tv Capital News Today CSPAN November 1, 2010 11:00pm-2:00am EDT
if he walks away from the saying -- not saying i have got the message and we will look for different way, i think he will be in deep trouble. >> the notion of divided government, is there any empirical evidence that they actually do prefer this? that is inferred about government, but then voted such? >> i'd want to talk about the premise laid out here. we asked which bothers you more, politics going the wrong direction and nothing is done, and they are thinking nothing is being done. a lot of people and others -- not the republicans. they want totally different solutions. but independent voters and female voters think that nothing is being done in their mind. the challenge here is coming
back, they will be more polarized than they were before, a democratic party were the liberals -- i do not think the voters will like gridlock for very long. i do not see this so much as a rejection of 2008, but 2010 is an affirmation of will be sold in 2008. people want change and it is not working for them. they want something new and different. i think that is not happen. >> the new and different that they are of voting against this time as the new and different they have seen for the last two years. getting direction from the public, and which would want us to go. >> and the best communication -- the best way is the question on
more trusts or less trust in government than you did two years ago. by a 62-32 margin, they trust the government less than two years ago. what the numbers we saw in the 2008 campaign, we want to see the government do more. now they are saying they want government to do less. they are doing too much. they are too involved. and the president himself finally has acknowledged in terms of the stimulus that he has come to the conclusion there is no such thing as the shuttle ready project. -- shovel-ready project. >> i think this is a debate that will go on between the parties. using government, doing too much, yes, in terms of bailing out the banks and not enough in
terms of a moratorium on foreclosures. i think there is a real challenge about the kinds of things getting done and the kinds of things not getting done. the democrats would be in a lot better position if we had gotten out a lot more loans to small businesses and pull back on ceo salaries i think that there is a real legitimate debate here about what the messages that the public is sending. they just know that they are damned and happy. they want things to be done differently. -- and on happunhappy. a mandate i agree with you. >> the secret is the underlying book is that you have seen on just this explosive focus on spending.
>> from republicans. she and not primarily republicans. it's overwhelmingly with independents, and even some conservative democrats. it is not just a republican thing. that is what is the no. 2 issue in the country. >> if democrats deliver on the economy, we should not lose focus about delivering on the economy. dealing with social security and the deficit, they will be a permanent minority party. >> give me the three big things that happen different about this election that will work in the republican favor. i think the first one is republican spending last year the republicans at disadvantage. too much has been made of this but it it least as brought republicans to parity. corporate money. >> their spending at three to one. not if you take the
independents and the last couple of months. an avalanche of money because of citizens united. >> the democrats have up much bigger advantage on the individual candidates in the race is that we factor in. [laughter] >> over the last few weeks. >> the tea party movement is fascinating to all of us. it helps republicans and in the swing from independents, with obama and the democrats last november, and then they never came back. the swing of independents or this passion of the tea party movement which has risen up and given new motivation and enthusiasm to the republican party? >> some of what we're seeing in the enthusiasm gap is the tea
party movement and their energy that has breathed life into the republican party. i think the story of this election is the independence moving back and forth across the electorate depending on who is in power and their unhappiness with whoever is in power. 2008, they were looking backward at the bush administration. they did not like that. we round up with a democratic administration. now the independents are swinging back the other way. >> date distrust both parties. they certainly distrust government. the biggest thing is that the independents dropped about 37% than and up residential project in a presidential year. to about 26% in a non- presidential year. >> they are not likely voters in our polls. >> they are still there, but what you will see tomorrow is in
many elections where these polls are coming in earlier this week in, you see the republican leading by 20 points with the independent. that will translate on election day in a probably a two-one margin. that is why i think you will see a bigger wave them what they are anticipating. i have to go back to the independent spending. our analysis is the same measure, basically parity. you know that you're living in a different world when you have george soros on television attacking karl rove for all the independent money he is bringing into the election. i wish i had known he was going to do that so i could sell tickets and raise more for our campaigns. >> i agree about the angry independents. and it's here -- a nuance here is
how much the independents have suffered in this economy and how much the policies have not touched their lives. whichever party comes into power will have to deliver. if you rent -- if you want to win in 2012, you better have a economic policy that delivers for blue-collar america. that is the real failure, economic policies in both parties must of a blue-collar america. >> do you think obama will be more the solitary life clinton did? i am not totally sold because there's so much more incentive not to move to the middle than there was in 1994. it does not s seem he can win
without changing those independent numbers. how does he do that? >> whether you win because they love you or because they hate their -- your enemy more than they hate you. the republicans have not won the independents because they love the republicans. they are just mad. angry independents drive the independent vote. an important piece here is to traffic clear economic distinction. these independent voters do not want to deal with minimum wage or social security. they do not want to cut funding for education. and they do not want the tax breaks for millionaires.
let's have that fight. i think the president will be really torn between trying to work with a house that does not want to work with him very well, and running so that these independent voters have a clear choice in 2012. >> going back to your question about the president trying a new way, he will have an opportunity because so many of the races we're going to win tomorrow night are blue dog. the democratic congress will be much less conservative and that much more liberal. the republican side will be that much more conservative. i think it is a good question, does he have enough to do that? without getting into it, i want to talk about these elections and a policy. i would disagree almost wholly with everything that she just
said in terms of policy. a very simplistic view of where these voters are. in fact, they can play class warfare on the democratic side, and let me give you one example. the democrats in this campaign have been in race after race after race bringing out partial privatization as typical scare tactics in the campaign in terms of this is what the republicans are going to do. guess what we were able to do? all we had to do list of talking about health care. seniors hate the president's health care bill. they know what is going to hurt them. so we had current policy versus manufactured politics to be able to discuss in this campaign. that is why they did not make headway with singers. that senior group is going to vote overwhelmingly republican tomorrow night.
>> what you apply what we're seeing in these polls and talk about the 2012 race. is there any candidate out there are you looking at the issue matrix of what people care about and much more appealing now? >> there will not be a challenge in the democratic party. there will not be anyone other than obama as the nominee of the democratic party. on the republican side, the tea party really does present a real challenge to the washington establishment. who might be going up again sarah palin for a candidate of that ilk. i think we may want to look haley barbour who looks strong
in that environment to me. just to give you my view of obama triangulation, i think it will be very difficult for him precisely because the tea party is going to hold the republican leadership to a very rigid line. i am not sure how far apart obama it is willing to reach in order to compromise. other than the mandatory bills on spending, i look forward to varied little getting done of telexed two years and the president retreating into foreign policy where he has more leverage. >> any one of the republican candidates that looks better now than six months ago that could have a good chance? >> i cannot wait to have heard
nominated. i liked the fact that it was a woman and gave them so much trouble. but on a serious note, i agree. i think the voters are going to be frustrated with washington in two years. clinton had the ability to do some smaller things in the way that they look like bigger things. obama does not have that luxury. he is probably in terrible shape coming out. i think that there is a -- the tea party does not think small. there is a real division there about what is possible to get this country going. the government has to deliver and toughest times and could have a real opportunity here.
i think barbour is a very committed incapable governor, well-placed in washington. he is a very interesting candidate. the party will have to juggle with palin, she is a real threat. >> any disclaimers? >> i feel like they are playing and being nicer because they both know i am closer to haley. i think -- one big thing that we're seeing is that there's that feeling inside the republican party that we had gone with the next person in line. the one that has been there the longest. there are some indications that a candidate in the last round
of the presidential sweepstakes are not going to be looking at closely as what has traditionally been the case. new faces are going to be let that cluster. i think that is a good thing for the republican party. i think those driven by the fact that they felt like that is what they ended up doing in 2008, even though that was not the case. i think you're going to see a much longer process and see names that service that are the real names. it may be one of the other governors. governors have a leg up here. one thing i would also say -- i am beginning to hear from some democrats who were big obama supporters, i really still like the guy, but maybe he did not have enough experience. maybe he was too young. maybe it was too early. that will also drive all little bit of looking for some
maturity on the republican side. who is the grown up in the room? they will be a key issue. if you go into this presidential campaigns, even the supporters of obama who may like some of the things that he has done will take a step back and say, if i were to it knowledge this weakness, it would be that much. >> following up, 65% of these likely voters still like obama or support him as a person. not his policies but as a person. he has got a reserve there. >> the other thing about the data in terms of democrats, and in every place you're seeing questions about -- there has been no question -- democratic
voters think that he is doing a good job. it of the independents that are the about room. today there's been a cycle between bill clinton and by the end to prove who would be the best buys presidential nominee next time around. >> a tiny pit of the poll. they want to know if they can get that job and that the economy will turn around, and if washington would stop being dysfunctional. >> you have to be really nice to your mom. >> give us a prescription. one or two ideas on how things could get better in washington. how you think this problem where we have constant partisan warfare and people are not voting for something, but again
something, potentially obama. give us reason for hope. give us a cure. how'd you make it better? >> how little it to chris and his expertise. i think that we need campaign finance reform. special interests have way too much power. the democrats came to the table feeling outspent. they will not want to alienate special interest if you can drag yourself back to washington. the republicans are truly indebted to the special interest. we need campaign finance reform. >> after this election, democrats are born to see what republicans did and they will go to georgia soros and do it better than republicans did. >> we do not have that much. didn't your copying them.
going forward we do not have that democratic money. democrats are going to be energized for campaign finance reform. also, filibuster reform. filibuster reform is something that could happen. >> kress, get involved. >> i am not sure i've got anything for you. the last time that we had this really strong partisanship in the early 1950's. it was the soviet union that brought people together. we could speculate about what kind of foreign threat to do that and i'm not sure that we would want to get into that.
