally ignorance. they don't look at things the way they other guys do and don't understand the way the other guys look at things. >> let me tell you what i -- i
actually think you have a point in this way. i think where politics runs into this fierce kind of partisanship is when motivation is subdescribed to a position. these people feel this way because they hate old people. and that's why they feel that way. these people feel that way because, you know, they're socialists. and so once people begin to describe motivations to one another, that's when the bipartisanship -- partisan comes in. a leahy story. senator lay here, the senator lugar, from indiana, they came to the senate roughly the same time, both junior members thoughing a call temperature committee. they met -- how it's shaped in a horseshoe in the committee so they literally were looking right at each other, and they
would say, mr. chairman, what was that? and the chairman would shut them up because they were junior senators. and they kind of bonded over that. they did lots of agriculture legislation, other different kind of legislation together, over 30 years, i think, of their time together. they have childrens whose homes back up against each other in the same neighborhood in virginia and they would find themselves in this playground in that neighborhood, with their grandchildren, and the called it the bipartisan playground. they do not look at each other and think the other one is evil. when you're standing on the sidelines, watching your son play soccer on the same team as the other guy's son, you learn to know he is not evil, he has different opinion that you may disagree with. i don't think it would -- i
think gwen is right. they have huge, deep disdifferences that are very hard to get together over a beer, but the ferocity and the viciousness, i think, we have sometimes seen, has to do with the fact that they don't hang out with each other anymore. they look at each other as kind of -- you know, like evil people who don't share their same values. >> and that's a wonderful story. it's true. they just don't know each other. when i first came to washington and covered the jimmy carter white house in 19 1977. you would go to a dipper or event and there would be republicans and democrats that would socialize. they knew each other. over the years we have gotten away that. families don't get to know each other to have experiences like the one candy described, and the other party becomes the other. at it people you don't know, and the familiarity does bring the
opportunity for people to work together and work on problems. doesn't mean you're going to have kumbiya and suddenly work everything out but at least you can have a conversation and the other side isn't evil incarnate. >> i'd say that's true when we talk about congress. when we talk about campaigns-the-fact checkers say this is wrong. and the candidate continues to say it anyway. through know it's wrong. they meant to say it wrong, and they don't really care if you call them on it. they just keep doing. i think the rise of fact checking is a wonderful thing but puts the onus on the consumer to say if this person is saying something over and over again that is not true, what's your judgment about that individual? i guess -- i don't think they're going to stop making inaccurate statements because they like the other guy. because the fact it they're doing it with a forethought.
>> two different things. congress gridlock in washington, but on the campaign trail it's about messaging, framing the arguments, and if that means you're going to exaggerate or embellish, you're going to keep on doing it. >> has there been an increase in distorsions since the rise over fact checkers? >> just no. about it. the disposes were probably -- distortions were probably there and we didn't know. >> first of all, thank you for doing such a really amazing job covering these debates and the campaign, and add to mar the -- i would also like to ask if you felt your role as a woman, especially in light of women's roles in this campaign, in terms
of the war on women, or just the significance of halve during half the country being female, and if you thought that was an important angle or especially important to shed some light on women's issues during the campaign and special lie during the debates. >> i've been asked this a lot since before the debate. here's the thing. every day of my life, i have gotten up female. so, -- [laughter] >> so, i don't know what i -- i don't know what i feel -- how i approach things is it because i'm female or because i'm from the midwest and had a certain set of experiences or because i have a son who is in this business and therefore i'm familiar with that. i mean, i think we all bring --
whether it's jim helr or schieffer or me, all of us have had different experiences and we're the sum total of that. it's about diversity of everything, and certainly female is part of that. i don't -- people say, well, we have reproductive issues. i thought, way -- wait a manipulate minute. men think about that. it's important that the women are out there asking the questions, but i don't think i'm different from jim lehr because i'm a woman and he is a man. i'm different from jim because we have had disexperiences and come at the table differently. i underestimated the impact of being a -- and i have to tell you, i didn't know about the 20 years since the woman moderated a presidential debate. first of all i watched -- gwen
had been out there two debates in a row. so, i wasn't computing vice presidential and president. i knew judy had done a debate. so, i didn't really realize it had been that long. it was not until i started the young women literally grabbing me on the street and say, i'm so excited too see a woman up there, and then i would get older women going, you go. this is great. this just really means so much. and i thought, you know, if young women come away from this debate or come away from this evening or come away from judy and 2009 and think, i can do anything, and if older woman can think, damn, i'm still peaking, then i'm sohonorred by that. but i don't think it's put so simply as just your gender. >> i just add one thing.
i complete ily agree with candy. whatever we are. when i nominated my first vice presidential debate, i thought, what can i ask that no one else is going to ask in what question can i bring up. i know my experience means i'm an african-american woman. you get the black thing, the woman thing. short hair thing, you get it all. so, i'm thinking, what can i bring to this debate i know nobody else would think to ask? and that would shed some light on this -- on these individuals improve thought, i'll ask about -- i came across a statistic that showed that african-american women heterosexual women, had a higher increase in a.i.d.s. hiv infection than any other group. i asked them what would they do about that. so i asked dick cheney and john edwards, and they looked at me and dick cheney said, really? and john edwards -- by the way,
i previous fallsed this by saying i want to talk to you about aids but not in africa. i want to talk about aids here at home. and john edwards started to reply talking about aids in africa. he didn't hear what i said because he came prepared, thinking, she is going to ask me about aids in from, a black woman, and he came prepared with an answer that he gave anyway. i could have been depressed at night, but years later, people still say to me, it was so interesting that neither of them had the answer to that question. that this was not a priority for either of these candidates. i learned so much that way. so sometimes a nonanswer, i take solace in these -- is an answer. >> you get more nonanswers than answer. >> we love those nonanswers. >> we have time for two more questions. >> i'm phyllis cunningham with the joint center for political and economic studies. my question is, these days
you're hearing so much about the polls. every day there's a new poll out, one saying one thing or another. i'm wondering, in your point, what impact do you think they have and which ones you put stock in, if any. >> very good question. >> well, first of all, there's too many of. the there's zillions of them and we're swimming in polls, and we hate them, but we can't live without them. we seem to be -- i find myself drawn to the polling web sites several times a day, and i don't like that because i think it begins to draw everything about your understanding and your concept of what is happening in the race and on the one hand polls as a whole you can talk about which poles are better than other polls and which methodology is better than others. at a whole, they do tell you something about what is happening in that contest, and we do know that. so they deserve our attention. but should they be driving so
much of the conversation? i don't think so. having said that, do i think there's anything weeing can do about it? know. we have too be judicious in our use of them. on the news hour we talk about the polls when it's appropriate, but it doesn't drive our constant coverage. >> but it does drive what the campaigns do and for that reason we want to understand why they're going to this state, not that state, because they're reading the polls. one of the president's top advisors said to someone, i'm waiting for the outback steak house poll next. what the polls can do, used -- >> saw that on twitter. that's why twitter is useful. >> actually, i did. >> but what's interesting about the polls, what they tell you -- not the horse race so much but what tell mets about who is thinking and why. why the president is -- who the
president is losing ground. not just that he is losing ground but who is he targeting? why is he targeting women? why are they speaking to this group and not that group. we can see the way that the mitt romney behaved. i knew the president. he was very mild if that wasn't poll driven, i'll eat my hat. we have to be careful about the ones we consume. >> i think the top numbers are less valuable than the inside numbers. women think that mitt romney is too eager to go to war ask then you get a debate such as we saw last night. which is -- and again, i agree -- feels like they suck the surprise out of everything and at it no fun. but the campaigns have them, and this is what they are driven by.
