tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 2, 2014 9:00pm-11:01pm EDT
individual videos need to -- it must be submitted by january 20, 2015. grab a camera and get started today. >> next, a discussion about the upcoming midterm elections. pollstersok joined for bill clinton and mitt romney at an event hosted by the national journal. this is 90 minutes. [applause] thank you. i am still waiting for my free helicopter. in montgomery county, maryland, i doubt you can land anyone anywhere. thank you for coming out. we've got a great, great crowd
and i'm looking forward to this because i'm tired of listening to myself. i guess between the two of them, for close to 70 years -- neil and i go back 30 odd years. these are folks i have enjoyed being with and love watching their work. they are two great pros and two great people. let me do a nutshell of where i am and then i want to get neil and stan and talk about what they are seeing out there. if you go back to the early part of last year, there were two competing scenarios -- two
theories of what the 2014 midterm elections could be about. one theory was some of the challenges facing the republican party in 2012 would flow into 2014 will stop the other was it would be a classic midterm election referendum on the incumbent president and all that entails. two competing directions and it could have gone either way. in terms of challenges facing the republican party, some of them were with key voting groups and some of it was their own, some of the things they were doing. the challenge of minority voters. we know governor romney got to 59% of the white vote. nobody's ever gotten 59% of the white vote and lost a presidential election before and quite simply what was happening is the country is changing so much and
the vote for congress was almost identical. if you are losing the african-american vote by 87 points and latino both by a 44 point margin, they don't generate enough white voters -- how well can you do in order to win if given the changing demographics of the country? the vote for congress was virtually identical. it is a big, big demographic challenge the republican party is going to have to face. losing 18 to 29-year-olds by a 23 point margin, that's a challenge. even your best group is winning by 12 points, this is a trend that has to be ominous for republicans down the way. i just turned 60 last year, so i look at voters under 45, under
40, they are the future. i look at the mirror and look at those roughly our age, we are like the pre-dead. republicans are doing really well with the pre-dead and not so well with the future. you can slice and dice it, there are some specific challenges that were problematic for republicans in 2012 and could have been in 2014. then there was one other thing that plagued republicans in 2010 and that was a pattern they developed in those two elections of nominating exotic and potentially problematic people. they had the unique ability to seize defeat from the jaws of
victory. not to name names, but indiana, missouri, delaware, colorado -- some interesting people. were republicans going to nominate again some of these people that would have a chance to seize defeat from the jaws of victory? these were real challenges facing the republican party. on the other hand, one arm and term elections about? it's a referendum on the incumbent president. occasionally, there's an exception to the rule. bill clinton's election turned out to be a backlash against impeachment. 2002, it's sort of the reverberation from 9/11 occurring. as my friend stu rothenberg likes to point out, the party of
the white house has lost elections in all elections since the civil war. i'm not going to go through any poll numbers because we've got two of the best pollsters in the business coming up, but to me, my view is what we are seeing is the challenges that face the republican party and kept them from picking up the three seats they needed at the time to get a majority in the senate and two when the presidential race, the challenges were real and really hurt and they may be real and really hurt and 2016. but in the context of this election, they seem somewhat smaller. they don't seem to be the deal breakers that they were and 2012. if you went back to a year and half ago, what's the worst-case scenario you could have.
that could be a president with really low approval numbers in the low to mid 40's with disapprovals in the low to mid 50's. lousy approval ratings on the economy, handling foreign policy, think of the wall street journal poll -- neil's firm is the republican half of that poll but it was 40 approved, 54 disapproved, so your -14 overall. the real kicker was ensuring a strong national defense -- 32 approved, 62 disapproved. that is earth shattering. you look at that and say well --
i'm going to use a technical political science term -- it's a bummer environment for democrats. in terms of what happens -- everyone knows we've got a room full of pros here and everyone knows not much is going to happen in the house. democratic losses could be as few as two or three and could he has many as nine, 10, 12 if republicans hit 13. that's just a bit above the range of the likely outcomes. 300 words or less, the way i look at it, it's like a perfect storm of factors coming together. it is exposure, just the raw numbers. that's the first factor and the least important. the bigger one is the map. it's awful for democrats.
when you have seven seats up in states romney carried and only one republican seat up in a obama state and that's susan collins of maine -- she couldn't lose that if she tried. six of the seven seats were won by 14 points or more. you show me a state where romney won by 14 points and i will show you a state that in 2014 i would not want to be a democrat running for federal office. it just is what it is. midterm election turnouts tend to be better for republicans. the presidential year, the turnout is big, rod and it looks like the country. midterm elections, the turnout is 70% of a presidential turnout.
it smaller, more conservative, more republican. unless you have a situation like in 2006 where you have an popular war in iraq and hurricane katrina, unless you have something like that, you have a turnout dynamic that will favor republicans. you look at those and say those are big atmospheric conditions. when i do the math real quick -- maybe i should stall time just a little bit. when i do the math, i'm putting it at a 60% chance of republicans getting a majority. i've been there for three or four months. i was higher than most people and if you look at the models,
i'm a lower percentage than most computer models out there if you follow those things -- i would put it at 60% of the there are three seats that will clearly go republican -- montana, south dakota, west virginia. theoretically, republicans are halfway. then you get to the three other democratic seats where romney carried by 14 points. mark begich in alaska, mary landrieu in louisiana. these are really, really challenging, difficult and at least a little in each one, uphill raises for each one. could one of them survive? sure.
the thing about is if and it is a huge if. if republicans don't lose one of their own seats, like kansas, if they don't lose one of their own seats, all republicans have to do, west virginia, louisiana, arkansas, game, set, match. if one of these three survive, any one of them survives, that means republicans have to pick up at least one purple swing state or light blue state. or, conversely, if any public vulnerable seats lose and mitch mcconnell was in a dead even race for a long time and now he has picked up a little bit over allison grimes, he is not safe. you can see a little daylight between them and it looks to be stable. from my vantage point, it looks to be stable.
democrat michelle was ahead for a good while and now you've seen david perdue pull-up and you can see daylight. seems reasonably stable. i think you would have to give republicans the edge there. kansas is the one that i've almost stopped speculating about because it's like a race from oz. it is so damn weird. you look at the experience, i've been doing this for 30 years and you say, based on past experience where we'd seen things like this, what has happened in the past? nothing has happened like this -- it's a unique thing -- the democrat has dropped out -- the incumbent is well-liked, but has been mailing it in for the last couple of years.
it won the primary and then went home to take a nap and home to alexandria, virginia. you just say this disaster could have been avoided. this is actually neil's home state. there's only two things we are sure about. there's going to be an election on november 4 and if pat roberts wins, he will sit with republicans. that is the for what we know. everything else -- if he wins, does he decide to sit with democrats and deep down, you look and say this guy looks, sounds, walks and talks like a democrat -- i think that's where his heart is. but on the other end, he's said
things that says he would suggest just he would do what is in the best interest of the state will stop is going to sit with them or if he is the tiebreaker, i think his heart is more democrat , but he's a relatively young guy and might want to run for reelection. sitting with republicans might be a better idea. all of this against the backdrop of a civil war taking place within the republican party -- this causing sam brownback to be five points behind in a state that is genetically republican. it's one of the weirder things i have ever seen. but for the sake of math, let's just say roberts loses. if begich or landrieu survive, they need a purple or light blue state. if each of those things happen, democrats need to pick up to.