but the other possibility is that sooner or later, the leadership emerges that puts together a majority party in which the minority party begins to accept that it is the loyal minority, and not trying everything they can to get back into the majority. we've had divided 50-50 governments since 1958, and we had been directionless as a nation since then. genentech country has been basically spent -- >> and the country has been basically split 50-50. i think that that is tough. i think candidates a, sometimes they say it as a line and it is there, talking about the future of our children and grandchildren. the line you're hearing this year is that this is about the future of our country. i believe that there is a very
deep feeling that goes beyond the tea party. a very deep feeling that economically we are in deep trouble. i think there is a better than what is given credit for understanding that the reason why the stimulus is not working is that when you spend that kind of money to create government jobs and it runs out and you have not created the mentality for growth, you have actually ended up with a deeper hole when you started out with. they understand that and they are reacting to that in the campaign. if we do not get back to the basics -- not the class warfare -- but the basics of building an economy that you truly can grow , and 2% growth will not do anything to change the unemployment rate -- we may be facing an economy that will look the same over the next eight years. that is where people are. that is the concern. it is not about class warfare, it is about government only
doing one thing. it can create a better environment in terms of growing the economy. it cannot create a better economy. >> sewed, jim, there you are. >> we will take some questions from students. if they would greet my own newspaper other than politico, i would not name at the times or today, i would name at the hatchet. >> thank you. the hachette is excited that we will be here. i want to ask students that we're covering this and a lot of us have been covering it as being excited for obama this election cycle but we're not really turning out this election cycle. is it fair to compare the midterm election cycle?
was the last presidential election an anomaly? >> i did they not think it is a fair comparison. what you have seen in the last four presidential elections is a percentage of the vote, the use of what has grown from 16% to 18%. during that entire period of time, the youth vote in the non- presidential races turns out between 10%-11% and it has not change from year to year, even with the intensity of the 2006 election were there was a higher support level. the support margins of the youth vote for democratic candidates was almost the same as it was for obama in 2008. but it did not impact the turnout. i think it is an unfair comparison. there is some disenchantment
with what they expected to happen. and those who live by the sword died by the sword. obama when he ran in 2008, he appeared to be a blank slate. he allowed whoever wanted to apply whatever hopes and dreams they had to him. he was not specific about what he was going to do. he allowed it to be whoever heard that message out there, when now works for you is when the tide is in your direction. it works a different way when the tide is in a different direction. >> elections are about candidates. we are looking at the numbers of separate elections + gubernatorial and so forth. candidates that have the visibility in the charge for the young people have obama had. it is comparing two very different phenomenon.
>> one of the things that you are seeing, enthusiastic conservative view. one of the questions on the table -- the democratic youth turnout in 2010 as they did in 2006. it is unclear whether they will be true. and 2010 had peaked or will it come back in 2012? the youth a particularly hard hit by this economy. there can be some economic change and i really think the single biggest challenge that the democrats face is outlining an economic policy where real people think at the micro level that this means i can get a job and i can start a family and i
can purchase a house. that is sure for people 55 and for people 18. >> the other thing i would add -- and i tried to drive this message home with republicans, it is so easy to fall into the trap that this was a new group of young people that turned out. we only saw a margin of error increase in their percentages. more important was that in 2000, george w. bush won the use of by one percentage point. he lost them by 11 percentage point in 2004. he lost them by 34 points in 2008. what has happened in the youth vote for the republicans and for specifically the republican party was not that a bunch of new young people came into the process and started voting against them. they lost the support of the youth vote. that is much more important for the republicans and internally something we have been dealing
with. >> the generic but is the only segment in which the democrats do well. >> up freshman representative for the college republicans. >> with the republicans expected to take back the house in the senate, what did the americans expect from republicans specifically on policy changes? will republicans do that without getting back the senate or the presidency? >> it is a tough question. expectations are very high. i think expectations are that with this electorate, they want republicans to stop the bad things that are happening and the direction of this country, level of spending going on. they're scared about the health care bill and what that will mean. they are scared about the potential taxes that are coming. as much as the democrats may use class warfare, what i am hearing is something that i thought i
would never hear. they're not enough millionaires to pay for all of this. they know ultimately that that bill will come back on them. can it be done without the house? probably not. will they have to deal with those expectations? absolutely. the question in my mind is can they play the role of the calgary, is that they stop the bad things from happening until the real troops get here? the real troops are going to be the white house. >> that is the real uncertainty about the republican majority. they have to deliver on spending cuts, even if they are fairly superficial. i don't think they will attack anything structurally as far as entitlement reform. they could at least curtail earmarks and limit non- discretionary spending. a tiny portion of the budget, but they have to do that because
that is emphatically the one message that the tea party and as independent come together on. that is what republicans can have success. that is where they lost their way. you could compare bush to lbj. he was essentially a big government little -- a liberal. it is why republicans have soured so much. and that's why you see so much enthusiasm now. i guess that will try to do a repeal of health care early on, so it is my assumption they will try to get it out of the way early. >> there was social security- medicaid bridgett -- provisions that they tried to on do. it was not until there was a president that they were willing the up hold and not veto what they were trying to do that they were able to undo the bad
legislation. it will take the white house. >> there is a list of seven different issues right now, tremendous overlap between the two parties. reauthorization of the no child left behind, free trade agreement, the investment components of the energy bill that went down last time around. on tax cuts, people making less than two of $50,000. there is a lot of overlap. securing borders and do something encore hdtv. on every single one of those issues they ended up getting snarled in partisan politics, and you can see in action on all this. >> one of the dilemmas hibiscus bitty part -- one of the dilemmas, the tea party is an interesting aspect.
if you, for example, trade policy -- policy, the democrats are divided on trade policy, as are the tea party. the tea party voters, as a part with -- as opposed to the politicians. a trade dialogue would be quite something for them. some of these issues divide both parties, and that complicates it. it is going to be interesting if the republicans go out fast and try to do big things. they used to say repeal health care. now they say repeal it and replace it. voters do not want to go back. they want to improve it and make it better. if republicans come in fast, trying to deal with it, the promises they made on the campaign trail, you have democrats proposing joint things
that want to be done together. dhaka 1099 -- the 1099 provisions are very unpopular. you might be able to avoid a presidential veto. there is a lot of jockeying here for both parties. >> you will have very different leaders in the house. john boehner is not new gingrich, and hoyer is not nancy pelosi. they are respectful of the committee structure and more amenable to compromise. unfortunately, they will be leading parties that are very divergent in their views. they have the potential to work together. nate perkins, the vice president of the gw college democrats is probably not as happy as chris
today. >> a lot of young people have only selfless. in a recent study, there is a six. gap with surveys that say cell phones only do certain kinds of surveys. how are you trying to cope with this problem? >> both of our firms use cell phones quite a lot. in all of our studies this year we have used files from most of our statewide studies, and if you put down your cell phone as your point of contact, then that is the fun we use. we have also started a survey, a problem, but we have tried to encourage our clients to use cell phones, and in preparation
for the 2012 electorate, it is going to be mandatory. you will not have an accurate sample if you did not use cell phones. >> i would differ with what pew is finding. whether it is 18% as opposed to 12% of the electorate, you're talking about a difference. we have been getting ready, to win the battle grounds together, but also the pollsters, so we have been doing this for quite some time. what we have been doing on our side is basically been doing a series of surveys where we look at a set of issues, particularly with young people, on a difference between the people with cell phones and young people with landlords. what we have found to date is not much of a difference. some of the difference in terms of what pew is saying is overstated, because the youth
vote, the net democrat, is fairly monolithic on how they viewed the issues. if you begin to see the splitting of that between the youth who only have land lines and a sweat cell phones, then you would have much more of a drive to have a sample that includes cell phones, which can be done. it is a matter of cost, using that divergence between those people that have land lines and cell phones, something we are trying -- something we are monitoring closely. they like to find out region -- reasons that they do not have the numbers, try to find out reasons it is not working. we are unturning reese done. quite frankly, as opposed to the public polls, when we do polls for candidates, if we are wrong, we're no longer in business.
where the public polls can say something changed with this poll and that poll. it does not matter. >> the last question is the news director at mattered -- america's of a radio station. >> we are happy to be here tonight. in a posting early this morning, silver writers is consternation about the generic congressional ballot. fox news says 13% point cbs says 6%. he goes on to explain the distinctions. in this polling pluralism, why -- what are americans supposed to take away from this besides confusion? >> listen to the battleground poll. >> i can give you an example.
we saw this as a standard in the last election. a lot of people speculated what the electorate was gone to look like and they began pulling samples, not of what they knew they electorate was going to look like, but what they assumed it was gone to look like. what we do is we screen out people that say they are not going to vote and then we include everyone else. internally we do modeling that takes into account how intense they are about voting, the candidate, the older they are, a higher propensity the vote, the more educated they are caught a higher propensity to vote. if you are young but college educated, you will come out much higher. so we can look at a simple and we can say turnup -- turnout will be somewhere around 50
present sign of the electorate. when you look like -- at likely voters, our generic ballot was five points. the republicans are five points ahead. when you look at the vote model, what we think the electorate will look like, it was 12 points. it is one of the reasons why i sit here with confidence about what tomorrow night is gone to look like. it is a 12 point lead. what you are getting in the surveys is you have different people play around with what the model, what is the likely voters, some people are taking straight registration. what you see are variances out there. the one thing you can say is that usually what you see in polling is they tend in the last week to start pulling close together. it is one of the reasons -- both of us tend to like looking at clear politics, which takes an
average of all the polls out there. and it is certainly showing that kind of margin there as opposed to the huge gaps your scene between the other things out there. the one thing i was glad to see is the gallup poll stopped this week with the confusing here are the numbers for a high turnout, low turnout, and they released them on the same day. give me a gun and let me shoot myself. the mott we will take questions from the audience. you have a 95% better chance of being asked a question if you have a green bay packers jersey on. >> i am a second year student,
and i have a question. what do you think of the competency of the deep party candidates are if they are elected to the house or the senate? the thing they will be able to make rational decisions? [laughter] >> only loaded questions. would you like to reword that? >> thank you for your incredibly insightful question. i would love to be a mouse in that caucus. what is interesting is i think there is -- i do not think there is any question of competency honestly. i do not think that is what is up for play. it is ideologies that is up for play. these candidates -- it has been
fascinating to see the republican party trying to bring these candidates into line and bring in a more traditional team, i will not a professional team, because they won their primaries and they did something right. does that last in the caucus or not? what does that first tea party caucus look like? when is the real challenge, because you are right, and i forget to set up here. somebody up here said that these guys are winning, the partial privatization of social it's a very. they did not have a lot of interest that we tried to make it an issue, but these candidates, if i like that, they will have been collected because voters voted for change and they wanted to throw the bums out of washington. the wanted to protest this economy. in some cases they wanted to press -- to protest spending.