and so it's important to know, as gwen says, what they're doing with them and it does tell you, loads about what messages are having resonance, but i agree with you, the poll is the most reliable is the cnn poll. but having said that, there are loads of polls. it's clear when they average the polls and cnn throws out the highest one and the lowest one and then average it all up. but i think as a viewer, i'm not sure they mean much to you except in the interpretation as it applies to the campaign. >> i have a question. >> i'm mark. i had a question that's maybe a little bit off from actually talking about the horse race. the more specific to the skill sets you described that make for a good moderator of a debate. i think so often when we talk
about journalists talk about the insightful questions, but the other side of the coin which is the listening aspect of it, and i'm always amassed, candy, your ability to both ask good questions, and you're listening and responding on the spot and in the moment as you described before. so i was wondering, for the three of you, being pros and journalists, what technique or intentionality is there behind your listening when you're both moderating a debate or just simply interviewing people. >> very mart question. >> there's nothing more -- i don't care about time. there's nothing more than important than listening. there's people in your ear telling you how many more minutes they have and who is -- when you're interviewing somebody and who is coming next and when the commercial is coming. this is -- obviously no commercials in the presidential debates, but there is a lot going on, and you can be --
sometimes i get really angry because a guy is going, cap di, that's why today i'm going toll -- case, when he is finished, would you -- someone is talk to go your ear, it's like you're also crazy, and so sometimes i will slip it out of my ear because i'm trying to listen to what is being said. if you're not listening to the answer you're not having a conversation. >> i wish i'd known this before we started the night. >> well, i -- >> well, you prize directors, the folks who give their opinion, or producers, they do it briefly and know when to come in. they come in right before -- right after you -- usually the best time for me is when you ask the request and before -- >> you're saying our producer is sitting there talking in our ear. >> our executive producer right there but kathleen knows how to do that. >> the truth is, the other thing that makes you listen is fear.
complete terror that you're going to miss something. that the guy just admitted to killing his wife and you're thinking how much time is left. and never worse moment than the sinking feeling that someone just said something and you don't know what it was, you missed the last three words. >> you can't say, what? >> sometimes you can tell it's happened. someone goes -- starts looking at the paper because you lost your train of thought. the reason why we all said, what a great question. it's a real special skill, which is learned some acquired. you can tell the difference when you watch people doing the interview, who are just lawing ahead and looking at the next thing on the list, and that's the interviewer you want be to, not the husband or wife you want to be. you want to always listen and then integrate that into the next part of the question. it's something which i don't -- i never feel comfortable about jotting it down.
it's a continual learning experience. >> are you a journalist or want to be a journalist? [inaudible] >> good for you. >> for all reporters. >> what did we just say? [laughter] >> i think the other thing that -- i don't know what you do but i rarely will write down my questions. i'll write down a subject matter. but if you get so wedded to that next question, you just are not paying attention to it. it's a little -- i do sometimes thing, what if i run out of questions. then you say, hey, thanks very much. thanks for stopping by. >> take questions from the audience. >> so, people do it in different ways, but i think if you -- an interview is not, here's miseight questiones.
an interview is, let's have a conversation. >> thank you all very, very much for being with us. [applause] >> i really want to thank you for all you're doing to keep our citizens informed and engaged as thomas jefferson said, the best way to preserve our liberties is to have an informed citizenry, and the three of you have done a superb job of that throughout your careers. we're veer pleased and honored you're with us here tonight. >> thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] >> it's time now for the lightning round. wore going to ask questions that can only be answered by yes or. no. we ask for candidates to refrain from maybes. >> senator, would you -- sorry, we're starting with you, miss long, would you like to be senate majority leader? >> would i like to be senate majority leader? sure. >> senator, yes. >> ms. long, have you fired a gun rifle win the last year?
>> yes. >> senator? >> no, is andrew cuomo the best governor in your lifetime? >> no, senator. >> i'm going to say his term is not finished but his father was. >> very good. miss long, have you read 50 shades of gray? [laughter] >> no. >> me near -- me neither, for the record. >> miss long -- >> no competent. >> it's two weeks until the election and as we have been doing regularly on tuesdays, weeks before the election, we've been talking to different publications about their electoral maps, and today joining us is sean trendy who is the senior elections analyst
with real clear politics.com, and here is real clear politics.com's electoral map as it now stands, and sean trendy, this is the only electoral map that currently has mitt romney in the lead, 206 electoral votes to 201 for the president, and then the rest being undecided. what your formulation? how do you get to this numbers? >> guest: well, the average is exactly what it says. it's a simple average of the most recent polls, and i think the difference between us and most other pollsters is that we in an average have romney up by 5-1/2 points in north carolina so we don't consider that a tossup. our cutoff for tossups is five points. >> host: you have the same swing states as everybody else. you included wisconsin and michigan as swing states as
well, and pennsylvania. has it gotten that close? >> guest: yeah. wisconsin is clear lay swing state right now. michigan and pennsylvania are right on the border. we have pennsylvania with 4.8 and michigan is exactly 5-point. so those are teetering on the brink of leans obama: verse tossup. >> host: does real clear politic does its own polling? >> guest: we do not, we're an aggregator. >> host: let's say nationwide right now, where does it stand? >> guest: right now we have 206 for romney/ryan and 201 for obama:/biden. we think it's a very close race if you look at it with noughtsups, just who is aid ahead -- ahead and obama: is behind. it's a very close race. >> host: to get your average
numbers, what polls do you use. >> guest: we don't use internet polls and partisan polling. other than that we use everything that comes in. >> host: so, if nbc or was muse send -- you take the last couple of polls and average those? explain that a little built. ... one call from any pollster, would take the last couple reponse some polls -- rasmussen polls. host: there are all sorts of different shades of blue and red on your map. guest: we use a designation for "leans obama." if things change, it could go his direction. same thing for a light red for
leans romney. long shot that might be competitive down the road and everything else is considered safe for the parties. host: what changes polls? have the polls altered drastically? guest: we saw a large shift after the first debate. romney gained about 3 or four points. romney was shooting up. host: the jobs numbers are coming out the friday before the election. is that something that moves the polls, economic numbers like that? guest: the processions of the comet are fairly 10 -- of the
now. the debate we are going to see as minnesota's eighth district of bigotry and, congressman chip cravaack and rick golin. cravaack seeking a second term, bob cravaack seeking a second term, bob cravaack seeking a second term, bob cravaack seeking a second term, bob. dominus is it district, courtesy of kst p. >> democrats testily want to when did see back here to come up every second term. it district spends all the weight from northeastern the soda and stretches to north of the twin cities metro area. joining me now from republican incumbent ship her back.