-- two. there are five of them we are looking at where there are possibilities in this purple swing or light blue and two i think are absolutely closest -- mark udall and colorado and bruce braley in iowa will stop these races are even, but if one side or the other has momentum right now, just a little bit of momentum, who would you say? i would have to say republicans in both of those cases. it's not a prediction, they look decent for republicans. north carolina with kay hagan -- to use a phrase i've used before, she's got small but stable lead over tom tillis. a state senate that went a bridge too far. it has hurt the guy.
it might really cost him the election. michigan, very close. it would appear gary peters, the democrat has a very small but stable lead of the i would say organized labor is doing much more effectively in michigan. i would put a finger on the scale and finally, jeanne shaheen, there are some conflicting polls with most showing her head by half a dozen points. there may be some closure there, but i still think she has a measurable advantage. if republicans need one, it
needs to be iowa or colorado. if they simply get republican states voting republican, they don't need to win any swing states or, if they lose both, they need to win two out of the purple or green categories. i put it at 60%. stu rothenberg -- he's sticking with his prediction of seven seats. one last thing and then we will bring up neil and stand. sometimes, people ask me why the heck do we need to listen to charlie cook or his team?
why do we need to listen to them or stu rothenberg or his terrific colleague if we've got nate silver and the "new york times" and these other models that are out there. my analogy is the money ball analogy -- there's not a team in major league baseball it doesn't employ a team of statisticians. they all see it as important. what they found, the optimal approach is look at the data, analyze the data, but listen to the scouts. sit in the bleachers with a speed gun. in terms of interviewing candidates and watching the races, sitting in jennifer's office, watching ads hours on end and evaluating each of these from a subjective, qualitative
-- there's value in all of those things. if i was going to look at two models boast, i would watch nate silver -- i have a lot of respect for nate allsop i think he's smart and he's got a neat statistical toolkit and i think he is intellectually honest. it's a different approach from what i take what i think it is worth looking at. the new york times i think actually does a good job. they had to scramble to put something together after nate left but it's worth looking at. i'm not a huge fan of the post version and i'm not sure why a princeton biologist is doing election models. anyway -- that's where i am on it. i would like to bring in two
people who go through mountains and mountains of data and have the experience and intuition with stan greenberg. the work his firm does where they are doing some incredibly high quality both in terms of national surveys and surveys of competitive districts, it's unlike anything else out there and it is just in are mostly invaluable. neil is one of the best around. these firms represent enormously high quality work. they are really perceptive and i want to bring them up and hopefully we can glean some things and i'm not going to put either of them on the spot to throw any of their clients under
the bus. just let them tell us what they think. if you guys want to come up. [applause] >> do you want to be in the middle? >> wherever. >> who wants to go first? >> i will let neil go. >> projections are seven. >> let me start with some of what charlie talked about. charlie is exactly right. the environment is set by president obama
approval rating. he is about 10 to 12 points lower than he was when he beat mitt romney in 2012. take that 10 or 12 points and apply it to these states that are red states that are up for grabs right now and if the president won that with 50% of the vote, he could be at 38% job approval which is an incredibly difficult climb for the democratic candidate. your home state, louisiana -- >> democrats are the same way. mary landrieu is in deep trouble there. what do you think obama's approval rating is among white voters in louisiana? >> i'm not sure, but i expect
there is a two in front of it. >> 15%. i've been employed for a long time now. we are looking at numbers we have never seen before. these figures -- the job approval of congress. i saw the job approval rating at 6% and the margin of error was 5%. i talk about congress in terms of the friends and family program because only friends and family approve of the job congress is doing. the environment itself is a strong anti-incumbent environment. what you did not get into is the
sense that voters that washington has let them down and we cannot fix this country until we fix washington, d.c., our politics and politicians. that's why we've seen turnover after turnover and there's a frustration and anger. it used to be that voters hated congress but loved their congressman. how they hate congress and don't trust their congressman. there's a sense that member of congress has to prove him or herself again every year. there is an anger with washington's inaction and dysfunction. this is creating a political environment that is extraordinarily negative toward both parties, not just the party in power. my second point is don't kid yourself. it is very similar to the 2012 election where it was only eight states that were competitive.
this was the same model and this gives democrats an advantage because they can focus their resources on the minimal number of states. the average voter since labor day, iowa has been the most advertised state per capita in the country. there have been 147 ads per capita since labor day. on september 23 -- just take one day -- on september 23 in des moines, iowa, there were 325 political ads on tv in one day. 325. first of all, god bless you if you are in iowa, north carolina, michigan or colorado or kentucky and you are being besieged with all of this advertising. i'm sure you can't wait for the
election to be over. but this is not a national election and there's not really a national thematic running through this election. it is the obama approval ratings. it is a state by state election and those personalities count. campaigns do matter and that's why anyone predicting the republicans are going to win, guess what? campaigns make mistakes. we've seen it go from a republican advantage to kind of democrats edging back -- these campaigns and candidates make mistakes. they run advertisements that are ineffective and focus on the wrong issues. new information is introduced into these campaign.
iowa and colorado and kentucky, north carolina -- all of these states, what happens over the next month is going to make a difference. the fourth point which charlie did not raise is that terrific republican enthusiasm advantage. republicans are significantly more enthusiastic and pumped up for this election. you are going to have to hold them back from the polls on election day. they have a significant advantage in intensity. i did the romney campaign two years ago and i have seen those numbers before. we had the same intensity advantage in 2012. i learned a lot of valuable lessons working the romney campaign. one of the lessons is an unenthusiastic vote counts just as much as an unenthusiastic vote.
out they are able to turn low interest voters, their vote counts as much as my republican man in the suburbs who rushes to the polls on election day. they count the same. all this you here about the , cautionaryvantage tale. i saw those numbers. obama --have present president romney, we have president obama. on the ground it does matter. my fifth point is, we have a long ways to go. we are five weeks out. that is several political lifetimes. a lot of stuff can happen, this race -- the senate is not yet decided. you know, i think it may change a couple of times between now and election day. and don't take, you know, don't take to heart all these,
everything saying, gee, republicans have that enthusiasm advantage. you know what? if the democrats' ground game works and works well and they have unlimited number of states to do it in, six or eight states, that enthusiasm advantage may be wiped away by the democrat turnout operation. so this is, it's a dead heat. it's a toss up. i agree with charlie's as accessment of the states. do we win colorado or iowa or do we win colorado or iowa or both? can we? how close is north carolina going to be? all these states. it's a fascinating campaign, but we are a long ways from determining the winner of the senate. and as you know -- because this is a pretty smart audience -- election night isn't going to determine the winner of the senate any way, probably. double be in december in the louisiana. so a final piece of advice to you if you have any extra capital, buying a tv station in new orleans -- [laughter]
be a really, really good investment. and, you know, if you want to watch a lot of political ads. just go visit new orleans between, you know, election day and the runoff election in december. because you will see -- every political operative will be in town, and every tv station will be full of tv ads because it could come down to that runoff election in louisiana. >> florida 2000. [laughter] >> one thing, i was in baton rouge and new orleans this weekend, and i was talking to the station manager of a cbs affiliate, and he said they're actually now seeing for november 4th getting scaled back because they're just, basically, saving money for the runoff. and, you know, i thought that was interesting. stan? >> charlie, you're the best. i appreciate this and really value all the collaboration i've had with neil and respect his judgment on almost every point that he's made today.
i apologize for creating suspense. but you should know that this is the future because my schedule said that charlie palmer, but my uber app sent my car there. and it picked it up and sent me there. so it was automatically programmed, and what i said when i walked in, i said maybe the crowd, the rsvps were down and they've gone to a smaller room to try to create a sense of interest in this election. [laughter] >> sorry to -- i was at charlie palmer's yesterday morning. >> i kept asking for charlie cook. and they kept saying anyway -- , [laughter] this is, obviously, i mean, all elections are fascinating, but i think this is genuinely is on the knife's edge. everything that neil has said about the conventional wisdom, particularly partisan conventional wisdom, one ought to step back from.
neil began to go down that road and began talking, and i said, oh, my god, one more panel where they tell me, you know, how many white males don't vote for obama or how many independents, how well, you know, republicans are doing with independents, you know? romney won independents and won them well. it was kind of the spin it couldn't be possible that obama was going to win. we're in a different country, and neil is one of those people that recognize the change. 'm in, i'm in, i'm in the 50/50, you you know, probability. probably slightly down from the -- neil, actually, you sound like you're in the 50/50. you go from 60/40 either way -- >> don't let me get away with 50/50. i've got to shade in one direction or the other.