they were very unhappy with the process, and they did not second a whole set of issue positions. what happens when the candidate try to -- what will the republican party give them because they wanted to diminish the government. the interesting group of voters in that regard are of women voters because women want a role for government. they're unhappy with how it is right now. women want government to do something. the tea party, both female and male candidate, is challenging, and it could help move the women voters back to the democratic column. >> the interesting thing, everybody keeps referring to it as the tea party movement and they look like it as a party and not understanding that it is a movement. it is an attitude, a belief, an undercurrent of feelings about the country.
yes, you could look at what has occurred in some of these campaigns. there has been demonization that goes on in serpent -- in certain campaigns, some with a little bit of help. the same per person that did demon sheik is the same person that said i am not a witch. the bottom line is these are what you expect to come from the electorate. they are everyday people that have an everyday attitude at what the problems are and the solution should be. some will xl and do well and rise to the occasion in terms of representing not only their group of voters, but the wider congressional districts that are elected to. one of the reasons why the senate is more susceptible saves waves is because you have some
people elected that six years from now there will be the way you can get them reelected. the same has been true with liberal democrats who have been elected in the waves as it is with republicans who are populist or however you want to portray it. the bottom line, what -- once the campaign is over and settle down to their jobs, some will excel, someone not, and to blanket assumed that because of what has been portrayed in the press and the campaigns will dictate that type of representative they are born to be or senator there are to be is just not going to -- that is not the way it is going to play out. >> there is something slightly different about the crowd of the candidates that qualify as tea party candidate, ones that use the momentum to win office. you talk to them and they do not sound like your typical person running for the senate, and
they're not coming to move a specific piece of legislation. they're coming here to wage a philosophical war about the nature of government and what is talking and what is happening to society. it sounds like they are already making their decisions. they're coming as messengers. mitch mcconnell is got to have a miserable job. the worst thing that can happen and to mitch mcconnell is that they actually get the 11. there will be a large number that he cannot control. different candidates -- usually the establishment is -- has a tremendous amount of authority because of training and money. in the senate there are eight different candidates who are endorsed by the national republican senatorial committee who were defeated by tea party candidates. they will have no attachment to the establishment. they will have tremendous incentive to block the establishment. it turns out -- you do not know
when someone comes in if they change, if the become legislators, it is impossible to another. it is likely he could end up with not one jim demint, but four, five, or six of them and that will be a problem when you have republicans try to muscle through legislation. i think the senate is a sexy story. i never thought i would say that because it is a usually pretty dull institution. the majority of the senators will be in their first term. the senate is much more partisan than it used to be in that you have a lot people going from house to the senate then you used to. a high percentage of people calling from the house to the senate. it will be an interesting story watching them tried to manage
it. >> the only thing i would defer it is the democrats had ended its that had vastly different philosophies, and they have stood shoulder to shoulder facing what they view as the enemy and done just fine. why 80 party candidate who -- maybe i like them because i consider myself to be a populist -- i see them as the modern day extension of a populist inside the republican party, being able to stand with other republicans on what they view as the enemy, which is obama, doing bad things to the country with the wrong solutions. they are being underestimated. republicans are being underestimated on their ability to stand together on a goal and objective that is clear to everyone of the republican candidate is running this year, whether a tea party candidate or not.
>> the point is democrats may be the enemy, but the republican position may be the opposition. -- but the republican opposition may be enemy as well. people come, they run against washington, i will not be corrupted by that place. by the politics, if you listen to them, their rhetoric, they would be at odds with mitch mcconnell. the question is, where is the solidarity come from. >> i think a lot of words are coming and put it into the mouths of the tea party. they want the government involvement at certain levels to stop. we want there to be a philosophy in terms of policy that makes sense in terms of moving this country forward again, and i
think you are calling to see a lot more alike than not alike. it has nothing to do with being corrected with washington. it has everything to do with having a common cause. >> next question. >> i'm a freshman from california, so i understood the demon joke. a question about race in alaska. what is your opinion on what will happen tomorrow in alaska, considering if a less -- if an elected, leeson rakowski will be the first elected since strom thurmond to win in the right in. >> republicans will win tomorrow. republicans will hold that lead in alaska with -- when this election is over. >> you are seeing a surge
forecast the already corral and l lot of alaskans are fed up with this being a national debate. it is an interesting question about this right in potential. that is another case where there are so many disputed ballots, that unless the margin is distant, which it is hard to have any way, that race is not going to be over tomorrow. it will be over in a while. the other thing that is interesting here is the go back to the previous question. i loved it when you describe that thing as -- just like the democrats are united, i felt like, are democrats? some other democratic party. i think that republicans could
find that unity phrase a lot, and that fight is a precursor to see how long this gentility will last, when you are only defined by your common enemy. >> i agree with everything i have heard. for those that do not know, murkowski would half to win as a write-in candidate. >> there are all kinds of polls out there. it is hard to poll a write-in. >> and it is hard to poll in alaska. >> that concludes gw's version of the rally for senate the and/or fear. our thanks to this terrific
panel. [applause] we want to thank our co- sponsors, the student groups jeep of the -- gw republican spirit our graduate school of political managed. we want to thank the director and her great team for handling the logistics for the evening. manager and my colleagues. as follows terrific student internes and volunteers. our thanks also and most of all to our terrific audience ford joining us here tonight. we hope he will consider coming back on thursday when the
graduate school of political management will host a post- election forum, featuring political strategists. that will be moderated by an nbc correspondent. join us on the second floor for a reception and a continuation of the discussion with the folks on stage. and everyone watching and listening to this program, please exercise your right and responsibility as americans tomorrow and vote. thank you and good night. [applause] ♪
>> voters head to the polls tomorrow. coming out, a couple of the base for a couple of house races. the new mexico's second congressional district. then can the the face off for south dakota's house seat. more about the elections on tomorrow's "washington journal." . we will talk about some of the key house and senate races.
seat. this was moderated by sam donaldson. >> welcome to this new mexico special, congressional town hall debate. tonight is the second congressional district debate between steve pierce and harry eague. eague. >> we are coming to you from the airwaves statewide thanks to our partners at stations in albuquerque. and we welcome you to around the state to our other public radio
stations. tonight we have a debate on the second congressional district. welcome steve pierce and harry teague. tonight's event is co-sponsored by the public policy organization in new mexico first. let's hear from mexico first president on the process used in developing tonight's questions. >> tonight's town hall debate draws on the topics mexicans believe are the most important. citizens spent most of today agreeing on the biggest issues facing the second congressional district. the participants include democrats, republicans, independents, they agree on some things, disagree on others, but they are united in their respect for each other. the citizens behind a microphone
are not necessarily posing their own questions. they are reza -- representing the entire town hall. there is a time to adjust the questions, said the list will be posted tomorrow newmexvico first.ogr. >> voters this afternoon have come up with the questions and the wording of the questions. there is no time limit for each one of you to answer. one of you may talk longer than the other. i will try to police that. someone will have an imbalance, and your fans will complain, and we will see how smart we are. at the end of the debate, i will give each of the chance to break up whatever you would like that may or may not have been discussed. let's begin with our first
question. sandra, come up here. she is a high school student. >> i personally have undocumented relatives living in new mexico right now. this is why this question is important to me. there are over 12 thought undocumented people. -- there are 12 undocumented people. >> our border is very unsafe. it has the cartel's coming across. there is a great concern about the border. the most important thing we should do is separate those people who would come here to work legally from those people who would come here to do violence to bring drugs, to bring people into the country.
the way i would do about the ones who are here are ready is ask the question -- do you want to be a citizen? if you want to be a citizen, then that way is to go back to the country where you came from and it might be 20 years to get aid answer. if we allow people to come here without going to the front of the line, the pressure to accelerate, and the sector response is a i might just want to work. if you do not want to be a citizen, then get out of the shadows, pay taxes, get on some program and i think we would sort through the 12 million people to 30 million people who are here. we cannot tolerate illegal immigration. >> what we have to do is bring the people out of the shadows and make them go to the back of the line.
if they had any fines, they need to pay taxes. they need to learn how to speak english. then we can see if they want to be citizens. they have to be brought out of the shadows and brought into the american economy so we can see where they are out. we have plans in place to work and secure the borders of people cannot come in here illegally and then the people that are coming legally can come in more efficiently. >> i assume that neither of you is for -- >> i understand that would create more pressure on the
>> they want to go to college or join our military and protect our country, work to improve our country. i think those are the type of people we want to build and let them go to college, but if they want to be citizens, they have to go back of the line. >> i would absolutely encourage and do everything we can for people who would shoulder arms, but i think when we look at this, the act is structured on
fairly. if you come without documentation and applied to go to college, you get in state tuition wherever you go. that is unfair to those who pay taxes and have to pay out of state tuition. it is also unfair for those who come here illegally and gives preferential treatment for the people who have arrived without documentation. i think the bill is structured very unfairly for those trying to do what is correct. once you apply, you cannot be sent out of the country for any reason. >> mr. pierce's position seems
to be very clear. i have a question about yours. i think he said he would allow the children to go forward. i think she said the parents would have to go back to the country from which they came and stand at the end of the line. >> of their parents were here illegally, they would have to start over. those children who want to go to college, i would let them go to college, but they would have to stay and make their graves if they got -- and if -- make their gravedes. >> the microphone is going to be you. a political consultant in the district. >> thank you. i have been involved in
emergency preparedness for a number of years, and the question we would like to pose is would you support or oppose the passage of the oregon mounties' desert peaks wilderness act? >> that is a good question, because it is important for local people, and i think there is going to be some room here, but you know the bill -- some people see it differently. there is a lot of land and a big group that wants that. i can appreciate that and can understand, because i think the public land belongs to all of i
do have a problem with some of the land in the act is near the border, and because of the volatile i'll situation and the way that has moved, i have definite concerns about access for border control and other law enforcement agencies. while i am supportive of public land being made available, i do not think it should be sold off i have some concerns with the park near the border. >> the wilderness reaches the deeper parts inside of us. i love the wilderness, but wilderness is a restrictive type
of legislation. you cannot have signs of road. people with disabilities cannot go into a wilderness area. this came of when i was still in the u.s. congress, and we did a bill which would stop the developments, and it would not be so restrictive that you could not do anything. we see the restrictive as having driven most out of business there. it is hard on our rural economy, but it also has a problem that access is not going to be allowed to fix the dems north of here we toward many of the dems that were there, and you can never take in of bulldozer to
fix the dems. finally, i went to the national monument, and we saw over half of that wilderness is off-limits to american citizens because drug trafficking is so hard. the border patrol cannot colies. the drug smugglers do not care very good it is bad for national security. it is bad for the potential in the area. >> the number one issue according to all the polls i have seen is jobs. we have a discussion on that, so let's start. melanie, it is your turn. here is the microphone. the you have a career in politics?