a former airline pilot and a navy veteran. democrat rick nolan as a congressman who served minnesota's old six district. he was elected in 1974, stops in the early 80s to pursue a business career. gentlemen, thank you for taking temperature has here today. this is your only debate that we televised throughout the eight congressional district. most voters get their information about the two of you through television commercials. so at to show you each a commercial on how to respond to some of the things you said that he should view on the airway. let's start with a nod that targets chip cravaack. >> chip cravaack went to washington and brought back some strange ideas. instead of town hall meetings, he had to pay to see them. he turns a $1000 a month suv at taxpayer expense. he makes interstate $6100 a year more. while millionaires get more tax
cuts. chip cravaack was supposed to take minnesota values to washington, not the other way around. >> moderator: it is a catchy tune. but rick nolan, do you stand by what was said about your opponent? nolan: there was more about this than car allowances. it's about taxes, spending priorities. it's about how we go forward in this country. i for one don't like these attack ads. they really add little to the debate and you'll notice my ads that i'm responsible for are all positive. they are tallying through rick nolan is a direction i want to see this campaign going. that's the campaign should be. >> moderator: at two of the things in the sad you don't think are important. the suv, car allowance and the
issue of paying to see them at a town hall meeting. 73 -- just wrong. you don't have to pay anybody to see chip cravaack. >> moderator: the criticism about medicare and tax breaks for millionaires. you do agree with those things? nolan: yes i do. i've been in the eighth district of my life. i grew my business there, raised my family there. between our children and their spouses and grandchildren and aunts and uncles and nieces and nephews, you know, you have a lot of friends to develop a measure of respect even when they disagree with you. all of a sudden there's this outfit and a coming sheldon sheldon edelson or the koch brothers. he spent a lifetime building a reputation and then their see what they're trying to destroy it. i have nothing but respect for
chip cravaack. which is every difference of opinion as to direction. i don't want to see people running ads attacking a good man and a gentleman anymore than i want to see them attacking me and my family and my reputation. >> moderator: mr. cravaack, there are voters who think you're spending money willy-nilly on suvs and you have to pay money to see because unfortunate lot of people, this is where they get their information is from the television that. nolan: the ad was pulled because it was so wrong. it is illegal for me to take any type of contribution to come see me. that's illegal. our ad for a vehicle, for example, $1000 a month. we did a cost analysis. they investigated and completely discredited. because we overthrew her mobile offices in our district, with an 29 town halls. our first month it costs $3000 to pay mileage. were getting a tax break.
we gave $94,000 back to the u.s. treasury. >> moderator: let's take a look at a nod now that targets rick nolan. >> and 70s disco was sacked teen and a rick nolan was given self-pay racism pushed a bill to eliminate medicare. that's right, eliminate. no nolan says his more radical. i suppose the planet slashes medicare by $700 billion. defeat sunday. he is still running. >> moderator: we can all agree disco was king and 1970s. but as for the rest of it come you about a publication in the last debate that rick nolan did go to races on pay. cravaack: heated races pay four times in six years, but this pay
up to 50% of what it was before. during the same time. we saw congressman nolan basically not show up for work. $60 million out of medicare. that's true. the obamacare -- >> moderator: money is not coming from beneficiaries. cravaack: we are probably seeing is at a $760 million to pay for obamacare. we have a plan. unfortunately, democrats do not have a plan other than let it go bankrupt in 2022. so the ad was pretty accurate. nolan: the fact checkers, kstp, kcc are, all the fact checkers have said the ad was misleading, was false, untruthful, nonsensical, ridiculous. that's what the fact checkers say about that at.
and they were accurate. unfortunately it's running four or five times an hour and the fact checker stories are a one-day story. so we have been running some ads setting the record straight, telling the truth. when you vote for the rhein budget plan, you voted to cut $716 billion out of medicare. use that money to provide tax cuts for billionaires. that's what you did. we use that money, by all fact checkers have said we put it right back into medicare can't extend the life of medicare eight years and we did not cut one single benefit to seniors. in fact, we increase benefits. >> moderator: medicare commission first five years or older, i'm going to protect and preserve medicare. you have to agree with me. in the house clean up your 55 years and older, nothing changes, correct? i try to think of a delicate way to say this, but the thought
that medicare was good enough for appearance, good enough for us and somehow it's not good enough for children and will throw them under the bus and eliminate medicare as we know it. and you know, congressman, no less than the economist and "wall street journal" has said that you and ryan and others voted to do away with medicare as we know it. it was good enough for us and our parents and grandparents, that's a big good enough for kids. cravaack: congressmen come in 2022 manicures and solvent. it goes bankrupt. to do nothing is a dereliction of duty. if you're 55 and older, nothing changes. if your current senior, nothing changes. if your 53 years and younger, something's got to change. this takes leadership. it takes leadership to make some of these tough decisions. you have to make decisions, not
give yourself pay raises. rodney atkins is a voucher system in your mind? nolan: all the fact checkers have said it's a voucher system. it turns seniors back over to the private insurance industry in the same way you propose to take social security and turn that over to wall street. cravaack: that's a total fallacy. we're not even talked about social security. social security is completely different than the house plan. show me where since voucher system. it's a premium support model that instantly was brought up by alice strickland in the clinton administration. she actually supports the paul ryan plan and so does erskine bowles to put the ryan plan and moving forward into saving medicare. if we do nothing with medicare
echoes and solvent. that means current seniors depending on medicare when it goes bankrupt look at less services. >> moderator: obamacare. even the president has now adopted that term. he's a kid people calling at obamacare. to believe it's a government takeover in which you vote to scrap in the next congress? cravaack: first of all, not one number of congressmen regret it. nancy pelosi didn't go through the committee structure. she brought it to the hustler. two hours later were voting on it. 2700 pages, knowing that it. they created another 30,000 pages of nothing but both in regulation. obamacare is a takeover. the independent payment advisory board, and i'm elected, unaccountable board making decisions for seniors. someone you would scrap the preexisting coverage? stabbed to death in private
bottles already. it's already in insurance plans. >> moderator: what would happen if obama can be scrapped altogether? nolan: it would be a terrible mistake. we have now assured that people cannot be denied because of the preexisting condition. we've enabled parents to be covered up to the age of 26. there's some non-tax related measures in there that the insurance industry has said they save up to a trillion dollars by streamlining the whole reimbursement process. and that's not to say that somewhere down the road they might not be some changes as we see this thing implemented. the same thing set of medicare. of course it got things to fix medicare and social security, but the answer is not to do away and turns seniors over to the insurance industry. you do when you will terminate the program. cravaack: and the program if your 55 years old nothing
changes. under alice rivlin and paul ryan, there's the choice of the wish for traditional medicare come you can. someone if they go back before obamacare, there's companies that would not ensure you if you had a preexisting condition. cravaack: that's true. but there are those that will. this will give the american people options. the thinnest of options and competition is the key. nolan: talk about giving options to a program that we like for our parents and grandparents and it's going to be good enough for us, but not good enough for kids? people work for those programs cannot pay for them. they are earned benefits. >> moderator: is going bankrupt. nolan: will fix that, we'll fix it. >> moderator: will be back in just a moment of attack but the jobs issue, mining issue. those two obscene or twine. they'll be coming up next on the eighth district congressional race continuing in just a moment. and we're back.
rick noland come you sit in front of the georgia-pacific plant and held a news conference and said congressman cravaack did nothing to say the plant while disclosing and 150 people lost their jobs. could you say that planted few in congress? nolan: think we can. we had to change the tax and trade policy. if congressman cravaack: has voted to extend the kind of tax cuts that help facilitate these companies moving their jobs in manufacturing offshore, those are some of the tax cut that i think we need to eliminate. we can use revenue to balance our budget anemone twos are tax and trade policy to incentivize the domestic manufacturing. keep manufacturing where it belongs. >> moderator: isn't the job of government to save individual companies? cravaack: i was endorsed by the national federation of business and honored by the national association of manufacturers. we can we can send us a small business owner to create jobs.
we had to progrowth tax reform to ensure small business owners at the break they need along with all americans and regard a very complicated tax code. that is how we get people back to work his small businesses. seven out of 10 people. i think that's higher in the district of minnesota. >> moderator: obviously there is a statistic recently to create another 2.6 also to help support the industry. what would you do? nolan: i've always been for mining. i've always been for mining. i'm a small businessman. i i understand balancing budgets and meeting payrolls in getting things done and i know what stimulates a business in which stimulates jobs. it's not more tax cuts for the super rich. right now the corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars. the bank said on transit dollars. they don't need more tax breaks. they meet demand for their product. i know that is a businessman.