>> pollsters are paid for it, you know? i know, you have to go the other way. we are doing, you know, the heavy senate battleground polling right now for npr bi bi-partisan poll which we release tomorrow which i'm not going to give the results of. we'll also release on monday a poll in four of the battleground states for wv, women's voices, women's vote. so we will have that. we're also, as you know, both involved in actual races and, actually, independent efforts in many of these states. and i'll try not to talk about the states involved -- >> go ahead, feel free. >> -- but i do spend probably, you know, just twice a day going through all our polls looking for what's the trend, you know, what's emerging there. just stepping back from it, and i think it's a little hard to read what's happening from washington because the part you read from washington is the obama part. focuses on the president, he's in the news, and that -- he's,
clearly the central dynamic. and just noting on the obama piece, we had in the npr poll that -- i'm not going to give the number, but in the previous polls that we did for npr or the senate battleground, his approval was 37, 38%. so very low in these 12 states that we poll that constitute the battleground. romney won these states by eight. tough territory. the -- we'll look at the results tomorrow. but if you look at, just take the last ten polls, public polls conducted and looking at obama's approval polling away from the monthly average, his approval's gone up from 42 to 44 in the public polls that are out there. it's been stuck at 42 for a long time. i think the dating, i think when we look back on this, you know, next week, we'll look at what happened with isis and syria and
iraq and might represent a point in which the president edged up, you know, nationally. and that effects republican motivation, etc. let's go to the the states. the other factor playing out here is the intense unpopularity of the republican party. this is not a both-party issue. there is nobody, we have our current polling in the battleground, there is no one more unpopular than mcconnell. mcconnell is as well known as harry reid and is the most -- i don't want to make comparisons that will cause problems on who i work for on the house side who'll get attacked as targets in republican campaigns, but mcconnell -- >> can i mention her name? [laughter] >> mcconnell has exceeded that in the senate battleground, which are republican battlegrounds. he represents washington and gridlock. and if you want to look what in regression model would drive the vote, views of the house republicans are more important
than views of the senators and the senate parties. the house republicans define the republican party. now, we move away from that when we say, well, we don't is have gridlock, we don't have a government shutdown. the way the republican brand problem plays out is in the advertising and the positioning of the candidates in the states. you don't see it because it's being played out, you know, state by state. and as a reason why you went from republican, these states being fairly republican to then moving up more democratic is because they began associating those candidates with their priorities. including insensitivity to women and a range of things that have become important in these state elections. now, there's a third piece in this which i've come to recognize is increasingly important if you want to understand kansas, understand north carolina.
the republican governors and republican model of governing coming out of the 2010 election is intensely unpopular. if you want to look who has lower job approval ratings in louisiana, look at governor jindal who's lower than the president. so look at tilles, look at the republican program in north carolina and what's happened with that sort of association. so states that have been brought into play are in play because there's another part to the -- there's a state story and local story to the republican agenda and brand which is making these races more competitive on the democratic side. we also found in the, which neil is underscoring, in the battleground we have not found in the last poll we did, you know, with errors -- did the polling for a surging republican, that poll -- we've found no difference on
consolidation, likely to shifting your vote, and intention to vote amongst democratic and republican voters in the battleground states. they've been so bombarded with media that they are kind of in a different, you know, place. if you go back to the 2000 -- 2004 election and what happened in bush's re-election, the, there was a shift of around three points nationally. in the battleground where it was fought out, no change. not a point of change. not a decimal point of change from one election to the next where the advertising and the intense campaign centered. so in the battle ground, we'll look and see what the npr shows tomorrow, just -- but just alert to neil's point that the presumption of the advantage -- and watch the issues that have emerged. part of the republican brand
problem is their problems of wick. these issues have been played, and they're a factor in how people are voting -- women. and the last piece i'll add is on the affordable care act. where the presumption and the strategy for republicans has been to pound that issue. initially, i think, as a swing vote to get, to punish democrats. but i think increasingly as a motivator on, you know, as a reason for people to vote. you should watch for the npr poll tomorrow on this issue on the affordable care act. they're -- when we look back and we say, you know, how come there was one more election cycle in which republicans were certain to take control and didn't? you know, the single biggest ads that they have run, i think almost half, have been on the affordable care act. it's down to about a quarter now. it's still a quarter.
and on our testing it is the weakest attack that they have, that they are using. they are not using other things that are much stronger because i think there's an ideological intention to use the affordable care act, obamacare, as their issue. and, as you'll see it's a much more complicated issue than that. there is a percentage of people who are really against it because it's big government is not big enough to decide elections. and so the issue priorities, what they choose to run on -- and there's already lots of evidence that they're shifting, you know, in the states. but there's a lot unresolved, and 50/50 means i really don't know. i am looking at enough states that are very close to themselves 50/50. and, you know, i don't see a trend either way in terms of these things i just describe are things that go into the equation, and a lot of it's baked. [laughter] already. but it's, and i don't see any evidence of it breaking one way
or the other. >> let me ask, ask neil a question on affordable care, and then let's just sort of open it up. we had a top republican senate strategist suggest to us six months ago that they started telling their clients, you know, you need to move away from the affordable care act. we've, quote, we've milked that cow for all its got. and you can't be a one-trick pony, you can't be a one-issue, you know, start diversifying, start moving your messaging other places because they're not, there are no more points to be scored on the affordable care act. does that reflect what you think and what you have seen in your -- what you've seen in your data? >> the approval rating of the affordable care act and you compare it in the same survey to an approval rating of obama, they're identical. obama is obamacare, and obamacare is obama.
i mean, they're one and the same. the obamacare issue is one that is, i think it's pretty much baked in, but it is as stan said -- you know, stan's trumping this -- it's a motivation issue. it reminds voters why they need to go out and vote. it is more a race issue than a baseasion issue -- a issued than a persuasion issue. it's a stimulation issue. i think you'll see some campaigns go back to it late just to remind voters, hey, everything you didn't like about it, this other person voted -- just to put it pack in the mix a little bit because obamacare is shorthand for big government bureaucracy, government takeover of health care, and then you tie that to the sense that there are, you know, thousands of people who have lost their health insurance or lost the ability to go see their doctors, weren't able to keep their plans.
you go back into that and kind of remind people. so it'll come back up, but it's not -- no, no, it's not the only issue. and, in fact, late in campaigns i think you're going to find what we try to do in a lot of our campaigns is inject new information in the mix. you want to tell people something new that they didn't already know. because if you repeat the same stuff over and over again, they're immune to it. they need to hear new information. they want to -- they're still trying to figure out their decisions, and so i think you'll find some of these campaigns turning to some new issues over the last weeks of the campaign. >> stan said there were other issues that are more powerful that republicans could be using, and let's just for grins, what do you think -- crexendo, standard made the comment. no, stand that made the
comment. [laughter] >> no, what i was saying -- >> i'm not -- >> beating on my clients. so i'm just kind of curious -- >> no, i'm going to pass on that one, charlie. they always do well when they talk about spending and deficits. >> there we go. okay. you were more forthcoming than i expected. [laughter] why don't we, i think there are some microphones wandering around the room. yes, no? yes. there's one over here, there's one over here, so as my not- relative wave your hand in a nonthreatening fashion, and we'll come to you. so there's one. right over here. >> charlie, you have arkansas, louisiana, alaska as toss-ups, and when you're discussing them, you seemed to indicate you thought republicans were likely to win two out of three. so if you take your ten toss-ups and distribute them 50/50, you get a three-seat democrat
advantage. are those seats really toss-ups? >> some of this is semantics and approach. and if you'll look, the new york times periodically is running sort of what even of the models were doing, what larry sabato, i should have mentioned earlier, stu rothenberg they lay this all , out. and you'll notice that we continue to carry more toss-ups than anybody else, and so it's a matter of definition. to me, a toss up is i don't have a really strong -- or we, our team, does not have a really strong feeling that we kind of know who's going to win. if it's a lean, we think we know who's going to win. if it's a toss, there is a sufficient element of doubt that we're not going to be putting our reputations on the line. so our -- it's sort of like an umpire. our strike zone's a little wider than some of the other folks. and i'm not saying better or worse, i'm just saying our definition.