>> i hope to someday. we no jobs are a big issue. we've probably all have family or friends who are unemployed. how should we provide for the unemployed whose benefits have expired? >> the most important thing we can do is create jobs. what our government is doing is making an environment where jobs will not be created. those jobs are not being created because of uncertainties and the taxes in the there was a restaurant owner who said he had to eliminate 14 permanent positions because he could not afford health insurance, and if he gets below 50 employees it is ok. i believe our prosperity is
possible if we correct the tax policies out of washington -- lower taxes rather than raise taxes during a tax policy or a regulatory policy is absolutely essential. >> the question had to do with expired help from the federal government. >> my point is that we must have jobs for those people. >> would you help them in any way? >> at some point we have extended an insurance for one- year, two-year, and sometimes three years. at some point the government cannot pay people to not work very good a greater responsibility is to have a thriving economy where people can get jobs.
if we have three and a half percent, we are going to be at employment, and that is our task. >> it is a good thing we are talking about jobs, because that is what steve and i are doing. when i got sworn into congress in january of last year, our country is in the process of losing 5 million jobs, so we had a tremendous amount of people who were unemployed and needing help. coming back to the district, we are talking to people in each community, with their resources are and what their needs are, to create some jobs. what we have is not enough jobs. good we have a lot of work to
do. we have the american people wondering how they are going to take care of their family, and we're going to have to provide some help to them. >> while we are in the process of creating those jobs, we are going to have to extend some unemployment benefits. >> i want to point out that i have seen employers tell me they have seen employers tell me they have positions open, and they cannot find people to take it. people tell them when they go in, we would take the job, but you have to pay a fact because we do not want to come off our unemployment benefits. i believe the government is helping to create unemployment and helping to extend many who could find jobs and are simply telling employers, we would rather not have it.
>> there is more than that. there are hard working american families that are down on their luck because of the way the regulation allows wall street to run over main street. we lost 5 million jobs in 2008 and the first part of 2009. we have to help those people while we build our economy. >> the discussion of 2008 end 2009 -- i was sitting in congress and watching mr. frank talk to the regulators, and he began to say we are not going to allow you to do this. they began to talk about raising taxes, and they began to create an attitude of uncertainty. that has frozen the job creation market. you heard president obama say the corporations are holding cash.
they are holding cash because they are uncertain. no one wants to invest in the stock market if they are not going to get a fair rate of return. businesses are frozen, and it is that the atmosphere that is causing uncertainty. we have got a lot of capital waiting for the right environment. >> did you regulation -- deregulation and all those policies you voted for, not someone having conversations in congress. >> the regulation began with a glass stiegel act, which president clinton is the one that no appeal? . in 2005 we had regulators, and my testimony is you are putting our entire economy at risk with derivatives and hedge funds.
you must do something, and they said no. they said, we have fire walls. it was both parties that allowed the regulation of wall street, and it has been 20 years in the coming. we have put our entire economy at risk by allowing in risky behavior, and i voted against the bailout of wall street, because i do not think we should have reworded risky behavior. >> you have the last word. >> i did not vote for any of the bailouts. when i got there for the second half after the previous congress voted yes, i voted no. >> we are going to stay on jobs. this next question is going to be specific also. go ahead. >> manufacturing and agricultural fields have traditionally been key
industries in the united states. many are being lost to foreign competitors. how do you plan to stem the loss of jobs? >> you have the first answer. >> the way we are going to protect those jobs is quick giving corporations a tax credits for shipping jobs overseas. we are going to start outsourcing, and we're going to go to each individual community, and we're going to create those jobs in each community with the resources that community has. >> you have to break down the loss of jobs and understand what causes it. tax policy is very important in pushing jobs out of the country. if you tax too high they will simply find something else. our tax policies has to be moderated down.
the second thing that happens is our government regulates too highly. we used to have a thriving timber industry. that would take us back to full employment, and the timber industry was killed by the spotted owl. i think we should keep the spotted owl alive, but we must have jobs. 20,000 farmers were put out because of the 2 inch nano. i think you can keep it alive, but allowed the water to go to agriculture. when we lost those jobs, we started importing vegetables, so our food supply is less safe, our job supply it is decreasing, and it is because of regulatory policy, and that is the only thing that will bring it back to us. >> fear telling you the
imbalance is in your -- they are telling you the imbalances in your opponent's favor. >> once again, we need to close the loopholes so corporations do not get tax credits for shipping jobs overseas. we have lost 6000 jobs in mexico that have been outsourced to other countries, and those corporations got tax credits for doing it. that is not the tax credit we want to give people. i am all for tax credits to small businesses that incentivize them to create jobs, and that is why i go to all of the communities and talk about economic development and what is the resources we can use to help them and help them create some
jobs if it is possible, but we are also working to get more tax incentives for small businesses that would help them hire one more employee. just a little bit of -- just a little bit of help. we have to keep the loopholes closed so corporations are getting tax breaks for -- are not getting tax rates for shipping jobs overseas. >> we have talked about health care, but let's get to the subject. a former registered nurse. it is all yours. >> good evening, gentlemen. given the current health care debate, the support the recently passed a bill as written, and if not, what changes would you
make? >> we may know some of the answers already in. >> i think as we looked at the health care bill, we have to understand affordable health care is the objective of every american family. when i looked as if the bill, it did not accomplish that. we were told private insurance would not go any higher. what they did was create tremendous bureaucracy. i have seen new bureaucracies, and that is not going to provide better service to anyone. what i would do is try to appeal, but we cannot do that without the president's signature. i would start with the agents
hired. that tells you it was more about taxes than health care. goo>> everyone knows that i votd against the health care bill. i did not think it would go toward lowering the cost. the people that do not have health care do not have health care because they cannot afford it. to bring that out in plainer language, there are some things we could do, and that is why i would like to fix the health care bill. the thing i do not like is the fact that you cannot buy health insurance across state lines, and a lot of times we live just
across from a lot of health care, but it is in another state and we cannot participate. i do not think they should be able to maintain antitrust exemptions. i think there needs to be more competition put in there. at the same time, it is really hard to provide health care for rural america, and that is what we continue to work on to keep clinics open in rural new mexico and to build on the additional hospitals. >> i think you said it would be a long-term effort to repeal it. >> i sent long-term americans would expect us to repeal it. -- i think long-term americans
would expect us to repeal it. i believe they are going to find the government very intrusive. i saying that is an adequate explanation. government is not the answer. government is the problem. >> you would fix it rather than to repeal it? >> that is the best thing we can do. the goal is to provide health care for the people of the united states. the things that are working to help, we need to keep them, and the things that are punitive to the employees and the employers votes, those are the things we need to take out of the bill. >> let's stay on the subject you're a good rick has a question. rick is in business management. the microphone is yours.
>> i am in manufacturing. you have both talked about decreasing the cost of health care. i can get health care cheaper in taxes than in new mexico because of tort reform. -- in taxes than in new mexico because of court reform. it is also important to maintain a patient's right as far as doctors or personnel that do not do the right job. how do you feel about reform? >> he stated the question very well that we wanted to be sure we would bring the costs down, that we wanted to protect the employees. during the debates going on, i heard people saying toward reform was insignificant to the cost of health insurance and that it was tremendous.
i think we should have had more discussions, and we should have known the answer to that. i think that along with any other ideas people come up with, we need to check them out and find out the answers to them. one thing is not going to lower the cost of health care. it is going to be a multitude of things. anything people think could be adding to the cost of things could be checked out. we will continue to work in that manner. >> when i was in congress, we passed nine different types of tort reform of the house. they all died in the senate because we could not reach the 60-vote threshold. we could not get it through.
i went to ground zero in new york city, and there they told us if you do not get rid of this there will be no fortune 500 countries left in 20 years. we could extend that and say there will be no health care providers either. they have voted -- i have voted in the past for tort reform. i would vote for it in the future. we do not need any new ideas. it is well-documented. i think we should have shopping across state lines. we require more things in each
policy for people who might not buy their own coverage. i think we should help carry the insurance with them. a lot of things we can and should do common we should take those so the -- we can and should do. >> as you continue to conduct this job interview, i did not have a problem with putting tort reform on the table, but i do not want it to be where poor people are not protected. there has to be protection, because sometimes there are bad decisions made, and to move a completely away from that, i would not be for that. i have no problem with tort
reform or any other part. we are not going to fix health care with one thing. something as big as that is going to take several different things to fix. we are going to have to allow medicare to negotiate prices with big pharmacies. there are a lot of different places, so the fact that we are going to fix it all by jumping on tort reform, that is not going to do it. is it a place to go look? it most definitely is. >> you know most people believe that compensation should bee rewarded where damages can be demonstrated, but the question of prices over pain and suffering. should there be a cap on damages awarded for pain and suffering, and if so what should that be?
>> i think that is something else that would take some discussion to see where it is, because i do not feel that i am qualified for the other politicians i campaigned against are qualified either was the information i have. >> the process in texas has worked fairly well. i think everybody in new mexico remembers the lawsuit where the ladies filled hot coffee and was awarded $3 million. -- the lady spilled hot coffee and was awarded $3 million. i have talked to people who deliver babies, and they say that every delivery is now at risk and people do not want to deliver babies in new mexico. we have to deal with the abuse
in the system. >> the you have a number in mind? >> well i think it can stand the test, it may be moved. i do not have a problem with it being explored, but to take the opportunity for redress away, they still need to be served. >> i do not think i have ever said people should not have the right, because there are people who have made mistakes, and they will do things. one problem in new york city was a physician taking aids medicine and selling them of the back door for steroids. i think we should be able to go against people who abuse the system. we must have controls on the system.