when you have demand for your product, then you're stimulated to invest in new equipment, new personnel and you get demand for your product by rebuilding this middle class. that's where demand comes. number tax breaks for the rich. >> moderator: does his experience helping create jobs? cravaack: atomizer focused on mining since before i was sworn into congress. i had to buy americans still manukau which helps our industry, american projects expediting a permitting process to her streamlining effect. but in all fairness to the congressman here come the seaside challenges in his own personal experience with business. in addition to that come with the world trade center quite frankly was a complete failure. governor rudy purpose backed away from it unfortunately and didn't even attend the ribbon cutting ceremony. an interim time. come on the congressmen give themselves a raise and became the highest-paid employee around. give it $200,000 golden parachute taken away, sold it at
a terrible loss to the minnesota taxpayer. nolan: and the carlson said it was a good project. we raised almost $100 million to build just the facility, create hundreds of good jobs. many tradesmen who live in the eighth congressional district. i worked for the first three years on the project as a volunteer, chairman spearheading , put together the joint venture, hope so the companies then expand exports. 328,000 new jobs were created in the world trade center helped contribute the enormous amount of time. cravaack: is a $5.5 million loss to the taxpayers of minnesota. it was sold at much less. nolan: you may have considered it a failure. the men and women in the eighth district took a good jobs building it, the companies --
cravaack: those are my words. >> moderator: shaman, running out of time. let's begin with chip cravaack. cravaack: it's been a privilege and honor to serve the women of the eighth district. we are two very different courses we see here today. one course is one of prosperity insolvency. looking forward to the best interests of the next generation of americans. the other courses what more we stand for the four years. more debt, more doubt and were declined. i believe in smaller government. i believe we'll get our country back on track. i ask for your vote to continue for the great people of minnesota. nolan: i'm a businessman. i know how to create jobs. i have created jobs. you create jobs by demand. not voting is the congressman hand to give more tax breaks, not voting as to give companies
incentives to move their manufacturing overseas. i know how to create jobs. i created jobs to the way you do it is by building a middle class for the trickle-down economics just doesn't work. that's what got us into trouble. we've got to move from the middle. >> moderator: rick noland, chip cravaack, coming down the wire. good luck to you on the campaign trail. we'll continue in just a moment. ♪ >> singer kid rock is warming up the crowd as they wait for republican presidential candidate, mitt romney and his running mate, paul ryan, to a rise. ♪
so i have a question. are there any americans in the audience? [cheers and applause] are there any free people in the audience? [cheers and applause] is there anybody else here who wants to take back their republican in the next two weeks? [cheers and applause] @. i won public service announcement. early voting has started. let's make noise here and at the ballot box as well. it's going to be a barn burner and we need everybody on board to elect romney ryan president and vice president of the united states. [cheers and applause] a little bit about me. i'm a veteran.
i want to say thanks to all my veterans and all the people serving right now. we know which are fighting more and haven't forgotten. i'm a black man. [cheers and applause] i'm an american. [cheers and applause] and yeah, i'm a republican. [cheers and applause] these things are not mutually exclusive and i am living proof. a friend of mine when he found out i was speaking tonight at coming you know, i bet you can't make a speech from one lender. one letter. i said okay. so i looked up at this beautiful flag of colorado, made from real people in the middle here because the heart of colorado is
our people. each and every one of us. [cheers and applause] that c. is not a very good letter. so i got to thinking, how about a big red our? [cheers and applause] a big red 79 that stands for big recovery. a big red r next time, and it stands real leadership and ready to the to the next state. a big red r for the people of colorado to realize his government has limits and we are really in control of this country, not the government. [cheers and applause] a big red r that says remember the promise of prosperity and
jericho what did you think of last night's debate? i think that we saw the next president. didn't you? [cheers] [applause] >> all of the debates have been great, especially the first one but in president obama's defense, it's kind of hard to win a debate when you haven't done what you have said you were going to do. [applause] and it is hard to win an election when you are running on a string of broken promises. [cheers] [applause] just look at her nations pocketbook. president obama promised to cut our debt in half during his first term. then he ran a billion dollar
deficit every year since he has been in office. he has not reduced our debt. he has added over $5 trillion to it he has promised to get our financial house in order. but that is hard to do when you have not even pass a budget in three years. [cheers] [applause] >> now, president obama rattled off last night about this not being a game of battleship. well, mr. president, our budget is not a game of monopoly either. [cheers] [applause]
>> held out immigration reform? he promised to pass that in his first year in office. he has not even proposed it. by now, the president said that he would have unemployment down to 5.4%. as you know, we are nowhere near that. in fact, the difference between what he promised and where we are at today is nearly 9 million americans out of work. you know, i could go on and on. but you know it, and i know it. the hope and change and bipartisanship that was promised does not exist in washington. we have been left with gridlock, division, and a real concern about the future of our families. fortunately, there is a guy
backstage who has the answers to the problems that we face. [cheers] [applause] and his is a record that we should all take a look at. mitt romney has balanced budgets for the last 25 years. he has taken over the olympics. he took over the failing olympics and turned it around. as governor of massachusetts, he turned a budget deficit into a rainy day fund. and he did it with a legislature that was 87% democrat. that is something that i can really appreciate. [cheers] [applause]
frankly, it is the spirit of bipartisanship that we can really use in washington right now. [cheers] [applause] but the biggest disappointment of the president's campaign this year may be that the president has not described a plan for the future. think about it. has president obama promised anything new for a second term? and as was said in the debate last night, attacking mitt romney is not an agenda. [cheers] [applause] four more years like the last four years is not a solution.
now, a lot of americans voted for president obama in 2000 and eight. colorado, like new mexico, voted for the president. i did not vote for him. but i was optimistic. we all hoped that he would deliver on his promises. because we all want america to succeed. [cheers] [applause] but the bottom line is that he has had for years. and colorado cannot afford to give him four more years. [cheers] [applause] now, president obama is not a bad person. he loves his country and he clearly loves his family. but we have to face the facts.
his policies have let us down at a time when we so badly need to be lifted up. especially when he refuses to defend his record or talk about the future. how can any of us expect that we can have another four years of these same policies and expect different results reign. [cheers] [applause] i have a question for you. do we need a different result? do we need to put america on a different course? do we need a different and better path for our family? it is simple. we want a different result, then we need to let a different
president be elected. [cheers] [applause] not just in the republican party, but for every child out there who deserves a future of endless opportunity and those who deserve promise of america to be available to them. [cheers] [applause] you know, the stakes could not be higher. the impact that each one of you, the impact that you can have on this election could not be greater.
and the choice for president could not be clearer. i hope you will join me in electing a successful businessman from a strong leader, a governor that has worked across the aisle him and the man with the right vision for america. it is time to elect mitt romney is the president of the united states of america. [cheers] [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪
[cheers] [applause] you guys can decide this election, and this is important. if it comes down to colorado, are you ready to pick the next president of the united states? [cheers] [applause] what do you think of mitt romney? [cheers] and what about paul ryan? [cheers] do think that they would make a great president and vice president of the united states? [cheers] they need you, colorado, and they need you now. you can decide this election. ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to introduce to you the next vice president of the united states, congressman paul
ryan: that is right, sir, we can do this and we will do this. i want to thank this great governor of new mexico. susana martinez, thank you so much. [cheers] [applause] lets also. for rodney atkins and kid rock. you guys, you are awesome. thank you so much. [cheers] [applause] we got some great calla colorado leaders here. thank you guys for all your leadership. thank you for putting your necks on the line for us. we love colorado. we have been coming out here since i was little guy. my wife, every year, we went to
this little place that was a ranch in pike national forest. we have been coming out fishing and skiing and mountain biking and climbing -- indisputable state. this state is going to deliver mitt romney as the next president of the united states. [cheers] [applause] and do you know what we saw last night? we saw a man that is ready to be a great president. what we witnessed was a man with a vision, a man with old ideas and solutions. we also witnessed a president who is out of ideas.