>> okay, so charlie, rank those three states. >> i would say if democrats only lost one -- which i think is highly unlikely -- it could be arkansas. i think if they only lost two, i'd throw in probably louisiana. >> okay. >> and if one survived, i think it might be more likely to be alaska, but i think more likely -- i think it's more likely that all three go down, well, far and away than only one, and probably more three than two. but, you know, sort of in my calculation, though, i'm kind of assuming that pat roberts comes up short, and we may all be surprised. but i kind of think so. so in my mind republicans need seven, not six. they need a close seven to net six. but my hunch is going to to be
iowa -- i mean, if i could note two races, i'd rather know iowa and colorado. >> yep, me too. >> can i just answer that question? i would recommend that you bring a regional, cultural and historical trends lens, you know, to it because -- and this country's not only gridlocked in washington, we are polarized. and it's not just polarization, we have some regions of the country that are moving more and more, more observant, more republican, more -- hostile. we have others that are moving in the opposite direction, and they're very different trends. so when i look at these races, i look at the south, and without doing specific races, you know, the trends of the south are dramatic. and if you look at these states, they always come out a little worse than -- i will say that,
some, you know, that mary landrieu always manages somehow to work out something in some kind of magic, and there's some non-southern parts of louisiana. but the south always -- disappoints. north carolina is much more, you know, we know presidentially it's much more part of the new, growing coalition that includes postgraduates and others a that make it, and a diverse immigrant population is making it part of -- so the trend there is important. i think of alaska as not, you know, each though it's -- even though it's rank order, it's much more in the libertarian montana/alaska mode which does quirky things. and whether begich wins or not is a function of how we think that kind of, you know, candidate wins. >> you know, as most everybody knows, there are a lot more men in alaska, you know, working --
than women. and there was a reality show that had the -- it was taking some alaskan women and taking them to florida that were single. [laughter] and it had kind of an interesting premise. so where's this leading? [laughter] [applause] for women in alaska, the odds are good at but the goods are odd. >> i know. [laughter] >> the tagline was, you know, for women in alaska the odds are good, but the goods are odd. [laughter] i always kind of loved that. but i kind of say that -- go ahead. [laughter] >> jeez, charlie, i don't know how i follow up that comment. [laughter] dan, when you look at those states, i mean, i think it's likely all three may go our way. but i just want to make this point, kind of reiterate how charlie opened up this whole session and talked about, you know, kind of historical perspective. if republicans fail to win
majority -- and i think it's going to be very tight, you know? obviously, as the republican you , know where i stand on that. but i think you go back to look at previous, look at delaware, look at indiana, look at nevada, missouri, it's not necessarily a failure of republicans this year to win it, because winning six seven -- six or seven seats, that's a hell -- beating an incumbent is tough. it's damn tough. and i think you look at what, you know, our failure in previous elections that failed to set us up so that we could win, you know, with five seats or four seats this time instead of having to win six or seven. so i think we fixed some of those problems in terms of we don't have those, some of these wild and crazy nominees we've had in the past, and i think we've -- >> exotic. >> exotic, yes. [laughter] and i think we're in pretty good shape. but it's still tight. >> nearly fixed the problem with the elites. you haven't fixed the problem.
tillis represents the core of the republican party. he was the preferred candidate. the problems you're having are with the people that represent the core of the party. that's a serious problem. >> candidate quality is always an issue. shall we talk bruce braley? [laughter] >> you know, it's always an issue. you know, campaigns and candidates matter. that's why i don't think, you know, if you ask me today how one outcome would take place but it's 33 days from now, whatever it is. you got the -- that's a long ways to go. campaigns make a lot of mistakes in 30 days. >> to amplify neil's earlier point, and i'm going to put my colleague jennifer duffy on the spot to do a fact check for me. in the last ten years, five elections, democrats have unseated 11 republican senate -- 12? 12. you're saying 12, yes?
12 republican senate incumbents, and republicans have unseated three. yes, three democratic senate incumbents. and so for some reason there has been some resistance or inability for republicans to knock off incumbents. even in 2010, the great year for republicans. so, yes, they do have to overcome that to get the majority. okay, where is the next question? we'll let the -- who's got the mic, and are you next to someone with a question? >> charlie, there's one over here. >> yeah, okay. >> i guess a tactical question. a lot of money is sunk into television advertising, and my impression would be that is going to the near dead rather than the living because most -- my children really don't watch television commercials, yet we finish it's almost like heading into world war ii with a strong cavalry.
what are your thoughts on the effectiveness of television advertising, and who is it hitting, which voters is it reaching, and what is it a achieving? is it motivational or is it actually trying to swing -- >> or is it just noise? i mean, your point is exactly, i mean, we've seen in our data. we did a national survey with turner and -- and a democratic partner as egg well in which we found fewer than half of americans, half of american voters now say that they get their news from live tv every day. that they watch live tv every day. and among 18-44-year-olds just one-third say they watch live tv every day. you've got to be kidding me. and so it is, it's extraordinarily difficult. things have changed dramatically
. two-thirds of americans now with smartphones, and that includes these, you know, blackberries which i don't consider a smartphone. [laughter] >> but it's got a better keyboard. >> exactly. >> if you would have gotten here on time, you would have looked at your schedule -- >> but i think how you communicate with voters is extraordinarily difficult, and right now there's a ton of money spent on tv advertising that, you know, that's hitting people who have already decided. and that's why some of these digital companies, you know, all of our campaigns are spending much more money on digital and trying to reach out and doing targeted communications, personal communications with voters so what you're seeing is everybody knows we've still got to do the tv, but what you're not seeing in the campaigns is the amount of money that's going to digital, individual contact and even mail through these campaigns and personal contact. so under the service you're not seeing a lot of how that money's spent, but that doesn't mean you leave tv uncovered. >> to illustrate your point though, i like to use an
example. our daughter who, in 2012 was 26 living in cleveland, ohio, she did not -- their tv set was not wired to cable, it didn't have rabbit ears, and she watched something called apple tv which i don't i don't even know what that is. and she'd generally listen to either her ipod or iphone music or to npr on the way to and from work. and so, you know, reaching her, you know, she wasn't a swing voter, but reaching her would have been a challenge for a campaign. and that's what it says, exactly what neil's saying. >> the, let me speak both sides of this. and, but we still have -- >> want to be a political analyst, on the one hand, on the other hand -- >> we still have campaigns this cycle where advertising and shifted the race in major ways.
look at pennsylvania and the governor's race and what happened there. i mean, somebody's watching tv. [laughter] so there's, races are still impacted, you know, by the tv. now, i remember, you know, after super pacs became legalesed by the court -- legalized by the court, i remember in the last cycle us worrying, and not just worrying, watching surprise million dollar buys coming from outside and really impacting the races. that seems to be much less of an issue. people know it's coming. they, i think i the media, therefore, the fundraising has attempted to balance it so you know it's coming, and the planning balances it out. and i also think you now reach not so much a lack of penetration of market, saturation into the market in which they just -- people roll their eyes. they are getting hurt on negative ads right now, you know, in these elections, i just
don't think any of these are going to be shifted by a killer, you know, sudden buy or ad that, you know, i think it's locked in, and people are taking a lot of advertising. >> who's got a microphone? who's got a question with a microphone? >> hi, bill signer. over the last month there have been significant shifts in iowa and in colorado. can you discuss why there have been shifts there and, obviously, candidates do matter, and is that what's happening in those two states? thank you. >> i would be glad to. [laughter] >> i can't, i can't. >> iowa first. i think, obviously, a very competitive race. joanie ernst came out of the primary, and the democrats did a nice job of beginning to define her, as did the braley campaign. but i think what happened there is that braley failed to define himself.
he failed to give voters a reason to kind of vote for him. it was all about joni ernst. we did some focus groups on our walmart moms which is really a fascinating group, and we did one of these groups in des moines, and they knew a lot about joni ernst, positive and negative. they knew nothing about bruce braley. and so what bruce braley failed to do, is he failed to define himself at all. and once republican money caught up with democratic money, we began to kind of focus on his record. it caught up to him. and so i think, and i think voters accepted joni for who she was, and they're now focused on who bruce is. i think those numbers have changed a little bit. that's one. that's just iowa, but it's still a tight race. colorado, i think the attacks against corey gardener as being
an extreme republican tea party candidate have fallen a little short and just not really rung all that true. and it is combined with the overwhelming focus by the udall campaign on the issue of birth control and abortion. and i think from our work out there, there's a sense that, you know what? that udall's kind of running a single-issue campaign, a single-issue focus campaign and he is focusing on these issues instead of jobs, oh things that are -- other things that are going on. and i think they went, i would guess they went too far. and there was a bit of a backlash not just among women voters, but among men. and we were seeing that in our colorado suburbs, denver suburbs there. so i think you're seeing some shifts there. colorado is still a tough state. we lost -- we had great hopes for colorado and iowa in the presidential, and they both fell
flat. i think -- iowa we saw in the presidential campaign, we saw iowa as a state that had the greatest sense of kind of, you know, voter remorse after the 2008 election between 2008 and 2012. these are voters in iowa who believed they put obama into office. and there was more disappointment, there was more of a sense of -- betrayal is way too strong a word, but more of a sense that he wasn't what they expected. and i think that's one reason why the obama campaign spent so much time in iowa in september of 2012, to try to rectify that. and they ended up beating us pretty well there. but i still think you have that kind of sense in that state, and i think that's part of what may be giving a little bit more energy behind joni's campaign too. >> who else do we have? okay. there's somebody over here. do you have a mic? there's a hand here.