>> let's tackle the rising deficit and what to do about it. you have a question here. >> the last couple years have created a lively debate about the size and role of governments, but especially regarding the deficit. first question is the you believe the deficit is a problem, and if you do, what specific things will you do about it? >> i believe the deficit is a problem. it is causing an unstable value for our dollar. you have seen bears and bulls have gone up 50% or 60%. that is because of the unstable dollar. gold and silver are both going up. that is because we are borrowing 43 cents of every
dollar we spend. the first thing i would do is get rid of the fraud in medicare and medicaid. it is $90 billion a year in medicare and $60 billion a year. those numbers are amazing to me, and when i voted to close those loopholes, you will notice i was hammered by both candidates because i voted against those. i was voting to close the loopholes very good i think when we go there we absolutely need the courage to take on the political problems, and fraud in medicare and medicaid are the easy answers. all americans have seen their pay decrease. i would also revoked the pay raise for federal employees. that is another $15 billion
savings. we get to some huge numbers without changing numbers at all. >> i think the first place i would start is with congressional pay raises. i stopped those when i got there. that was the first deal i signed onto. i voted for pay go, which had been there several times, and i think steve voted against it, but all it does is say if you are going to spend another $1,000, you have to take it some place of. probably today and yesterday people are making their budget out for the rest of the week, and if they are planning on housing a tailgate party next
sunday, they know they have to put that in the budget and pay for it, because if they do not, it will not work. congress for the last several years did not do that. they had 0 1.2 trillion dollar prescription drug phil they did not pay for, and there were two wars that we did not pay for. we just stop those under the table also and the tax breaks for millionaires were not paid for. when those started coming due, that is what caused our economy to collapse, so it is important that we have accountability and to pay go and congressional pay raises is a small step in the right direction.
>> the idea that they go has been and discipline the democrats have lived with is simply fictitious. i would direct your attention of the $7 billion stimulus bill. there are more people that believe aliens landed and believe that was paid for by a go. i would guarantee we did not have the $700 billion we spend a fair and our deficits are skyrocketing. the first deficits were too high. we are at 1.4 trillion dollars, and to say we have to pay go and are disciplining ourselves to pay for every project is a stretch of the imagination. it is not happening. >> if you go back to when president clinton left, there
were surpluses three good one thing that has made this -- there were surpluses. spending is out of control. also, all of the unaccounted spending over the last six or eight years is driving that up. we have to have accountability. and we have to find a fraud and abuse in the budgets. we have to live with a go -- with pay go, and the congressional pay raises are a step in the right direction. >> the fed chief testified that the money is in social security and medicare, and he was talking about bigger money than waste
and fraud could achieve. would you reform either of those systems in a way that would get a big money to reduce the deficit? >> social security is something we have to honor. people who get social security aid have no other choices. they have contributed to the program, so if we let it go, we have not honor the promises. the problem is if began with 17 workers for every retiree. we pay for our parents. our children will pay for us. the most important thing we can do for social security is create jobs. we cannot extend the retirement far enough. we cannot cut benefits deep
enough. what we have to do is grow the economy. 3.5% is what we have average. they tell us social security will be solvent. the second problem is in social security reform. i would take that in your personal account. that holds the government responsibility. the lock box is empty. we have to acknowledge the we have taken the money and spend it. >> i want to be real clear about this. this is something i think is real important in this job interview. i am going to fight to not let them take your social security. congressman pierce voted four
times to raise it while he was here, but i am not going to let anyone take your social security and gamble with their. -- gamble with it. it is still going to be there. they say it is going to be a drop in the short term. it is going to be solvent for decades going forward the way that it is. we are going to have to be sure we do not allow the government to do is take them like they have before. as long as i am fair, i am not going to let him gamble with social security. i am going to be fighting for your social security to be there just like it was promised when we held it out of your paycheck. >> the idea that we voted for terms, that is because i voted
for the budget, and every time you vote for an appropriation bill, it takes money and then spends it, so he voted 22 times. he voted to spend that money 22 times. the fact that he voted for it against the budget is of little consequence. to put the money -- to say it is risky to put the money in your name, i do not think that is risky at all. congress has those plans to where it cannot be touched. if they cannot touch congressional retirement, i do not think they should be able to touch social security to pay for appropriations, and he did vote for those 22 times.
>> let's move to education. your question. >> reno education is being threatened by our situation. what role if any should the federal government play in seeking to recover the $350 million shortfall in funding in new mexico? >> we have taken the steps to be sure we keep the teachers in the classroom. we passed that legislation in august so it would be there, but i think any time you are talking about education, you are talking about no child left behind. that has been put off too long.
i think it is really simple. we are going to have to fix it and find it or forget about it and go with a different program. no child left behind is not working. that is causing a terrible problem with school systems across the united states, especially in new mexico. >> the question was can the federal government provide money because of the education shortfall? >> there is already going to be some money coming to them that we have already voted on. we are helping to some degree. >> the problem we face is that our system is broke. financially and operationally. the problem is the
administrative costs take up to 50% from the classroom. over and over we would submit more money to programs, and then we get to the classroom and we do not find more money coming to the classroom. i think we have to get the bureaucracies 6. i would take the money, let them contract back to the department of education for the services they want. that would begin to see that they provide useful functions, because i think we are never going to approve -- improve education if we do not do it. the idea that we can continue to fund a lot -- to fund the situation is going to take us where greece is. they can no longer provide
everything they said they are going to do. they can no longer provide the level of services and continue to drive jobs out of the state. if we do not correct job growth, we will not fix anything. these began to evaporate the shortfalls in education. we're not going to kick the can down their road, and i think we have to really address the administrative costs in the schools. i do not think we can afford to a 50% of fat of the classroom. our education is too important to compete in future -- 50% go out of the classroom.
our education is too important to compete in the future. >> i am not sure how much time we have left, but i am sure the timekeeper's will tell us. we are right there, so anything you want to bring up that you have covered already or that you have not discussed so far. >> i want to say thank you for hosting this event. i especially want to thank the people who are here to ask questions and those who did not ask questions for participating today. i want to say thank you to sam donaldson for being the operative -- the moderator. all these people are watching. thank you for taking time.
i want to thank all of you. this has been an unusual but interesting forum here tonight to discuss the problems. it is kind of like a job interview. that is the decision you will have to make is which one to hire for the job, and you want to hire me as someone who has been to the district and visited with you about your economic needs and your resources and and how to make our communities stronger, and he chose to go do something else.
also, congressman pierce took $46,000 and charge you the tax payers $17,000 to fly his personal jet around the country. i would like you to know that i will be here. it is the biggest job i have had to represent in congress. >> you see that on the front of mine. also the fact that you say we took $17,000, that was official business. you paid more for a chevy malibu in one year than we paid for our airplanes in six years.
you did the same pay raise you accused me of. we came to the district every week. we probably did a thousand of these town hall meetings. when elected officials are in front of people taking these questions, and we did a bunch of them, we just feel this is for the strength of our republic comes from. i thank you all. i thank my wife. and mostly thank you all the panelists for being here. we appreciate the depth of the questions. it is a job interview. i am asking for your support as the next u.s. congressmen.
thanks again to the entire staff. >> we have one more round of one minute each if you care to take it. >> i would like to say thank you to everyone who has participated. once again, i would ask for your vote, and once again say the biggest honor i have had is to represent few in the united states congress. thank you. >> things to the congressman for your service. we have different ways of approaching a solution for the problem. i believe if we want the chance that things are going to be ok, we have to build our economy.
our government is freezing the job market. i think the problem is finding that common sense outcome. i am excited about the future. i am excited about the challenges of fixing this economy. >> it is hard to answer a question in one or two words, but the thing we will come out in the next year or two, or do you think it will be longer? -- do you think we will come out of the next year or two, or do you think it will be longer? >> we will see a lot of progress. we have the absolute ability to recover. if we continue to overtax, the recovery is not inside. >> we have run out of time.
we want to thank the candidates for their participation. i can say to you what i said to the others. it was a spirited debate, and i thank you for that. i would like to thank new mexico first for the opportunity to be part of all three of these town halls this morning. thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for watching. if you have not already, vote on november 2. good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]
>> voters go to the polls tomorrow. our live coverage begins a 7:00 p.m. eastern. we will have the election results anplus your live tweets. watch c-span election coverage. >> there is lots more at the c- span video library, including nonfiction authors. it is all free online and the c- span video library.
>> the election race for south dakota's only see. this event comes courtesy of kelo tv. >> campaign 2010, u.s. house debate. now your moderator. >> good evening, and welcome to the debate. give thanks for being with us. on tuesday the voters will head to the polls for the elections. you will decide who will represent south dakota in the house seat. the democrat is being challenged, but before you cast your ballot, i will look at your questions. each candidate will have one minute for opening statements.
i want to warn you i may interrupt to keep the conversation on target. now at the end of the hour each candidate will have one minute to make a closing statement. we begin with receive. you now have one minute. -- with christie. you now have one minute. >> we have some important things to discuss, and i appreciate you for tuning in and listening. we all know washington, d.c., is broken. we have increased spending. we have a 13 trillion dollar deficit we need to deal with. we have had government takeovers of private industries. we have a lot of things that need to be fixed to get us on track. my son ask me, what is a bailout? i said, that is when people make
four decisions and the government gives them money survey do not have to -- when people make four decisions -- poor decisions, and the government gives them money and so they do not have to face the consequences. we need to make sure we are having these discussions, and hopefully we will do a lot of that. thank you. >> we are just now beginning to focus on the choices you have in this race. here are a couple of things you need to focus on. my opponents have raised over $2 million to buy a job and only pays $174,000 a year. that is 12 times too much. i have trouble with that, and you should, too. you might want to think about who you want working on the federal budget. should this really be just about money, or should education and
experience matter? a republican with two years of college and four years at the state level. marking is proudly independent with 31 years of public administration experience at the community level, state level, federal level, and even international. we do not have to send a partisan politician to represent this year, so let us not. >> you have one minute. this campaign has been mostly about the last two yea in washington. since i have had the honor of representing you before the last six years, i have worked with both pi have stood up to both political parties to do what is right on behalf of south dakota, to strengthen our economy. i have been one of the few in congress that have been consistent about my concern of a dead and discipline -- and restoring fiscal discipline.
it needs to be about the additional jobs that we need to create and the wind and history energy. the investments in transportation as well as the ability to be a centrist and not be a part of the partisan politics that have been rampant in washington. at the beginning of this debate, she repeated a blatant falsehood abt my records and we will have an opportunity tonight to set the record straight once again. i've been setting the record straight all week. >> we ask our viewers for questions and we reived more than 400 questions. this has been a heated race between at least two of the candidate. many feel that the negative ads are overshadowing the issues. let's get dow to it. first question, the recession played a key role in the election in iraq -- across the
nation. has it -- has the stimulus been successful? >> any of us can start? >> i would say that the stimulus package has not been successful. it is one of those things that put us almost a trillion dollars further into debt. it increased this country's deficit. those dollars did not go to create jobs. we lost jobs. we needed to give our businesses, are small businesses certainties. we needed to assure them that we would not raise taxes. give them some assurance that we're not going to add new regulations and a bureaucracy that was going to keep them from reinvesting. that is what they need. they do not need a bailout packages. they do not need turtle tunnels built.