we represent a president that has no record to run on. we cannot afford four more years like these last four years. we need mitt romney put us back on the right track. four years ago. president obama came here to denver, colorado. he offered so much hope and change. obama said if you don't have any fresh ideas, you use scare tactics to scare voters. if you don't have a record to run on, you paint your opponent
as someone who runs from you. you'd make a big election about small things. that is what he said four years ago. and sadly, that is what he has become. we are not going to fall for, are we? [cheers] [applause] we saw last night governor romney is offering a specific plan. you see, this election, we are not just picking the next president for four more years. we are picking the direction of our country for a generation. it is that kind of an election. it does not matter what generation you come from. this is the most important election in your generation. [cheers] [applause]
while mitt romney is offering specific allusions, plans to get the 23 million people struggling for work to get them a job, president obama is trying to keep his job and we are not going to fall for, are we? this is one of those times where we need leadership. we have serious problems. we need leadership. of all the things that we know about mitt romney, the one word that rushes to your mind is that this man is a leader in a job creator. he turned around the olympic
spirit he helped create jobs as a successful businessman. by the way, being successful in business is a good thing. there is nothing wrong with that. we want more people to become successful. we take pride in that. [cheers] [applause] when he was governor of a democratic state, did he demeaned and demoralize and demagogue the democrats? no. he reached across the aisle. he found common ground, and he got things done. he counts the budget without raising taxes. that is the kind of leader that we need in the white house right now. someone who can get things done. [cheers] [applause] at a time when we have a jobs crisis in america, wouldn't it be nice to have a job creator in the white house? [cheers] [applause] the president has run out of ideas. he is going to try to distract
you for the next weeks. we are not going to fall for. we are offering you to be given a clear choice. a plan to get us back to work and bring us back together and to leave our kids and grandkids a debt-free nation and grow the economy and create jobs and use our energy and get people back into the middle class from poverty. it takes leadership. here is what we are committing. we are not going to duck the tough issues. we are not going to kick the can down the road. we are going to lead. [applause] we are not going to spend four more years blaming other people. we are going to take responsibility and fix this mess in washington. [cheers] [applause] we are not going to try to transform this country into something it was never intended to be. we are going to reclaim and
reply though sounding things that made our country great. the things that are veterans fought for. this is what we are going to do. the man that is going to do this is right here. the man that's going to put us in the right path and that colorado will deliver, the man is going to be our next president of the united states. he is right here and his name is mitt romney. here he is. the next president of the united states. mitt romney. [cheers] [applause] [country music] ♪ ♪ ♪ [country music] ♪ [country music] ♪ [country music]
[cheers] [applause] romney: this is a magnificent place for a guy born in detroit, to come here and look at these extraordinary mountains and the handiwork of our creator. it is just overwhelming. of course, there is nothing more impressive -- there is nothing more impressive than the handiwork of creating a child of god. we are all brothers and sisters in the human family. we right now want to see the kind of leadership that america can bring to the world. paul ryan and i intend to bring it with your help. [cheers] [applause]
romney: you hear the words grassroots and how the grassroots are involved. you recognize that the most important thing in helping change the course of a nation and setting the course on the path that lead to greatness and prosperity again and again, that is the grassroots of america. that is who we are tonight. that is you. your willingness to be here tonight -- [cheers] [applause] it makes the difference. by the way, there is early voting now. you can take your ballots and send them in. if you have your absentee ballots, make sure to send it in. if you haven't gotten one come, go to the center and make sure that you get it done we want to have all those votes so that on election day, everybody can get in there votes that otherwise
wouldn't be able to. will you be there for me? [cheers] [applause] romney: my heart is full because of so many friends and family here, that includes you. it also includes governor susana martinez who has welcomed me to come and introduce this. [cheers] [applause] also, rodney atkins. we listened to his music almost every day. we play it on the campaign trail. it is rodney's music we listen to and i love him. [cheers] [applause] romney: kid rock is a detroit guy, and i was born in detroit as well. you are born free everyday as well, and it is a privilege to be born in the greatest nation. we share with their friends
around the world. thank you, kid rock. [cheers] [applause] romney: just before i came in here, i saw todd helton and his support means the world. i am not sure how busy you have been the last few weeks, but did you get a chance to watch the debate? [cheers] [applause] romney: they have supercharged our campaign. i have to tell you that. you know, we are on the home stretch now. and i think the people of colorado are going to get us all the way there. what do you think? [cheers] [applause] romney: what you are seeing across this country is that we
have had these debates, and as paul and i have gone across the nation, you are seeing this movement grow and people coming together to say that we love america. we recognize that we can do better. i came in and some of the folks were holding signs. democrats were mitt romney. i love that. i love that. [cheers] [applause] you see, paul ryan and i have a few things in common. we learn how learned how to reach across the aisle in our elected office to find ways to work with democrats, republicans, and independents to get the job done. we need you to reach across the neighborhood of democrats and independents as well. to make sure that they understand that this is a year to vote for real change if you want to have real recovery. i need you to get those folks to vote for us. [cheers] [applause]
romney: if they ask you why should we vote for mitt romney and paul ryan, instead of thinking that is there now, one of the things you can say is that look at the obama campaign. attacks on us, it is about getting the economy going, getting jobs of the american people, protecting freedom, and creating a bright prosperous future. [cheers] [applause] romney: what you are seeing the obama campaign is an incredibly shrinking campaign.
he is out of ideas and excuses. and on november 6, you will make sure that he is out of office. [cheers] [applause] romney: paul ryan and i can handle two more weeks of attacks. i don't think america can handle four more years like the last four years. if you think about it, do you think that we can handle four more years where there are 23 million americans are out of work looking for a good job? we can handle four more years with the declining incomes? you think we could handle four more years declining home values? how about four more years with gasoline prices going up? are you ready for a real recovery? [cheers]
[applause] [cheers] [applause] romney: if you want a real recovery, and i can tell by your response to the answer is yes, if you want a real recovery, we have to have a real change. the president said he was a president of change. but he has become a president of status quo. and the policies of the president are a continuation of what we are seeing over the last four years. he calls this campaign slogan forward. i think forewarned is a much better term. [laughter]
romney: the president said that he can't change washington from the inside, he can only change it from the outside. we will give him that chance, you see. [cheers] [applause] paul ryan and i are going to work to change washington from the inside, and the path that we will take is pretty stark and conspiracy in. if the president is reelected, you will see about $20 billion in debt. paul ryan and i are elected and will be elected by you -- [cheers] [applause] romney: we are actually going to pull back federal spending, and we are going to cap a 20% of the economy, and we are finally going to get america back on
track to a balanced budget. [cheers] [applause] romney: if the president had his way, he would cut $716 billion out of medicare. if we get our way, we will put that money back in medicare and honor the promises made to our seniors. [cheers] [applause] romney: if the president has his way, you will see your health insurance premiums go up by $2500 per year. we will repeal obamacare. [cheers] [applause] romney: there's no question in
my mind that if the president were to be reelected, you would see unemployment stay at extremely high levels for additional years. this recovery has been more tepid than it should have been. right now, he said we would be at 5.4% unemployment. we are 9 million jobs short of that. these are real people living lives and having a hard time making ends meet. having a hard time making ends meet. if you have been unemployed, you know it's not about the money, it also has a big impact on how you feel about yourself and your relationships and these are tough times for americans. we have a five step plan to get america working. part of the five step plan that america needs. [cheers] [applause] romney: you know what they are. my guess is as i told you, you
can say what they are. we are going to get north american energy independence within eight years. we are going to take advantage of our coal and oil and natural gas in our nuclear energy and renewables. we are also going to take advantage of trade. we will make trade work for us. it creates jobs for us. particularly in latin america. latin america's economy is almost as big as china. we need more trade in latin america and we will get it. by the way, if china has cheated, we cannot allow to steal our jobs on an unfair basis.