let's go ahead and get mics to hands. there's one hand there and one hand there and a hand here and a hand here. >> good morning. i have two questions. the first one is about georgia, about their 12th district, and i was just wondering from your perspective how do you think, what do you think is the -- sorry, how is the race looking for the incumbent, john barrow? and my second question is, there are a lot of candidates that go out actively seeking for women's votes, but what about the male vote and particularly younger votes? like what's your point on that? >> any of you have a unique w? >> nope.barro >> i wish david wattsman, our house editor, was here, but i'll just sort of jump in. barrow seems to, he's got an edge, a decent edge in a district that's just absolutely ugly, i mean, for a democrat. really, really, really ugly.
you know you just sort of, , sometimes you see people that are survivors, but you know that when that person steps aside, boom, that seat's gone. i mean, just gone, gone, gone. and but at the same time, and , everybody up here has seen candidates that were able to survive in really tough races, and then there was just a really ugly year and, boom, the trap door opens and they're gone. i think barrow's going to survive this. like mike mcintyre in north after alina, he was able to survive for a long time, and this year he just decided to pull the plug, you know? it'd be better to go out and not lose. i think barrow, as i remember the districts got we call it a partisan voting index. in other words, as i remember it, it votes either seven or eight. i think eight points more republican than the rest of the country. but barrow's got a bond, he's got a connection.
and is so far this year if you told me democrats were going to lose ten seats nationwide, i don't think barrow's would begin there. the difference between the house and the senate, there's sort of technical reasons why the house isn't going to shift much and technical reasons why the senate's going to be, gosh, the absolute best case for democrats no matter what would be losing four seats. you know, five, six, seven's more likely, and eight is less likely. that's kind of the bell curve. but in the house there just aren't that many vulnerable democratic seats left. i mean, when you lose 63 seats in one election and you only get eight back in the next one, you're already, you know, the low, mid-hanging fruit for republicans is already picked. so it's just sort of a mop-up operation after that. but i think barrow's going to be okay. and if you saw early on -- and
georgia's not one of the first states, but relatively early -- if you saw barrow going down, i think you'd be saying, okay, an evens may be having worse night than we had thought. my depress is he will survive -- my guess is he will survive, and i say that despite the fact the environment's pretty tough this year. >> okay, charlie. what about west virginia 3? >> i wouldn't necessarily say that. i think ray -- you know, stan alluded to this earlier sort of if you were going to profile -- don't worry, i'm not going to avoid your question. [laughter] if you were going to do a profile of where in the last ten years have democratic party, has the democratic party struggled so, so much, i'd say south, border south, small town, rural, lots of, disproportional number of older white voters, and just
for grins i'd say a state with a heavy fossil fuel. [laughter] what do you think? >> not to name anybody but, yeah, okay. >> so west virginia, kentucky, that's just sort of where it all comes together. and, and, you know, i think he's got a good campaign but, you know, if ray hal can survive this thing, it'd be pretty surprising. because he's got all the risk factors for a heart attack. i shouldn't use that metaphor, but anyway -- [laughter] that one's a lot, a lot tougher. >> yeah, okay. just one more, the response to your question about men, there's a lot of focus on the gender gap and the problems the republicans have a among women. and the flipside of that, you
know, is obvious. you know what? democrats have a huge problem among men voters too, and the gender gap cuts both ways. and you see that in all of our states right now where republicans are doing much better among men and not as well among women. and it -- and you know what? you're seeing anytime the approval ratings of the president, seeing it across the board. we've seen that gender gap since the ronald reagan election in 1980, and it it expands and contracts, but it's still a significant gap and, you know, we need to do better among women voters, no question, but the democrats also have significant challenges among males. >> not to disagree at all with neil, but there's one sort of partially mitigating factor, and i think this is one of the great inequities on our planet. women live longer than men do, so 53% of the electorate is fell female and 47's male, so that's where -- >> it comes out of balance a little bit. >> yeah, yeah. but everything neil said was
absolutely right. to -- you want >> i just want to, again, the lens or the filter for this ought to be what's happening in the republican conservative heartland in all the places that you talked about, the deep south border states, more rural evangelical. those are all trending heavily on every one of the issues in problem areas for democrats. but if you look at white noncollege and white noncollege men outside that heartland, there have been no trend against democrat, no shift against democrats outside of the republican heartland. >> while we're on sort of the gender thing and i'm not going to put either of you on the spot even though i suspect you both have done some work in louisiana this cycle, but there was a cnn poll out a couple of weeks ago that showed in the mary landrieu/bill cassidy race that showed effectively no gender gap
whatsoever. now, i have not seen crosstabs in any other surveys in the state, so i don't know whether that just an anomaly in that poll or whether there was a pattern and some reason why, unique reason why she wasn't doing a whole lot better among women than men. >> no, that's an anomaly. >> okay, okay. >> but it's a good warning. take every poll you look at with a grain of salt. i mean it's, you know and when , you start looking at, when you start looking in terms of independent voters of women or white women or african-americans or hispanics, you know what? the subsamples, the margin of error can vary dramatically. how the sampling is done can vary. if something doesn't seem right, it's probably not right. [laughter] >> tell whether the banners come back, and you say a -- >> yeah. >> that can't be true. >> i don't, i've done, i've redone, i think, a handful of
polls this last few weeks because i didn't believe the data. if i can't explain it to the client, i've got to do, you know, if there's not a rational explanation, i've got to redo it. i've got to figure out what's happening here. so if numbers change for no apparent reason, it's probably not right. >> i hope be there are any cable show bookers watching this that when there's a poll that shows something different from every other poll, rather than considering it hot news -- [laughter] as neil said the odds are it's , probably just wrong. and so putting a huge spotlight on it, you are doing your viewers a disservice. >> that's right. we should note there's a difference between campaign polls and almost all the polls that are done publicly and for the newspapers.
the all of our polls are where , we are sampling people that we know voted in either 2010 or 2006. we are dealing with likely voters. and that's true of every campaign in these states, and that means, again, campaigns are dealing with polls that are much more real and not as subject -- >> let me throw one thing out, and if either of you guys want to respond, but you can't say it yourself because it would sound so self-serving. but one of the things you hear in a lot of these poll aggregators and averaging and models is that independent polls are more reliable than polls by partisan organizations. and the idea is that the partisan-sponsored polls are somehow really, really biased as if a poll, a campaign would spend a whole lot of money on getting numbers that were wrong
would be a good idea. and, you know, i think what a lot of people miss out is that, you know, if stan does a poll with really lousy numbers for a democrat, the odds that you're ever going to hear those numbers are almost nonexistence. and in same thing a for neil for republicans. >> no, if we had good numbers for a democrat, we would release them. [laughter] >> yeah. and so the thing about it they're getting, this assessment is getting made, and the thing is, you know, a typical, a free-standing poll in a state that you would do, not a benchmark but something that you would have done, pick one in the last week or two, what would it, what would it cost? >> i'll let you price it. [laughter] $20,000 -- $28,000.