what they need igovernment to stop picking winners and losers. they need them to give them the assurance that they will let them to go out there competently expand their business and ran past. >> we should probably stick to the facts here. in just a few months ago, the governor was quoted as citing the stimulus having traded about 7000 jobs. other statistics sho about 8000. others show about 3200. the statistics vary. but it is clear that the stimulus was not a failure. until just a few months ago, we had the same position on the stimulus. i voted for it and congress and she voted to spend a stimulus funds three consecutive times in state budgets. leadership that went out of the session without passing the budget in the hopes that more federal money would be coming for medicare and other reasons. we need to look at the facts.
the governor and other statistics are thetatistics that voters are likely to believe more than some of what we have heard from christine. the facts have not been accurate time and time again. but she has said about my record, her service. she voted to spend a stimulus funds three times. it has not been a complete faure. we needed act. the economy was hemorrhaging 20,000 jobs a day. we needed to stabilize the economy. they differed in the mix of spenng and tax cuts. the stimulus and i voted for, over 30% of it was tax cuts. for working families and for small businesses. i have talked to businesses across south dakota to told me that provisions from the
stimulus allow them to hire peop back. we have seen the unemployment rate dropped in committees like watertown. -- communities like watertown. voters do not want someone who wants to have it both ways. she has tried to deflecting and running away from her record. if you are not -- if you say that you would have voted for it, what cuts would you have made? what else do you think we needed to do is stabilize the economy? it certainly was not going to magically correct itself. >> that would be gat. the congresswoman is one of the very few people do is still defending the stimulus package as being effective. people are saying that the stimulus package was not what we needed bread she is one of the few that still says it actually worked.
the reason that this legislature decided to take those dollars is because the congresswoman and leadership tied our hands. we did not have the option to not take the dollars and let it go back to pay down our debts. we asked those questions. if we did not accept the stimulus dollars, would go back? they tied our hands from doing it it's still refuse those dollars, they will go to states like california and massachusetts. we made the best decision for south dakota. we sat down and said,f we cannot send those dollars back and take care of the deficit, we will put our people that le in our state in the best position. it sure did not make any sense to do what this administration wanted to do. our congressman - 2 have the dollars go to bailout states like california and massachusetts. that certainly was not the answer. we took those dollars and we put
them where we needed to to make sure we did not put ourselves in a situation where we were forced to spend our states reserves. we make wise decisions knowing that our people here in sou dakota were going to be living in the same situation that the rest of the country would be living in. we woulde living in a recession that would continue on because that was not the answer. we would be living on higher inflation eventually. it would still be a very difficult time. we prepared our state for the next couple of years. we made some cuts. we did our jobs. >>he congresswoman is shaking her head over there. >> how can you say that the stimulus has failed when dividend say, yes we used to be money to plug budget gaps.
yet you are not specific about what cuts you would have made. my point is, the stimulus was not a failure. we have totand and strengthing recovery. but we stabilize debt. this is not about defending the stimulus. this is about setting the record straight. what i hear from t governor, what i hear from other community leaders. setting the record straight that you cannot have it both ways. --y're disappointed from the about the attacks for weeks on end about my vote on the stimulus. no specifics on what you would have cut at the state level. just took the money, spend it, and now condemned the stimulus. it is political doublespeak. >> my impression of the stimulus package was that it is very short-term thinking. not very strategic at all. typical with what congress comes
up with when a credit crisis and rush to solve it for us. the money could have en spent below weiser. the best stimulus that we could put out there would have been to revise our entire system of collecting tax revenues. i have been an advocate of the fair tax concept. it would just take all the penalties off of the businesses that are going overseas because we're taxing investment, taxing savings. i think a fair tax would be the best stimulus package we could possibly come up with. i think that ought to happen quickly. >> what needs to be done to continue to keep the economy on a bright path? >> we need to extend some of the tax cuts, all the tax cuts temporarily. anyone who is serious about the deficit cannot seriously support
permit extension of all of them. we were running a red ink in 2004. we have to be pragmatic. we have a lot of businesses in south dakota that are strong in assets and weaker on cash flow. i think it is important to be pragmatic and. extend them for at least one year or two, particularly for small businesses. we also have to transition to a clean energy economy without cap-and-trade system. we need to keep creating wind energy and jobs here in south dakota. we need to pass the transportation bill because it very important for infrastructure investment. we know what the needs are all across south dakota. the need to act to make those kinds of investments. it is also an important that we
increase exports. i have been working with my colleagues in a bipartisan way to enhance export opportunities, but we have done a remarkable job in renewable energy in south dakota. we will continue to do that. >> i have a much different position than the congresswoman. i do not believe that we should raise taxes on businesses. that is what she wants to do. she wants to balance our budget and generate revenue. in my -- we do not have a revenue problem in this country. we have a spending problem. it has gone out of control the last two years. we have increased spending by 21%. that is six times the rate of inflation. we have a house of representatives that did not even propose a budget this year. it tells me that beep -- there is a failure of leadership.
it tells me that they did not have a plan for how they spend our dollars. they do not have a plan for how they will pay out this country's debts. they do not have a plan for creating jobs. i run businesses and i have been involved iagriculture. when we talk about knowing about agriculture and getting input, i have lived agriculture. i've invested in the industry. i know what works because i had to worry about a bottom line. we run a hunting lodge and a restaurant. my husband and i also run an insurance agency. my knowledge with running businesses and talking to business owners every day, they are saying, we need certainty. extending tax cuts for one year does not tell me anything. i am not going to take my dollars and reinvest them, expand, take a risk to hire new workers, only know of my taxes will be for one year. i need to no longer term than that. you need more of one year than a
certainty. first of all, if you need to make sure that we keep taxes low and small businesses. we need to make sure that we do not have any more bureaucracy and regulations that come down. that is done to add more to their administrative red tape. i talk to business owners every day that said, the health care bill is going to raise my costs. i have the epa pushing through capt. pulte -- cap-and-trade policy. it bought the house, but it did not get past the legislative process. we have an epa agency that is going for it and pushing it that way. i have a financial reform bill that is going to -- all of that is creating an uncertainty that is keeping them from reinvesting. we need to make sure that they know that government is not going to come out with new
policies. they are not going to pick winners and losers. they will tell them exactly what they're going to do to make sure they can go out and hire new workers to create jobs here in south dakota. >> deregulation is certainly a big part of that. i have a couple broader issues that need to be factored in to address this as well. this goes back a long time. it has been for decades since the government spend what it took in. this has been building under red and blue administration's for a long time. for stock and the process has got to be putting more restrictions on congress itself -- the first step i need a process has got to be putting more restrictions on congress itself. we were talking about something broader, like a fiscal responsibility and then then that will put a card limits on the national debt. something that ties it to gross domestic product. put some hard deadlines on the budget.
to rid of the earmarks -- gets rid of the earmarks. those of the kinds of things that need to go into the constitution. until it is there, congress will continue to play games. the second step is a few years back, we've been through a very painful base realignment process. the major basen our state survived. it may be time to do the same type of process to the 1300's federal agencies that exist. we would have some basic questions. how is your mission accomplished or is it still pending? are you performing a mission that might better be performed at the state and local level? lastly, are your operational cost exceeding the tangible benefits we're getting out of this agency? if so, maybe you need to be
looked at. >> let's move on. the criticism of health-care reform has come from outside. what specific areas are used for and against? should be repealed completely? can be fixed? >> would like to start this one? >> i am a federaletiree. i've got a pretty good. we do have private insurance and we paid into it all those years i was in federal service. it has worked out pretty well. once a year, i get a menu of choices and i usually pick the same company. at least i have those choices. we need to provide to all american citens. -- it is someone's personal responsibility to take care of their family, their dependents and themselves and make sure they did not become a burden on society. i am not interested in
government run health care. i do not think the employee based -- employer based model works very well either. long term loyalty between employers and employees it does not exist anymore. and that is unfortunate. in terms of repeal, the republicans are thinking wistfully on that. this next congress is going to be back in balance. we still have a democrat president for the next two years. the proper course of action to the next two years is going to be fix what is not working and adds in the things that are believed missing. >> repeal is not realistic. earlier this spring, she had knowledge that repeal was unrealistic. we've got to be more about scoring actual victories. it was very difficult -- a difficult debate. we had a lot of disagreements as
the health-care debate unfolded. they know that i stick to my guns on behalf of southakota. i was concerned about the increase eligibili rates. i was concerned about the cuts to medicare and our long-term care facilities in south dakota. i was concerned an earlier version of about the improvement tax that would put great plains tribe at a disadvantage. i was concerned that we did not make the hard decisions on cost containment and delivery system reform. it was not irresponsible bill. it was deeply flawed and that is why i opposed it. but i do not believe we should crowd out other legislative priorities. i will not presume and unproductive strategy that would be further dismissive and unproductive. that is why i focus on fixing the flaws in the bill.
we have already repealed a provision to repeal the 1099 reporting provision for businesses. i am a member of the quality care provision. -- coalition. we will have other opportunities to identify flaws, problems, and challenges without foreign the baby out with the bathwater. there are provisions that are worth retaining. all we have fought for a long time to have -- prohibit insurance companies from denying people with pre-existing conditions. she has been all over the map on her position with that. it is not clear that she supports this provision. allowing children to stay on their parents policies until
they're 26. lowing people the canal enter into a high-risk pool. i think that we need to recognize that there are reimbursement provisions and good for our providers in south dakota, that they would not want to see go away. it filing gives more equity under medicare reimbursement. the concern is that is not sustainable i we do not find re cost containment. the exchange's -- it -- again, if we do not force the hard decisions on a cost containment, that will not be sustainable over time. people will be paying more of pocket for health insurance premiums. >> should it be repealed? kennedy fixed? >> -- accounted be fixed?