[cheers] [applause] romney: we will make sure that our schools and training programs are world-class and we will do that with a simple thing. making sure that everything we do in education, kids in appearance and the teachers come first. and the teachers union is going to have to come behind. [cheers] [applause] romney: number four, we are going to balance the budget. spending more than we take in, we are going to sell our futures and we are going to crush our kids with a massive debt. it is immoral and wrong, and we have to have a balanced budget. number five, we are going to champion small business and make it easier for small business grow and thrive. [cheers] [applause]
romney: small business, by the way, is where the president tends to raise taxes. raising taxes on small business kills jobs. paul ryan and i will not raise taxes on small business. we will lower them and lower taxes on the middle class in america. [cheers] [applause] tea, romney: the president's ideas about the campaign is causing it to slick. it is why this movement is growing across the country. it is why we need you to get other people to recruit others to this cause. we need a brighter and prosperous future. [cheers] [applause] we can do better.
we don't have to settle for we have seen over the last four years. americans are tired of being tired. we can do better. we have within us, the american people, the entrepreneurial spirit to build businesses and grow them and hire one another. we have the skills to be able to educate people with the opportunities that they might have for a future and, of course, in this great country, we have a series of qualities that defines the greatness of the human spirit. throughout my life, i have had a chance to see something about the heart of the american people. i will tell you something. i was in a boy scout several years ago the. [cheers] [applause] romney: from the front of the room, there was a flagpole with a flag on it. i was sitting next to the flag. the person speaking at the
podium with the scoutmaster was from colorado. he said to the truth they are, they said they wanted to have a very special ceremony with a special american flag. they had it flown above the capitol building, this flag. when i came home, they said that they could make it more special if it went up on the space shuttle. so they contacted nasa and said will you take our flag with you on the space shuttle. nasa said, well, sure, we will take this boy scout souvenir on the sly. and a couple weeks later, they
said, have you found any remnant of our flag after the challenger explosion. and he said no, we haven't. he called every week for months. eventually, some of the debris had been found from the challenger disaster. they contacted nasa. the boy scouts got together with representatives of nasa. they were handed a plastic container, they opened the container, and there was their flag in perfect condition. [cheers] [applause] romney: they said, that's the flag at the end of the table next to mr. romney.
it was on a flagpole. i reached out and grabbed it and held it out. it was if electricity was running through my arm. i thought of those astronauts and would be sacrificed. and also why they sacrificed. for the gift of learning and discovery. we are pioneers. and it's in our nature to live for something bigger than ourselves. it is what americans do. [cheers] [applause] romney: i think of the young men and women who graduate from high school and college. they say that i'm going to put my career aside and i'm going to go into the military and serve our country. it is that kind of spirit. [cheers] [applause] romney: members of the armed
forces, please raise your hand and be recognized. [cheers] [applause] romney: thank you. i love that stanza international hands, the stanza that says oh, beautiful or heroes that proved in liberating strife. thank you to our veterans and members of the armed services. [cheers] [applause] romney: a nation of people that give to others. i think of a single mom who screams and saves. or to a father that has two jobs right now. two jobs so he can make sure
that his children have clothes that don't make them look different from the other kids at school. i think of the mom and dad are saying to each other, we want to make sure that our kids have a good christmas. it is in our hearts and in the american way we are a compassionate and caring and and.loving people. this nation is called upon the values that must be restored. paul ryan and i will do that. we will beam back america that has been the hope of the earth. we need your help. [cheers] [applause] because it matters. it matters for your kids and for their kids. it matters or 23 million americans struggling to get a
♪ ♪ [country music] >> we are covering to debate tomorrow night on c-span network. on c-span, the candidates in new york's 27th congressional district, where the democratic in common debates republican challenger. that is live at seven eastern. here on c-span2, north carolina governors debate. the charlotte mayor is against walter to belcher. that begins at 7:00 p.m.
eastern. >> on weeknights, watch key public policy events and the every weekend, the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our website, and you can join in the conversations on social media sites. >> the public religion research institute this week released the results of a new poll of catholic voters, which breaks down their attitudes on a variety of political issues, including health care and abortion. the survey findings were analyzed at an event hosted by the catholic university, institute for policy research. this is an hour and a half. >> my name is steve schneck.
i am the director for the catholic university of america. the institute is a sponsor of today's events. i am pleased to say that the institute has regularly for about five or six last elections, began the special sessions on the catholic voter. which we really tried to gather the foremost experts on the catholic vote to present latest poll numbers and the latest related to that. this is their continuation of something that we have been working on for quite a while. the institute for policy research and catholic studies at the catholic university of america is kind of a public policy think tank. we try to look at contemporary issues of public policy from the perspective -- especially from the perspective of the catholic churches social teachings. currently, the institute has 40
fellows. one is mark rozell, who i'm going to introduce in just a few moments. we have the catholic faith and contemporary public policy views. i want to say that as a part of a university, this is an academic institute. we do not advocate for a particular public policies, nor do we for any individual candidates or something along those lines. in that spirit, i should say that anything that is said today at this panel does not reflect considered opinion of the institute, nor does it represent the university experts are speaking here today.
the format for today's discussion is pretty straightforward. we can see that it is a panel here. doctor mark rozell george mason university, i will introduce you to him in just a moment. we will start this out with comments and follow down the line by melissa deckman from washington college and mark gray from center for applied studies research in the apostolate and gregory smith from the pew forum. each will speak for about 15 minutes. following the panel presentation, there will be a question and answer period. what i would ask during the question-and-answer period is that you come up to the microphone that is here so that you can be captured on camera and identify yourself and pose your question at that time.
political power and influence" among many other works. her presentation will exam the gender gap in the catholic vote as well as attitudes about reproductive rights, the hhs mandate, and religious using data taken from last month from the public religion research institutes american values survey. after melissa dr. mar ray, the doctor of polling for the center of applied research and the apostolate at georgetown university. mark is also a research associate professor at georgetown university. his research focusing on culture and politics, political participation, democracyization, and religion and politics. method logically -- cross-sectional time series studies. and then -- final dr. greg smith
is a senior researcher at the pew research center on religion and forum life. a frequent commentators on politics and religion and how the two intersect as research surveys at pew are among the most respected in the nation. he's the author of "politics in the parish." he will exam the catholic subgroup that is closely divided and capable of voting either way. mark ray's presentation is going to look at the variety of topics how the vote falls between unaffiliated and evangelical and the underlying complexity of the bellwether effect often attributed to the catholic vote as well as the turn use and mobilization in how the catholic vote is likely to result.