>> a little more. [laughter] >> okay. i submit to you that there are no newspapers in america, no radio station and none of the -- that are releasing numbers from a survey with a fair market value of $28,000. it would be probably closer to $3,000. and so this is sort of a mythology that's built up that, you know, the academics kind of dwell on -- >> right, we ought to take it to a fact in modeling. because with democracy corps, -- whiches over had as as the mosthad accurate of the national polls -- [laughter] i should mention, we release every poll, and we announce in advance we're releasing it, and so we don't have the option of a result we don't like. we do that on purpose. so -- >> but why don't you do that as blanket policy for all your
clients. >> but i would just speak about the harstead poll. he has the race even. i think he's right about the race being very close. but they're not going to release the polls -- there's random variations. some of the other states probably had a poll where the democrat wasn't doing very well. they didn't want to release that one. i think you have to be careful saying there is a house effect or bias. in terms of -- >> we've done 1400 polls this year. 1400. we've released, what, 20 maybe? in the individual districts -- you know, when -- >> and your party's having a good year. >> you know, so, i mean, we're doing a ton of surveys. we don't want to release this stuff, and yet we're -- stan, you're from an -- we got c+, and it's based on 20 polls. it's like, you're kidding me? and, you know it's ridiculous.
, but take it with grain of salt. mark with the grimes campaign data, 1800 survey done over i i think eight days in the field starting on friday night and ending on saturday. my takeaway of that is they did tracking, 1800 in nine days, and they cherry picked those days because those were the very days that showed grimes up by two points. if they'd done it day earlier -- the numbers were down. but they cherry picked, uni? take it with a grain of salt. >> i've not saying specifically mehlman necessarily. >> no. but, yeah, take that with a grain of salt. but when you look at some of these polls that showed when they start going to likely voter samples after labor day and then
their numbers get really crazy it's because they're not doing it right. it's flawed. it's just flawed. so take it with a grain of salt. >> okay. where are the mics? and, after this, get one over to jeff. he gave me a plug it with a newsletter 30 years ago. [laughter] you know, i'm not biased at all. >> you never have been. michael lubell, and just one comment and then a question. the comment is about georgia. i mean, i think neil said that the election might not be settled until december. isn't it possible it could go into january? >> yeah. i mean, i keep saying louisiana in december, but there is the runoff provision in georgia -- >> georgia, same thing. >> pushes it to january 5th? >> 6th. >> 6th. >> it's november 4, december 6th for louisiana, january 6 for georgia. >> and it's absolutely certain that louisiana will go runoff. it's entirely possible it could be georgia as well.
so what does that do to, if orrman gets elected in kansas? what does he do? he's in limbo until -- he doesn't know which way to go. >> and until he decides, he can't get any committee assignments. [laughter] >> exactly. >> but that was not my question. >> sorry. i thought it was interesting. [laughter] >> if you look, if i listen to everything that's been said, this is not going to be a wave election. the races are very, very close. and if we look forward to 2016, what's the takeaway right now in terms of the strategizing since it's not a wave? where do the parties go in the next two years given the fact the presidential's going to start shortly after this election ends? >> good question. let me, yeah, it's not a wave election for congress and for senate, but one thing i would like you to take a look at is state legislatures.
republicans are going to make senate gains. if you -- significant gains. if you think it's going to be lower level campaigns, not on the federal level. what does it mean for 2016? number one, i think it means we haven't, as republicans, we haven't addressed the issues that cost us the election in 2012. and i think we still, you know, just like 2010 -- the great success we had in 2010 didn't mean squat for 2012. we didn't take that and run with it in the 2012 election, and it was -- that was a challenge for us, and i don't think we as republicans have addressed that challenge going forward, 2016. we face still significant obstacles going into the '16 presidential election regardless of running against hillary, elizabeth warren or anybody else. >> let me jump in. on the senate a lot of the factors that are working against
democrats that i talked about this time flip over and work against republicans. there are 24 republican seats up in 2016. there are only ten democratic seats up. seven -- i've been saying six and went back and counted, it was actually seven -- seven of the republican seats are up in obama states, and there are no democratic seats up in romney states. second, because as neil alluded, it's a presidential election so instead of a midterm like we have now where there's a turnout thumb on the scale for republicans, that thumb's a not on the scale for republicans. so there's a real, you know, -- republicans really, really, really need to not only win a majority this time, but if they could put an extra seat or two on the scoreboard, they might find that real handy if they have as ugly a year in '16 in the senate as is entirely possible.
but to me, the sort of nightmare scenario for republicans is this, that their party was so, so pumped up and optimistic about 2012 both in terms of the presidential race and in terms of winning a majority of the senate. and so they were bitterly, bitterly disappointed. and they came out of it wondering, you know, did we get lied to or was our money not well spent? i'm talking macro, the whole thing top to bottom, you know? and as a result there hasn't been nearly as much money going into republican committees, as last time or you might expect because the donor community was so down on the republican side. and we had a strategy -- i think i may have mentioned this earlier, you know, a republican who said, you know, if it weren't for the koch brothers, we'd be getting blown away financially right now. they're keeping republicans in the game.
so the thing is let's say if republicans only picked up four seats or five this year, so they're sitting at 49/50, they've had with all these amazing factors working in republicans' favor, if they don't get a majority, a, their donors are going to be absolutely in a state of enormous depression, it's going to make it harder to raise money in 2016, and if they're going into 2016 with only 49 or 50 states in an election where they could lose umpteen seats themselves, that's how you get to see democrats up -- they're not going to be at 59, 60 where they were in 2009-'10, but 53, 54. i mean, that would be the worst case scenario for republicans. and so '16, you know, it's just really huge which is why all of you, as soon as the election's over, take a vacation, relax a bit. but this next one, you know,
stay tuned. anyway, we have -- >> looks like -- [inaudible] >> the context of the implications for the presidential. as neil indicated, republicans have a base strategy. they believe if they win this, it'll be because their base has turned out in bigger numbers, they've been excited about other issues. they are running on the affordable care act. but they have taken irretrievable positions on immigration going into this off-year election, they have moved for repealing the executive order for the dreamers. every one of the presidential candidates now is lined up against the idea of legalization of the dreamers. they come out of this election with that being a defining issue if you're a republican, where you stand on immigration, for the hispanic, growing hispanic population. the dreamers is the most important, powerful symbol of whether you understand us.
i've, you know, polled it for times" a bipartisan poll "l.a. times" there's more important than dreamers for nothing more important than dreamers for the hispanic party. there's a lot of states that are going to be out of play with that. >> okay. last question let's go to jeff, right here. they're giving us the five minute warning. >> charlie, thanks. i was glad to endorse your newsletter back in the '80s. i'll give you my new address, because the commission check got lost in the mail somewhere. [laughter] we're giving up our landlines and moving to cell phones. i know it's something that's always been discussed, but can you talk about exactly how you figure out to make sure you get a good demographic cut? i think the landline people are older and white males, things like that. how do you figure it out? >> that would be the predead. >> yeah, the predead. how do you get to that cell phone group? >> money.
i'm serious about this. the democracy corps, you know, does 50% cell phones and rising. but the cost of a national poll with cell phones, $10,000 more just dealing with the cell phone portion. now, in a bigger since it has saved --- it has there's a cost, but it's actually saved polling. i thought we'd be gone by now. i thought we -- we were so badly, you know, had polls that were so underrepresentative of the country that -- but what's happened is increasingly you can get cell phones. they do cost less. people are increasingly able to be gotten via cell phones. but that means you are able to reach young people and minority voters who are particularly high with cell phones. i thought people would not do long surveys on cell phones, and
i was wrong. the dropoff rate on our polls on cell phones is no greater than on landlines. and so i think the it's saved polling. i think we're still here pontificating because that transition has happened. >> remember eight to ten years ago, nobody gave out their cell phone number. that was private. are you kidding me? no. no way. and now it's just automatic. of course you give out your cell phone. i mean, that's where you can be reached. how many -- i mean, i can't remember the last time the phone rang at home with a personal phone call, you know? it doesn't happen. so it's what stan said. ten years ago we never would have dreamed we would make a living by calling people with cell phones. but we do, but, boy, that increases costs. at least 30% of every survey we do is you need to make sure we have another younger voters. i mean, you set quotas so that we make sure we have younger voters in our samples. it is much more expensive, more
difficult, more time consuming. i mean, when i first started this business we did volunteer survey research at the republican national committee in the late 1970's. i ran these phone banks, and for every interview we wanted to complete, we polled five telephone numbers. it's probably up to 150 numbers now for every interview you want to complete. it's extraordinary. that's why, you know, it costs so much. that's why, you know these media , outlets are unwilling to kind of spend the kind of money that they should be spending on this to do it right. there's also, you can do polling by internet, but you know what? in the stuff that stan and i do, we're testing messages. we're testing tough messages pro and against candidates. that allows people -- if we test that over the internet, people take screen shots of that. you don't want your message on the front page of "
--isville courier journal" journal." "the kansas city star yuriko -- star." you can't afford to have that happen, so that's why we stick to telephones rather than internet. >> let me ask one more question, and the question i ask of each of you is first of all, pretend the c-span camera is not there. if you had to give some advice to your party in the 2016, 2017, 20 18 -- in other words, pass this election -- if you had to give candidate feist to your party on what they ought to be thinking about and what direction they need to be shifting, where would you go with that candid advice to your party? and forget the cameras. >> i know what is tough, but i think that a seasoned woman presidential candidate is really the right -- [laughter] >> short of 60, you know, that kind of -- >> tough medicine, but, you know -- >> your grandmother.