>> i it's been very clear on my position on health care from the very beginning. i always thoughte needed to repeal it. it raises taxes by over $500 billion. it makes cuts to medicare of over $500 billion. i do not believe we should cut medicare. it also has included takeovers of the student loan industry. we'reoing to lose hundreds of jobs because that industry was taken over and is now going to be run by our government. , the congressman thinks that was a good decision. i do not think so. i do not know why the people of south dakota -- they recognize that we cannot afford it. it does nothing to make our health care cheaper. i do not know why they would vote for somebody it was not willing to get rid of it. at theo back and look timerame on this health care
debate. back when it was being talked about in washington d.c., people across the state wanted to meet with their congressm. they want to sit down with her. it was very difficult. i've had many people tell me that when they would call her office, there were no town halls being held. they were also being told how they did -- that she did not know how she would vote. she did voted instead bill. there was some discussions had back and forth, theeadership called into the state on her behalf. they made a deal. she would not work to repeal this bill if he did not run against and the primary. that is exactly what we do not like about washington d.c. they did notike the backroom deals. they want somebody who is willing too and work for their personal -- >> what would you do to this health care reform bill? >> i would repeal this bill.
make sure we have more competition. we can purchase policies across state lines. the we have meaningful tort reform. doctors are practicing defensive medicine. all of those would make sure that it was more competitive, that we have lower cost, and it would not add to our federal deficit to play $5 trillion. -- to play $5 trillion. -- $2.5 trillion. there are some good provisions in there. to leave all the other things in this bill in place and skilled jo in south dakota is not the right answer. >> please. so much of what she just sad rely distorts the truth. it distorts the truth about my position. it mischaracterized so much of
what i just stated. she has done that in a few other responses. it is an insult on our integrity. there was no deal. that is outrageous. it shows the ongoing tax on my record, omy integrity, suggesting how i represented south dakota has not been independent or accessible. i held numerous public meetings in south dakota. even before the health-care debate started in july. some of those meetings, i was called a socialist and a nazi. but i had numerous meetings with constituents. i was clear in my communication with cstituents here in south dakota as well as with leadership in washington. where i was, what my focus was, what i needed to do to protect south dakota. i have opposedome of those
medicare cuts. medicare advantage was a program that was subsidized by taxpayers. the details matter here. the fax matter. once again, we see a distortion of the truth. it is a direct attack on my integrity. >> this is just the beginning. we are going to take a quick break. stay with us. >> welcome back. we are going to move along here. we received doze of questions see this as a disregard for the law. what do you have to say to those
vote to question whether you should be able to make the law if you don't follow it? >> i have apologized for the speeding tickets. they have all been paid. i paid a couple of the late years ago. i apologize for that. i am determined to do better and will do better. it is very important that we know that our representatives and the people of rubbers and our state do acknowledge -- and the people who do represent our ste acknowledged a lot. we need to be very clear that there is only one candidate in this race who has violated federal election laws. also traded food for votes as well. we're talking about the importance of law, it is make -- it is important that you of knowledge the law. it is also important that we do not ignore our federal laws.
they deserve tmake sure that we hav legitimate results. it is extremely important that we make sure that we get them. the federal election laws as well. we need to make sure that we have people that we are collecting and supporting that do not violate federal election laws. when you have an election like this and we're talking about character and we are talking about personal negative attacks, we need to make sure that we look at both campaigns. my campaign, my ads on tv, have reflected the issues that the people s.d. care about the table misstated facts about her record washington d.c.. her ads have focused on my driving record. character attacks. at is something that i d nothing should be the main goal year. we have a recession.
we had people did not have jobs. people are trying to take care of their families. she knows that every minute we're talking about my driving record, we're not talking about her voting record and what she has been doingn shington. that is a benefit to her. i dermined from the very beginning that i was going to hold her accountable to what was going on in washington and her actions and her endorsement of this administration. the leadership that she put into place, the president that she endorsed, that she campaigned for and voted for. i was going to talk about that because that is what people are alarmed about. she has chosen to come after me personally and negatively and tried to not talk about what it's been going on in washington. >> i want to give you a chance to respond. >> i believe the speech that she
gave after the prima, she chose as a strategy to be gative and to personally attack. she accused me of using my office for personal and political gain in her speech that evening. when asked to back up such serious allegations, she could not. you said that you had many viewers right in concerned about the arrest warrant, the failures to appear in court. i never the same concern across soutdakota about someone who is a legislator, who has a pattern of behavior of violating the law, of ignoring court appearances, of having arrest warrants that require taxpayer money to repair. it is an issue of irresponsibility. that is what i have heard from the viewers. to distract away from her record, and she is not talked about her record, she now
accuses me of violating federal law? there is not even an investigation but i am aware of. she made the needs to be more spific as it relates to what she thinks has been a violation surcharges. my understanding is that the attorney general is gathering facts on both political parties and candidates. i am confident that nothing improper was done. these attacks started the day of the general election by her campaign. trying to distract away from that it is very disturbing and to suggest that a native american elder does not have the same right to vote as a senior citizen who lives at the waterford or a republican and democratic voter is
indefensible. i think it is hard to defend or even answer some of the allegations that she just made because -- can you be more specific? >> we were talking about violating federal election law. back in 2003, she paid penalty and fines for not following the federal election law. all of us recognize that you cannot trade -- feed people d then tell them to go vote. it has been very clear for many years. she is an attorney. shenows that. she should be very clear on what our law says here at the state level and the federal level. you want to be clear about positions. there was a joint press release issued during that health care debate between her bed said
exactly what went on. do know that the leadership with them and to lobby to keep for coming back and now in their party stay in power. all that is very well documented. i would not say if it was not fact. i did not say that this campaign would be fine. it is very hard. there are tough issues. people across the state are recognizing every day that we have to get our government string doubt. they are unhappy with what is going on out there. they're very unhappy with what they see as a backroom deals, with spending that is out of control. we have the opportunityo send someone to washington that understands that. there is a time to be responsible. >> your husband works as a lobbyist.
is it a conflict of interest a spouse to work as a lobbyist? >> i have a strict policy in place. these are not the facts. i do not know if we have time for me be able to respond to all the outrageous accusations that are being lodged against me this evening. as it relates to my policy, the rules of the house,my family l'y office. any family member who lobbies is not allowed to contact my office in any way reled to any matter related to their business. there is no gray area. it is a strict policy. period. >> i would like to bring this back to a higher level. it is a concern at it is that the congressional level, there seems to be a culture in congress for they consider themselves exempt from a lot of the laws they pass the rest of us. i wonder where that comes from.
a really good example is many years ago, when i was with the department of state, a locking down the every federal agency would have to establish an office of inspector general to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. is there an inspector general for the united states congress? that is one example of many that needs to be fixed. bring it back down to the local level, it is a shame that things degenerated those kinds of rhetoric. the way to fix that has been brought home to me during this campaign. public funding of these kinds of campaigns. if you had a very limited amount, the one-year salary that we would earn if they got this position, and that is all we were allowed to spend, we would not have time to degenerate into this kind of discussion. we would only see about one week
of tv political ads. >> with 3% of the vote, what kind of impact are you hoping to have in this election? what do of to accomplish? >> i am not going to buy io the scientific polls at this point. my travels around the state indica to me that about 80% of the state is really independent minded folks. i think they will look at qualifications and concepts in this race and not just the -- i am looking for a little bit of a result and that. >> we are going to take another quick break. let me come back, lou find out each candidate will work for the state. >> -- we will find that out each candidate will work for the state. >> welcome back. as we mentioned, viewers want to know specifically how you would represent the best interest of
the state. how do you balance making decisions better definition as whole versus the interest of those he represent? >> i would say you represent south dakota. we are elected by t people of south dakota. to that we are guided by the constitution. we need to make sure that when we are looking at our federal government, in one of the fact that the chairman ver joint chiefs of staff to s came out recently with a statement that said, our greatest national security threat to our country is our debts. we need to balance that. we looked at our federal government we need to make sure that our spending is as small as possible. then you fight for south dakota's fair share. they want to know if they have a real advocate in washington. you only have one representative in the house.
it is a balance. you need to know and recommend and keep in touch with the people back home. people in south dakota recognize that i grew up here and i live here and i've been running businesses here. my kids go to school year. none of that would change if they were to choose to elect me to be their representative. that is extremely important because that is how you stay in touch with your state. that is how you know what they're going through every day. >> congresswoman? >> bling need an independent voice to can advocate on behalf -- we need an independent voice to can advocate. a lot of the challenges do not break down along partisan lines. they tend to be regional lines. what is good for our agriculture, health care delivery system, poverty for the great plains tribe. telling our unique story about
how we can help provide some of these solutions to our nation's challenges. my record reflect that i have been successful in doing that. i'd been effective in demonstrating that saving the base and bringing in new missions have been important to our national security. the military -- renewable energy dollars on loan deficiency payments. we have had a renewable fuel standard, both in the 2005 and 2007 energy bills. we meet our national energy needs and to make our nation both -- more secure. i've been able to tell the story of veterans, not just in south dakota, but across the country. there needs for health care, modernized education benefits.
linden advocates to can talk about -- we need an advocate in can talk about the unique role that we have to play. the common sense that we bring to the table. my record refles that i c do that. i have done it for sixth place five years. -- 6.5 years. >> do you need me to repeat the question? >> there is only one independent in this race. this independent has significant advantages in th scenario. a significant portion of our population is disenfranchised. only the independent can look across the artificial device that we have, east river, west river. it is important to note that the title of this position is united states representative. if you follow the model that all 435 of those fol from the
congress looking out for their own self interest and their own state, that is the formula for what you see in congress now. chaos. i am hoping that there will -- there is no independent in congress right now. we need to have a few more. that would balance out the discussion the law better. >> i want to go back to the air force base. the field that it has been adequately funded? >> we have been able to increase in the structured investment. we have been able to make progress on a final decision sometime next year on the expanded training complex at of north care -- north dakota. we have worked closely as a delegation. we are investing in other missions like the financial services center. the rall piloted vehicle
program. it is well positioned for another squadron and investments that we have been making a cross the border on these missions. wheeler to -- we worked closely with a delegation to prioritize the air force base. we worked closely with the authority at the state level, all of our partners, and a way that sets politics aside. i am confident that we will continue to be able to do that effectively this year and in the years ahead. >> it has been a sticking point with your campaign. >> the funding has been. it is a perfect example of someone not being there when you really needed them. the president requested $200 billion for upgrades to the b1 bomber. the senate also requested the $200 million. when i got to the house, -- what
i got to the house, what came out of that committee was cut in half. $99 million were cut general petraeus says this is the workhorse of what is being done in afghanistan. is a tool that our troops need. the need to have the technology that they can depend upon. the fact that the house, whether congress woman serving in the house comment/that funding in half, is something th we have dropped the ball. we needed somebod toe there. either she did not know that they were going to cut the funding or she did not care enough to do something about it. we all know how powerful the subcommittee is. nine times that of 10, whatever the recommendation is, passes on the house floor. the president requested the $200 million. the house has cut in half.