so that is the agenda for today. each speaker has about fifteen minutes, and i promise we will each keep to our time limits. myself included. maybe i'll leave a few minutes to leave time for questions in the indian. particularly catholics will likely decide the presidential election outcome. but sobers create a misleading portrait when they refer to the dephenomena the catholic vote as it is a united force waiting to be mobilized by one political party or the other. 35 million catholics voted in 2008, or about 27% of the elect rate overall. in the modern era, catholics usually comprise about one-fourth of the e lek rate. the most substantial concentration of at lick voters are in the midwest, the
northeast, mid atlantic region and somewhat the west coast. it is in many of the usually competitive states in the elect torial college such as ohio, michigan, wisconsin, that they have the most significant numbers. the catholic e lek rate in the united states is diverse and varied. frequent church going catted licks vote differently than catholics who occasionally or rarely attend services. rented election give a good indication how much the catholic vote is up for grabs. in 2008, barack obama won about 54% of the catholic vote, and that proximate mated the personality percentage of the overall national vote. in 2004, president george w.
bush won similar major any the national vote and the catholic vote inspect in -- and of the catholic vote as well. in 1996, bill clinton won a comfortable major majority and a better turnout among catholics. it is hard to imagine the catholic vote as a monolithic force given the varied result in the modern era. the catholic vote today is equally divided between the major political parties. it is important to understand the i diversity of the group and the challenges that any candidate faces when making special appeals to catholics. now just as background, the catholic vote once was nearly monolithic. catholics were once a key stwiptd sei of the old new coalition, that and cored the democratic party.
many catholics were from immigrant families, lived in the inner city and identified with labor unions. thus economic status and ethnicity largely explained catholic support for the democrats for many decades. the splintering of the catholic vote began in the 1980 when george mcgovern in 1972 appealed to abortion rights activist and the supreme court decision roe v. wade decision in 1973. by the 1980s the republican party appealed to pro-life voters and more catholic began to shift aleans. only one democratic presidential candidate secured a majority of the catholic vote. and that was bill clinton in the 1996 landslide. nonetheless, religious belief are not the dominant influence on the voting behavior of most
catholics. there is no single political based organization that mobilizes catholic as a voting block, the church hierarchy is sometimes reluck assistant to offer signals with regard to voting preference. and when certain bishop off signals many catholic voters ignore the appeals. the loosening the democratic party identity and voting among catholics largely occurred due to economic trends and population shifts. parents or grand participants were of the immigrant underclass and loyal underclass many have achieved economic success, move to the suburb and become independent or republicans. one scholar of catholic voting trends stated that the catholic community has experienced the same of other immigrant groups in the united states as he put
it catholics went through the melting pot and came out very much looking like other americans. in brief, catholics today are more educate, wealthy, suburban, employed in the higher professions than ever before. many catholic professionals are business owners who care about economic growth, trade, and taxes. where as their parents and grabbed parents to cuss on economic fairness, the minimum wage and welfare. the republican party strong embrace of conservative, social issue positions also has appealed to very traditional regular church-going catholics who care about such issues as abortion and contraception than they do economy and taxes. nonetheless, the shift away from the once democratic party dominance of the catholic vote has not a full embrace of the republican party by catholics. democrats have experienced
substantial loss -- among catholics but republicans have experienced relatively modest gains. like the rest of the e lek trait, catholics have become increasingly independent of the political parties. the trend among partisans is increased republicanism among white catholics who are about 60% of c.a.t libeling -- catholic and increase support for democrats among new immigrant nonwhite catholics especially the fast growing latino population which is about one-third of all catholics. in 2008, a majority of white catholics voted for john mccain but two-thirds of latino catholics voted for barack obama. republicans have strong support among those catholics who attend religious services often democrats have strong support among the so-called nominal or
cultural catholic. indeed in 2008 john mccain won 51% of weekly church attending catholics, obama's catholic majority was anchored by the strong support from 0 nation -- occasional and non-church attending catholics. for the 2012 election, it is likely that the divide between the observe end and the nominal catholics will grow as president obama's policy on contraception, u.s. aid for international family planning organizations, and other social issues have driven a deep wedge within the catholic community. mitt romney appeals to white church going catholics bots of -- because of the social conservative view. the religious identity for them appears simply does not matter. a new survey being released tomorrow suggests that a key to the outcome of this election will be which of these catholics
actually shows up. i know that some of the others on the panel will discuss these and other data more detail. ly turn to mealies is -- melissa from washington college. >> good afternoon. is this screen on? there we go. great. i'm here today to talk about the gender gap in american presidential elections and how catholics play to the long standing trend. bill voters matter more than ever in presidential election because first, there are more women who are registered to vote than men in the united states and secondly women are more likely to vote than men. since ronald reagan's election in 1980 women voters have been more likely to vote for democratic candidates than men. this gender gap was alive and well in the 2008 election had in which president obama
outperformed women voters by 7 percentage vote. 56% of women voted for obama compared to 49 percent of men. put another way, obama held a 13 point advantage. this summer, it looked as though obama was likely to maintain a double digit advantage come november but polls in recent weeks demonstrate the race for women voters is heightening. what can we expect in 2012? an election year in which both presidential campaigns are trying to appeal to women voters. are we likely to see a continuation of the gernt gap does it exist among catholic voters? today i'm going take a look at where men and women including catholics stand in term of the likely vote. using data released from the public religion american value survey. i'm also going exam two broad issue as they relate to the
women's vote. reproductive right and social welfare policy. these are promise innocent in the presidential race and two issues ever vital concern to the catholic church. both sedes of issues to the less fortunate where as jesus said the lease of these. for the catholic bishop the least of these include the unborn which drives their fierce pro-life view. it's worth noting, however, women have been more likely to vote democratic not because of reproductive right but because of the attitude about the social safety net. women have been significant ily more -- given that the republican party which has been heavily influenced by the tea party movement in recent years has called for limited the side and scope of government including call a budget incidentally opposed by most catholic leaders. it will be interesting to see if
this shapes the intelligence of either female or male voters including catholic. so before we take a look at the specific policy area let's take a look at what the public religion institute stated has to say about where voter stand currently. figure one, here, i put on the percentage of americans who indicate they're likely to vote for president obama. i should mention thank you to jones and ann cox for lending me the data to use today. now an important caf yet about data, it was collected at end of september before the presidential debates have occurred. it might be slightly dated of course, some mom tument is going toward romney. keep in mind. however the data has a lot of interesting nuanced question and a example of 3,000. the margin of error is only about plus or minus two.
prrr asked in the american value study if you were to election were held today for whom would you vote. 53% of americans said they would vote for barack obama. i didn't include the romney figure here. to give you an idea 40% at the time said they would vote for mitt romney. there's a big discrepancies here. about 7% by the end of september said they were unsure. in term of gender if we look at the next bar graph there. women and men we see there is a slight advantage among voters for president obama and we see a large divide moving on between catholic and non-catholic. this dwoided actually being driven by hispanic latino voters that mark was making reference to. i don't have a -- in the prri data 72% of hispanic catholics indicated they wanted to vote for barack obama 45% of white catholics indicated support for
obama which is lower than what he was able to pull in the 2008 election there. so and lastly in terms of looking at catholic women and men, do see that the gender gap extends to the group as well. 58% of catholic men compared to the men would be likely to support barack obama. okay. the american value survey also asked responded to indicate which issue was most important to the vote for president and by far the economy was listed as the most important issue. 59 percent of all americans see here in figure two said that the economy was most important. it's the most important issue for men and women. although, men are somewhat more likely 62% to say that the economy was the most single important issue to the vote compared with 56% of women. moving on to catholics, there is very little difference here. both non-catholic and catholic
in the survey say that the economy is most important. i think it's an interesting figure here at the end. catholic men 65 percent say that the economy was most important. just compared to 50% of the catholic women. there's a deeper gender gap among catholic men and women when it comes to the role of the economy in the election. when it comes to health care, there was the second reason most popular reason given for vote choice in the upcoming election. 18 percent of all americans said that health care was the single issue that was causing them to vote one way or the other here. this is a gender gap here this is not surprising. research shows that women care more about the social safety net, and they have been more supportive of the affordable care act. 22% of women saying health care is the most important issue. which is among catholics in general there is no difference. except if you divide it by gender.