[laughter] >> is that your wife you're talking about? >> i think, look i think the , tough advice is on the economy. the president spoke at the united nations where america stands in the world, but the economy has fundamentally changed and people know it's structurally changed in fundamental ways. there's not been a mature discussion from democratic leaders about the economy and what you have to do to end the conversation needs to start. >> i think i read that in the book. a couple years ago that you and some fellow named carville wrote. it was actually very insightful. ok, neil, your advice? >> we have a demographic that we
need to address in the post obama era among the african-americans and latinos. and unless we address that, we are going to have a tough time winning the presidency. >> well i've treasured my , relationship with "the national journal" since 1998 and it's been great collaboration of united technology to be able to have a helicopter in my backyard. [laughter] when it is affordable, we will get there. i am teasing. anyway, this has been great, thank you all for coming. [applause] >> local iselle today. list, that on the
roberts. joining us on the phone is dave helling. thank you for being with us. greatat to be with you place a lot of development including the ruling by district judges and showing that this race is very close. senator roberts is behind. tell us what is happening. >> he has been behind throughout the year. , your audience may know, n aggressiveved in a primary in august against a tea party candidate. in that race, pat robertson received 40% of the vote in his own party. at that point a lot of people began to say this guy who has been around for a long time may face serious concerns from people of kansas if you can't do
better than that. that is the picture on the ground on his side. , ans opposing a guy independent who is running a notaign that is saying i'm a republican or democrat. i can vote for the best idea. residents and kansans -- that has some residents in kansas. there is discussed for the stalemate in washington and he is playing into that. >> we sat down with jerry moran from kansas. he is the chair of the national republican china campaign committee. he is painting this narrative that he is a democrat, that he has voted as a democrat. are you going to hear more of that? >> without question. there is every attempt by the republicans and kansans and robert campaign in particular to
paint him as a democrat and nationalize the election, to make greg gorman and ally of president obama who is popular. that is their path to victory, to make obama the issue. his response has been that that is part of the old politics, the way things used to be done. i'm a problem solver. some peopleoes have in kansas who liked that approach. they are concerned about stalemate in washington. , pat has beenlem a part of government for many years. he he is 78 years old. he has been in office since 1980. a lot of candidates -- something that he is gone native.
he has become more about washington van kansas. that is playing into this idea that here is a fresh start, an independent voice. kansas is a republican state. they have not sent a senator from the democratic art into washington since the depression. he has roberts with a built-in advantage. we will see how that turns out. >> let me ask about this whole 76%.ng greg gorman at he has been in the senate since 1996. 11% undecided. becausenk that is people don't know who he is. he has never held elected office. he ran for the senate in 2008 for a couple of months and then backed out even before the primary. he ran as a democrat in that race.
a lot of voters probably don't know who he is. they are waiting to get a clearer picture of what his issue positions are and how he might vote. one of the most important things you will hear is that he has refused so far to say whether he would caucus with senate republicans are senate democrats . as you know, that decision could have an enormous impact on how the senate is run after the elections in november. i think there is pressure from some voters to get a clearer picture of who he is. pat roberts is going to exploit that and say i'm a republican, i will vote for the republican leader if it comes to that. my opponent is not doing that. that is one of the important issues. >> the governor's race, state democratic representative paul davis is ahead of sand brown. why is this race so close? >> a very different dynamic than
the senate race, which is being argued on national issues. beenovernor's race has built around competency and execution, and he pursued a very aggressive program of cutting taxes in the state. at least to date the effect has been to blow a sizable hole in the state budget without providing economic boost that he suggested would happen and wanted to happen. for that reason and because concerned about custom education, he has gotten a lot of traction out here. whether that stays through election day we will have to see. the governor is also a fixture of campus politics like pat roberts. the have known each other for a quarter-century. kansas is a republican state. both men have a built-in advantage. there is certainly unrest among
some voters, that you see in the poll numbers, that you see in the campaigns we are looking at. that could have a very dramatic effect on the future. >> dave helling is on the politics beat joining us from kansas city. montana meets from for the first televised debate. and ryan xing key -- zinke. live coverage of the debates starting at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. if you want to watch the debates we have covered you can find it online at c-span.org. here is a look at the ads in the nebraska others race. >> all across our state i see
people facing the same tough challenges. nebraskans want a fair shot. i stood up for family farmers. we helped 10,000 small businesses and secure tuition for young nebraskans. i will invest in our future. workers for good paying jobs. i'm running for governor because when nebraskans work together we succeed. >> typical politicians at it again. they are losing. they are falsely attacking peter richards. endorsed by sarah palin with a plan to cut property taxes. i'm pete ricketts. we had 150 people working in omaha. now there are 2000. i know how to produce results. that is what i will do as governor.
>> pete ricketts is making false attacks. he tried to avoid paying his own taxes. his organization propose a plan that would raise taxes for family farmers and 80% of nebraskans. he would lower taxes for corporations like the one owned by him and his family. butants higher taxes for us lower taxes for rich people like him. nebraska needs a governor who fight for the middle class. that is just not pete ricketts. expectaska i grow up and people to take responsibility, to treasure faith and family. those are nebraska values. >> pete ricketts. and'm raising my family running my business. i believe god gave us fundamental rights in our constitution protects them. we have to be a culture that protects life and inspires responsibility. as your governor i will work to make you proud and lead nebraska with their shared values. this weekend, friday night at
10:00 eastern on c-span a conversation with supreme court justice john paul stevens. the founder and former chair of microsoft, bill gates on the ebola virus in west africa. sunday, the director of the smithsonian national museum of african art. friday night, authors john about and bruce fein talk war and the constitution. heather cox richardson on the history of the republican party. legal affairs editor in charge at reuters and the supreme court biographer. c-span 3.0, on historians and others talk about woodward 1 -- world war i. former fbi agents on catching the unabomber. sunday afternoon, the 100th
anniversary of the panama canal. find our television schedule it c-span.org. call us. e-mail. send us a tweet. join the conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. the chair of the republican national committee, rain spree this, spoke yesterday at george washington university. this is one hour. georgeome to the washington university. i mark kennedy. please to be the director of this the first of foremost school of applied politics in
the country and planet. -- we are here because a lot of people have done a lot of hard work. i want to thank the many people who have done that. we are pleased to have our chairman of our board. we are pleased to have the rnc here with us. mike shields, sean spicer, sarah florez. on our side, i want to thank , andbranson and angelique everybody that put this event together. we teach how do you advance causes, candidates, commerce and ethical way? best to that it is bring people that are actually in the arena that are working at it and figuring out how you move things forward.