there will be negotiations going back and forth. it is a lose-lose. it is extremely important to our national defense and to south dakota we need that finding. now it is in jeopardy. that is one thing that we are really looking at the effectiveness of our representative is making sure that ty are paying attention when we needed to be. it would have just taken a heads up, a letter, this is important to me. this is important to south dakota. make sure that this gets funded. the last bomber was set up -- was built in 1986. we need those technology upgrades. congresswoman? >> this is another distortion of the truth. the house has not cut anything. she is citing an unpublished, on official leaked reports. the house defense appropriations
committee, t subcommittee, there are 17 or 18 members on that committee. the full house appropriations committee has not yet acted. there is nothing filed with the house of representatives. it is a blatant misstatement of the fax. -- facts. i have a clear record of working in a bipartisan way. this is another example of her llingness to go to any length to distort my record. those are not the facts. the house has not cut anything. she is not familiar with the work that i've done. the opportunities that exist in the legislative process here and to cite a leaped on official report and to suggest the are cuts in the house is misleading. it is misinformation. voters know it.
>> it is hard to sit here and be lectured on the process. the process did not even give us a budget this year. the house of represeatives has the purse -- hold the purse strings to the country and did not give us a budget. we have a health care bill or the process gave us louisiana purchase. everything that people are unhappy with is the process. i.e. stated the facts. this subcommittee, the majority of the time what they recommend is what happens on the house floor. i did not say this had already been approved. most of the time, this powerful committee, their recommendation is heavily weighted. now we are negotiating. >> i guess i am a little concerned about the process.
i know there is something in the works that will make some pretty draft -- drastic cuts to the defense budget. i am really concerned that we will still have that global reach that we need to secure the nation. the process is what bothers m here. the fact that these folks are getting into individual weapons systems is a concern. is the role of congress to set a budget for the defense of the nation. we should turn it over to the professionals to best decide how they should work their mission. >> we only have two minutes left. what is the single most important issue that he would fight for in washington that is contradictory to what your opponent stands for? >> i have not heard my opponent talk a lot for the needs of veterans.
my record is clear on my support and priotization for our needs for american -- american tribes and investment. it is indicative of when she is asked which you do foreterans, she said to repeal the health care bill. it seems like everything is about the health care bill in her campaign. that overlooks the fax. -- facts. it is important to point out my record and restate what the facts are. >> i would cut spending. it has tbe done and the congresswoman has repeatedly voted for more spending. she voted for every major spending bill. she voted for the budget summer out of balance. we need to balance our budget. we need to cut our spending. so we can take care of our
veterans. we can take care of our native americans and honor our commitments that we made to them. >> a desire to radically simplify our lives by changing the tax code. getting rid of the unfathomable 17,000 pages that we have right now replacing it was something that is very simple. that would do tremendous things for a south dakota and america and terms of revitalizing the economy. >> i apologize for the interruption. when we come back, we will have the closing statements. >> welcome back. each candidate now has one minute for closing statements. >> thank you for taking the time tonight to comment to listen to
us and to 2:09 a.m. to hear about the important issues that 've been hearing from south dakota across the stat and we sat down and decided to run for congress, we did it to the south dakota could restore its voice to washington. we could take some common sense back. i believe in a small and limited government. i believe in keeping taxes low. i think our children need to have the same opportunities that we had liver groin not. we need to protect them and defend them. i've tked every day about my legislative record. i defended our second amendment rights. i made sure we created jobs in south dakota. i know what is important to you. i know that our spending is jeopardized and everything right now. we need to spend -- we need to send somebody was not been their that knows what a tough -- but knows what to do. i would appreciatyour support
on november 2. >> this is the last time i will get to speak to a major voting bloc in south dakota. i've been trying to get across the message that we do not have to settle for government and politics as usual. you had a very qualified independent candidate on the battle. i am making a pretty exciting proposal for you. we will establish a system to where you will have input to the major national policy decisions that might affect you and your family. this will not be a great trouble. we'll be contacting you on a quarterly basis and asking for your decision on those items. here's the kicker. i will take the results of those referendum and that'll be my marching orders in d.c. i will argue and vote on your behalf. the voice will not go to ohio and it will not go to california. the bulls to right here in south dakota. you can stay home and make
excuses or you can go down and both independent and make some history. >> it has been an honor to represent your the last six years. we have a very difficult needle to fred. -- thread. we need to continue to sustain and strengthen the economic recovery would smart, a targeted investment in our infrastructure and transitioning to a clean energy economy and writing and other farm bill and extending tax cuts and pour into small-business i that is our obligation to today's workforce. that is our obligation to today's economy in south dakota. we have a clear obligation to the next generation of south dakota and americans, a commitment that i've been focused on the last six years in changing the way washington does business. too many people in both political parties have been reckless spending. there is too much partisanship.
we do not need any more. we need people with proven records to reduce the debt, to constrain spending. my record is clear that i will make the hard decisions to get our economy backn track. >> thank you to all the candidates. an hour goes fast. our next update is around the corner. we will bring you several more opportunities to hear about the issues. we have gathered people on th sides. that is this sunday, following the 10:00 news. on monday night, we will air an election preview special. that is all the time we have for tonight. if we thank you for joining us. have a good night. [captioninperformed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]
>> voters go to the polls tomorrow. our live coverage begins at 7:00 p.m. eastern. we will have the election results and candid speeches around the country for key races. your calls, e-mails, and twigs. watch our live election coverage. >> in addition to all of the campaign coverage and archived it debates, there is a lot more at the c-span video library, including nonfiction authors, the american story from american history tv, and everything we have aired since 1987, all on line at the c-span video library. >> now are preview of tomorrow's midterm elections. democratic and republican pollsters analyzed their final poll results and offered insight into some of the most contested
races. this is co-host of by politico and george george engine -- george washington university. >> i am director of our global media institute, the university's home for the partnership that produces the battleground poll. in our audience tonight, i would like to abolish the director of our gw school of media and affairs, a person that i think all of you are familiar with. [applause] thank you for joining us tonight, frank. he has been a huge supporter of this project. and also the acting director of
the school of political management. [applause] tomorrow americans will head to the polls in a midterm election that will determine the makeup of the next congress. also it state, 37 gubernatorial positions, lots of state legislative positions. this election will set the stage for the legislative agenda over the next two years and likely serve as the starting gate for the 2012 presidential race. tonight we're one to take a look at the numbers and see what they tell us about tomorrow and beyond. our excellent primary source of the information this evening is the by partisan battleground poll, which was founded more than 20 years ago by ed goeas of the republican strategic research firm the tarrance group, and celinda lake of the
lake research partners. their teams have produced one of the most respected and historically accurate public opinion predictors in all of survey research. seven years ago, the george washington university through professor christopher r. hudson became a partner in the polls and this fall, politico, america's leading political news source, joined us in the project. together we have produced three polls over the last six weeks, taking the pulse of the public in the run-up to tomorrow's election. this evening we have gathered the brain trust of the partnership to share in sides with our students, our faculty, and our friends. we're very pleased to be joined tonight by a four student group co-sponsors, including that gw hatchets, the gw college republicans, the gw college democrats, and our student radio
station. we're also pleased to welcome c- span viewers across the country. our format for the evening will comprise at conversation among our panelists on stage, initial questions from our cosponsoring student groups, and then questions from our audience. now is my great pleasure to introduce from right to left -- that is geographic ideological -- george washington university graduate school of political management professor christopher r. dixon -- artists and bridging arterson. and our moderator for the evening, the executive editor of politico, jim vandehei. [applause] >> thank you all for coming. thank you for this amazing partnership. the polls have been great for our readers.
fantastic for all of us. we have great samples and great pollsters. everybody affiliated with politico helped pull these things together. they can be a logistical nightmare to talk about this. we are really pleased with the partnership. i will make a bold prediction that democrats will lose some seats tomorrow. [laughter] these guys will make much more specific predictions. let's do a quick prediction on house seats and senate seats and maybe throw in a surprise, and then we will go from there. >> in terms of democrats losing seats, i think that we will hold on to the senate. as a margin of the house, it is overstated. what is important to remember is that the seeds were planted with
the republicans lost seats in 2006 and 2008. the report of the demise of the republicans was overstated in 2008. the reported demise of the democrats is overstated as well. watch for alaska. the other surprises are that we do not know what really happens until the end of november or early december because of the number of recounts an close races. >> my specifics, and we have worked together a long time, i feel badly for herb. losing 52 seats of the last two cycles, i think it will be a huge night tomorrow night for republicans. we are seeing an intensity gap, an enthusiasm gap between republicans and democrats that is almost double 1994. we're seeing the advantage that
is double in 1994. i think in the house we started out with a target of making 60 races competitive and ended up with 100 races being competitive. right now my cow would be that as a floor, and we only need 39 to get control, i think we would be passed that by six or seven seats definitely in the republican column. with another 43 tossups seeds. i think that this is 56 or 57 seats. more likely we would be toward the top of that at the top 60's. i would say 65 or 66 seats are very likely for tomorrow night. in terms of the senate, i have always believed if you look at it, it tends to be more susceptible to waves than even the house. i think that 48 seats are
ready, with four tossup seats. all we have to do is win half, and this is the type of election where anything close goes our way just like in 2006, anything close to the democrats. i can see a scenario where we are at 50-50 rather easily tomorrow night. we will not know tomorrow night. i agree that it probably will go for weeks before we have a final answer. in terms of governorships, i think we're at 31 or 32 governors out of the 50. and the untold story is that i am looking at somewhere between 425 and 450 state legislative seats go in the republican direction. it would be somewhere between 14 and 15 chambers turning republican tomorrow night. >> thank you both. i guess i am in the middle. we certainly will