again catholic women almost twice as likely to say health care is more important to the vote than catholic men. last i wanted to show you data with respect to abortion. i want to speak about it more specifically here in a moment. whether or not abortion is the most important issue in terms of casting your presidential vote choice prri asked that. we see here for few americans it's the case. 4 percent of americans say that abortion is the issue that is most important to them in the election. and really men and women catholics and non-catholics you see similar data. one interesting point at the end catholic women are more than twice as likely to say that abortion is more important their vote than men or to be the most important issue to vote for president. of course, this is a very small part of the population. i'm going touch on that finding with perspective to catholic women and men in a few minutes. well, reproductive rights it's hard to remember, i think, a presidential election in which
women's reproductive health issues have player a larger role than in 2012. it's largely been driven by two factors one is the health care man diet we've heard about from the obama administration, the birth com mandate which has been fiercely 0 possessed by the conference of catholic bishop which believes it's a violation of freedom. the other thing that i think is striving the role of reproductive health issue is a campaign issue is very adamant pro-life position taken by the republican party. highlighted by the g.o.p. adoption of the pro-life platform during their august convention in which they call for a complete ban on abortion accepting cases to save the life of the mother a position held by paul ryan who is current vice presidential candidate for the party. relatedly missouri senate
candidate todd akin is not a catholic televised remarking about rape made headline and stayed on the political radar longer because he and paul ryan who is a catholic had cosponsored a bill in congress that would redefined rape as forcible essentially as a mean to limit public funding on abortion to women who receive medicare. other republicans voted to stop federal funding for planned parenthood. as a result of the hhs mandate and pro-life private by many of the republican party, the democrats have countered by talking more about their pro-choice credential. i think it was striking in the convention last summer to which the pro-life pro-choice position was talked about at length by the democratic party here. so the last slide show us that abortion remains less salient than issues such as the economy and issue in terms of presidential choice. i thought it would be interesting to look at the most recent data on abortion
attitudes by gender and also by catholic status here. so this slide here figure five shows abortion attitudes nationally a little bit lot going on here. a lot of colors. essentially the first two lanes of every bar are the percentage of americans who think that abortion should be legal in all cases or most cases. the last two bars, the red and green are the percentage of americans who think it should be illegal in most or all cases respectively. when it boils down is of 56% of all americans say it should be legal in all or most cases compared with 39 percent who say it should be illegal in all or most cases. the data is consistent with previous polling. abortion advocates have been since roe v. wade in 1973. if you turn to the gender gap in catholic, there is no
statistically significant difference in the viewpoint. when looking at the view of men and women and catholic and non-catholic. more generally but going all the way to the end looking the at women catholic women are the most likely to say among the groups that abortion should be illegal in all cases. so you see definitely a big difference compared to say catholic men. only 15 percent of catholic men saying abortion should be illegal in all cay. i think it helped to you explain on the previous figure woe saw turning now support for the health and human services for mandate in hospital and university. a majority of americans according to the american value survey support the obama administration in this initiative. 56% of americans say that they agree with the policy. women are significantly more likely to agree with it than men. 60 to 52% here.
there is no difference among catholics when you put them all together. but somewhat surprisingly we find that catholic men are actually more supportive of this mandate than the catholic women here. 54% of catholic women compared to 61% of catholic men. bear in mind, of course, both catholic men and women, a majority support this mandate. now prri also asked about support for the health and human services mandate for churches which you for example requiring churches other houses of worship to have insurance policy that cover birthday control? here support falls a little bit. only 48% of americans agree with this. interestingly men are more likely to have position than the women. and you do see some differencings among catholic men and women and catholic more generally in the population. well, the bishop have made the issue about the mandate to a
matter of broader attacks on religious freedom. and not just the catholic wish shon. a lot of conservative evangelical who made a similar point about the health and human service mandate. somewhat surprisingly given the majority of the americans say they agree with the mandate, we still find that a majority of the americans believe that rebelling use liberty is threatened. somehow the data are odds quite a bit here. what's interesting is that a majority a slight majority of men and women, catholic, non-catholic, catholic women and men feel religious liberty is threatened. the message seemed to resonate with a few americans. okay. last slide i want i want to talk about is the idea of culture dependency. getting back to the social welfare issue. most study of the gender gap show attitudes about social welfare policy. and many catholic roots most note nuns on the bus have been
vocal critics of the ryan budget which could cut spending on social services. republicans have been heavily influenced by the tea party movement in the past three years. and the tea party is espouses that government should be farless responsible for providing service. they believe that when the government provides social welfare it creates a culture dependency among americans. i was struck that paul rand used to words. the american value survey asked americans whether they were more likely to agree that government policies aided hemping the poor serve as a credit call seat net or, it create a policy of accident sei. it's few. 22% of americans say that social welfare policy create a social welfare policy. there is a gender gap which is not surprising. reames of survey data have shown
women more progressive about issues on social welfare. 29% of women agree that welfare creates a culture of dependency, compared to 34 percent of men. there isn't a lot of difference looking at catholics on the group them together. breaking out catholic men and women here we see a significant gerntd gap larger than the gender gap among women and men. catholic men are more likely to agree with that statement than our catholic women. data show a gender gap among voters -- obama is pulling more support among women voters. the gap appears to be driven less by issues such as reproductive rights, abortion, of course we see the very low sal gent issue for most voters. it's driven by social safety net concerns. what was interesting before recent weeks the romney campaign has been able to close the gap
despite the data showing women are most likely -- despite the data show health care as an issue than do men. women like men are most likely to say that the economy matters to their decision, it appears that romney's campaign differencens on how the economy affecting women -- catholics are more supportive of obama data. it's largely a function of obama's overwhelming popularity with latino men and women. i don't include this on the table. there is a gender gap among latino catholics. generally speaking, the vast majority of latino men are supporting obama bhap is driving this is immigration for latino voters. the economy was the first issue
of most important to them in terms of the presidential vote choice. immigration was a close second. roughly one in four latino voters said in the data said that immigration was the major reason going to the poll. we is see how it's benefiting barack obama in the election. interestingly catholics are more likely to back romney there's a gender gap romney does among best white catholic men obama managing to hold a slight lead among catholic women. as least of late september. with respect to the view on abortion, the health and human services birth control mandate, religious freedom and the churl of dependency. it appears that the bishop vocal mandate is not stopping most catholics from sporting it. at least from the supplies to catholic hospitals or universities. there is more opposition, however, amanage catholics more generally and making churches offer birth control as the
insurance policy for the employees. i think data here paint an interesting pick which of catholic women. more likely to agree with the catholic hierarchy on both the social justice issues and also the social issues such as abortion. this is probably because american women in general faithful which it comes to church attendance. among catholic women may be why we are seeing a greater slight tendency for them to oppose abortion than men and fewer catholic women support the health and human service mandate. believe in the government service create a culture of dependency compared to catholic men which is in