and making sure they have the latest and greatest and best. that is why we are pleased to welcome someone who was in the arena. all of you know that reince priebus, prior to being the chairman of the republican national committee was chairman of wisconsin public in committee. are minnesota and, there good things you can say about wisconsin. [laughter] they share a border. that is amongst the best things. did a wonderful job in the state of wisconsin. he has done a great job in his two terms as the head of the rnc. what does a party do? they focus on making sure the elected officials can't try to bring a common message. it provides the infrastructure
for campaigns. please give him a great george washington welcome. [applause] >> the packard's are playing the vikings tonight on thursday night football. good luck. good morning everybody. kennedy, professor brown, thank you for inviting us here today. talk about the election and the principles of american revenue will. days away.y is 33 early voting has begun in some states. many have labeled this a referendum on the policies of president barack obama. in many ways it is. if he asked the country, most would say they know our party
opposes many of those policies. we oppose them because we know there is a better way. republicans have new ideas to solve the country's problems, bottom-up solutions, founded in the free market, compassion, responsibility, and the idea that america is headed for better days. before november, i wanted to take a moment to cut through the noise and talk about what is driving the republican party. people know what we are against. i want to talk about the things that we are for. overarching vision as a country that offers unlimited on -- equal opportunity for everybody. in pursuit of that vision are parties record values have been a strong economy, strong society, and strong defense. the principles of american
renewal fit into those categories. they represent ideas across our party. these 11 principles unite us as a parting and inform policymaking, whether you're running for governor in new york, or congress in the south, or the statehouse in the west. these principles cover 11 vital veterans,pending, national security, poverty, values, energy and immigration. the first is about our constitution. principle number one, our constitution should be preserved , valued, and honored. our rights do not come from government. as a declaration says, they are rights endowed by our creator. the government's job is to
protect these natural rights. our constitution, our founding principles are unique in human history. it created a government of limited power and empowers all of us to preserve those limits. our constitution is a source of american exceptionalism. good policy. maximizeswed, and it freedom, opportunity, and individual well-being. as i will discuss many times, the fact of a commitment to the constitution is resorting power to we the people, from our work to eliminate politic -- property to improve education and health care, states need the ability to respond to residents needs. this is a make constitutional sense. it makes common sense.
the federal government has boundaries. when it oversteps them it is encroaching on your personal freedom. your god-given liberty to decide what is right for your life. ont guides our thinking every single issue. the americans say the economy is the top issue. we need to start growing america's economy instead of watching the economy so that working americans see better wages and more opportunity. lobbyists, out of touch politicians need to get out of the way. to american workers and businesses and freedom to create jobs. overtaxing and overregulated creates jobs for the wrong people, lobbyists and bureaucrats. as money pours into d.c. they take jobs with the people who need them.
middle-class moms and dads, young people out of high school or college. minority communities or unemployment. aboutar republicans talk regulations a lot. there is a reason. regulations come between you and a job. they make your paycheck smaller. thing to protect consumers. it is nothing to protect national interests come out dating -- outdated regulations. what would it look like if government regulations got out of the way? take a look alone republican governors are doing across america. every year states governed by republicans topped the list of best places to do business. congress should
close up shop. some would say they have artie done a long time ago. there are some things congress can do to get the economy going again. scottample, senator tim proposed the skills act to help people get job training for new jobs. included in the workforce innovation and opportunity act. morreale said the bill would mean hundreds of unemployed and underemployed tokers in urban youth receive job and skills training and support services they need to chart a path to a better future. that is the kind of thing the republicans support. bills like the skills act, the lead act. to support apprenticeship. or the career act. senator rand paul's idea for economic freedom zones could create jobs in unemployment and health alleviate poverty.
part of the equation is getting washington, d.c. to stop spending our money on things we don't need. that brings us to principle number three. we need to pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. make government more efficient and lead the next generation with opportunity, not debt. the most popular names for girls will likely being him a and sofia. boysost popular name for is reince. just kidding. noah. a newborn baby some grass is so strong that he can support his entire weight in midair with just the strength of
his curled fingers. is ang on for dear life great skill for babies born today to have. we are leaving each child born today a share of almost a trillion dollars in national debt. . debt for every child how is that fair? shame on us. care of one generation should not mean robbing the next. that is why paul ryan and jim jordan hebrides budgets that would reduce an freespending. businesses run more efficiently. home is run more efficiently. our federal government gets better -- bigger and more expensive. it is a make any sense.
let's apply efficiency to the 20th century yurok received. save money. balance the budget. we need to start over with real health care reform that is patients and doctors in charge. let me ask you this. at the most critical moment of your life, when your health and in theour life hangs balance, how do you want decisions made about what kind or how much health care you are going to be allowed to get? we need health care solutions that reduce costs, provide greater access to world-class care, and give americans more .ontrol
americans torust make their own health care decisions. democrats get defensive. their comeback is to ask republicans what is your plan? we are glad they asked. if they will just listen to the answer, here it is. first, the problem with the affordable care act is it didn't make health care more affordable. address the larger issue, republicans have solutions and they want to do what obamacare was supposed to do, lower prices and expand coverage. here are six examples. allowing consumers to purchase health care across state lines like any other good or service. businesses to pool together to negotiate lower
.nsurance rates stopping frivolous lawsuits that drive up costs. we need tort reform in this country. allowable expenses for health savings accounts. restructuring the tax codes of the american buying individual plans get tax seductions, leveling the playing field with those with employer insurance. protecting crisis for individuals and pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage. unlike obamacare none of these reforms require new taxes. no handing over your information to a nonsecure websites. if you like your plan you can actually keep it. improving health care access and quality gets right to the heart of the next issue. veterans affairs.
our veterans have earned our respect and gratitude, and no veteran should have to wait in line for months or years just to see a doctor. the v.a. scandal under president obama is unconscionable. it is another example of how mismanaged this administration really is. the most important thing in making sure the veterans get the it ishat they need, number one. it shouldn't matter that is in a v.a. facility were not. that is why republicans are proud to support a bipartisan throughaccess to care choice, accountability, and transparency, of 2014. he gives veterans the ability to get care from one or 2 -- from non-v.a. facilities when they live too far away or they have waited too long. republicans have proposed such measures even before the scandal made national headlines.
other scandals and issues have not the v.a. out of the news for now. that doesn't mean everything is fixed. republicans will be village on which -- will be vigilant to make sure the v.a. gets its act together and no one who risks their life or our country dies waiting to see a doctor. we have to keep our word to our veterans, both because it is a moral obligation and because the service of our armed forces is critical to our national security. that brings us to rentable number six. -- principle number six. keeping america safe and strong wires a strong military, growing our economy, energy independence, and securing our borders. the federal government has no greater responsibility than keeping us safe. if you're not safe, if your family and kids aren't secure, nothing else matters.
we face an enemy who wants americans dead and our way of life destroyed. we need leaders who will defeat terrorism, not manage it. we need leaders who elect decisively, not downplay a .hreat as jv we need leaders who take responsibility, not blame the intelligence community. this is no time to weaken our military. it is the time to strengthen our military. we can eliminate waste and bureaucracy inside the pentagon. forust have more resources trips creed we have to recognize that security threats of the 21st century and improve our cyber security has to be important. that is why chairman mike rogers introduced a bill and mike mccall introduce a cyber security enhancement act. national security includes more
than just our military. it means pursuing energy independence and securing our borders. i will come to that soon. first let's move on education. principle number seven. every child should have an equal opportunity to get a great education. no parent should be forced to send their child to a failing school. , theree street from here are two good parents. they have the means to send their kids to the best school in town. not every american has the money to choose a good school for their children. like president and michelle obama. can't afford to go to a private school, or you can't afford to move the better school educational access is a civil rights issue of our day. school choice is one of the most
effective ways to expand access. hase speaker john boehner been a champion of the opportunity scholarship program here in washington. there is a reason. it offers children in the city hope. one of the former students there talked about waiting to hear if she would receive the scholarship. she said i started praying every day because i didn't want to go toward neighborhood school. school choice can truly the answer to a child's prayer. thisnt more ways to help disadvantaged kids get out of it at school and into a good school. that is why governor casey quadrupled scholarships in his state. expanded its scholarship program under bobby jindal. i don't understand why the obama justice department soon louisiana to take away
scholarships from kids. the dzocrats oppose opportunity scholarship or why harry reid would not put a charter school bill of for a vote. we can improve education with accountability at the state and local level. governor martinez in new mexico and lamented and eight-a rating system with education reforms which included raises, training, evaluations for trainers. they are now the number one state in the country for improving regulation rates. republicans are working to lower costs and increase flexibility at the post secondary level. he example, senator michael proposed the hero act. to open up avenues for nontraditional students like single parents. there is a lie on the left that republicans want to cut