tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 3, 2014 1:00am-3:01am EDT
business experience. i ran a city for 14 years. i saw them grow during the time i was mayor. educationalg, added institution, made progress. but we also understood that we have to build a city for the long run. we have to invest in interest -- in infrastructure. we are not laying people off. we are not driving the stay into bankruptcy. what we are doing is making sure that we are making steady progress. heading up the infrastructure that will allow us to compete with massachusetts who are doing some of these things long before we were. not as my a dewpoint of the last two quarters of 2013 when we outgrew every state in new england.
things like "it is many jobs as we said, that's wrong. total private-sector job growth of oure time administration is much more than 60,000. sure we should be more efficient. yes we should be investing in technologies we did not have in our state previously. when i inherited this state because you elected me governor, the largest apartment spending 18% of our money was operating on a format from the effective age of 1989. >> i'm sorry to cut you off. now onto the rebuttal phase. mr. foley. governor brought up his experience in stamford. the thing that bothers me most
inut governor malloy's term stamford is that it was the city in connecticut with the largest achievement gap and he did nothing about it. he may talk about being interested in improving education but while he had the opportunity and one of connecticut's largest cities with the biggest educational challenges, he was not up to the task. he was also investigated for corruption while he was mayor and he leaves that out. listen. we have a great state workforce in connecticut. i know what it takes to run an organization that has a mission and direction to do a good job. the governor is there to serve the citizens. we need a state workforce that is the right size for the job. i believe it's the right size for the job right now. they also have to have confidence in their leadership. they have to feel secure in
their jobs. they need to be well-paid, secure in their jobs. they need to know they can take care of their families while they're working and in retirement. that's the kind of leadership i want for the state workforce. to get this government working for the citizens, get the economy going, get the state turned around. >> mr. molloy, your rebuttal. >> everyone watching from home, i went to add a sidebar discussion. democrats will only raise your taxes so that we tell you about a candidate that tom fully supported for governor many years ago. -- tome is john rowland rowland. he raised taxes numerous times before he went to prison. alas two administrations raised taxes 1.8 billion dollars between 2002-2000 nine but here's the difference between what they did and what we did. we changed how we are doing business. he says we are spending more
money but we are spending at a lower rate than either of my predecessors. to theperiod owing up great recession they were increasing spending 7.4% per year and are averages less than 2.8 are sent. quite frankly, some of that money is being used to make sure that we honor our commitments to the very workforce thomas talking about. when we inherited this state we had pension plans that were 42% funded. this last year we had a 15.5% to turn. we are making real progress on reducing our long-term debt. we reduced it by $12 billion. this will pay dividends in the future, but when a republican says a democrat will do something to molest look at the reality of what happened. this state into the ditch that we found it and when nancy and i took office. we are doing our best to work with you, the people of connecticut how much it turn it around. do you want your teachers to be
laid off? do you want police officers and firefighters to be laid off? that was the choice. when tom ran for governor four years ago he had a plan to follow a $3.6 billion deficit by cutting expenses by $2 billion. that leaves $1.6 billion unresolved but it would not have -- it would have led to losing 36,000 jobs in the state. did ina study uconn 2010. we are working hard, folks. i'm doing everything i can to help us get through this and i appreciate the relationship we have together as we pull together this state. >> mr. molloy, thank you very much. mr. foley, do you have a rebuttal over july to move on? -- or would you like to move on? hishere he goes blaming
predecessors again. when i'm elected i will not blame you. >> you're doing enough of that tonight. [laughter] >> maybe onto the next question. question number three. christine saysd she knows people who are moving out of connecticut due to the high tax rate. are there other taxes you would look to reduce in the future? we are reducing taxes. we've already reduce taxes since 2011. tom has made some statement about energy costs. for most the time i was governor they were 12% lower from when i was sworn in. last month they went down 14%. we have policies going forward that will make sure that it happens. with respect to taxes, we have already backed things out of that package from 2011. you will not hear about those things but one was a tax on energy. there was not only a tax on energy, a plan limit came in,
but they were going to borrow against the energy bills hiking them up even further. i canceled that. i'm happy i did so we could make progress. we are restoring the deductibility of over-the-counter drugs. you look at those things and some of the others we've done with respect to how we tax pensions, for instance. we are making some real progress. every chance we get to lower taxes we should take it. we have demonstrated a willingness to do that and we have done it each year since 2011 when we have wrestled with the issue i was talking to the viewers about, the largest per capita deficit in the nation. >> thank you. mr. foley. >> i find it extraordinary the governor thinks he's low where taxes. you put the largest tax increase in connecticut history on the citizens and now you want
spending to grow by $3 billion? you squandered that tax increase. you squandered it. where has the money gone? you talk about electricity rates. you put on an expanded on people'sharge electric bills that have driven them up by quite a bit. are you talking about the generation tax that you took away? you actually put that on the generators while you were governor. that's like the $55 rebate you gave us and took back. i don't know. maybe 70 forward living in different states but there are not many i'm talking to who believe you reduced taxes. i remember your tax increase and i think a lot of people suspect that if you are reelected governor you have no plan to reduce spending and no choice but to raise taxes again and i believe them. >> rebuttal.
i never took a promise not to raise taxes because i knew how bad a job had been done before i got an office. the tough things i'm getting blamed for doing now had not been done. we went back to the table. we cut rejected spending had to raise we revenue. when i became governor, the shortfall was 18%. if we had done the things my opponent suggested then him and apparently is suggesting now, in your hometown, you would have lost teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators. you would have lost the lease officers in places like new haven, hartford, bridgeport where we have cut the crime rate by more than 32%. if you had a fire in your home, you would have been less safe. the reality is we have cut taxes since 2011. the bigger reality is we inherited a gigantic problem and
i asked for shared sacrifice and people responded. it did not make anyone happy but it was required. someone had to take charge and make decisions. i'm taking a pledge not to raise taxes but also to make sure we continue to have an efficient state government. spending are far below the rates of prior administrations during my administration and that's the way it's going to stay. >> mr. foley. >> governor, why should anyone believe you? you have made so many promises you have not delivered on. you said you would not raise taxes, largest increase in state history. he said he would reduce spending. it's gone up i-16 percent, $3 billion. you said you would bring down electricity bills and you've loaded in all of these electric charges. whose bill is lower today than 3.5 years ago when you were elected? nobody. why should the citizens believe anything you say particularly
with all of the malloy math we've been hearing tonight. you said six or seven things that are simply not true. i hope the media will look into them and that these things. there's no reason why anyone should believe what you're saying here tonight particularly with respect to raising taxes. you did it seven or more times when you were mayor of stamford. you did it after you were elected governor and you're going to get it again if you are elected governor in november. out, republican governors have raised taxes substantially in excess of what we raised taxes. that's the reality. every republican says every democrat the bad guy because they're going to raise taxes. i suppose what i should point out is if you are going to keep the promises you already made, you're going to have to balance your budget on the backs of local property taxpayers. that's the only way to keep the promises you've done. statee did not do in the
of connecticut, unlike republican-led states like new wesey and others, wisconsin, did not shift our burden to local taxpayers. why? and all of the taxes paid by people in connecticut, the local property taxes the most damaging. >> mr. foley, anything more to say on this question? we're going to pause for a quick break for we move onto her neck set of questions. you are watching fox connecticut 2014 gubernatorial debate at uconn. stay with us. we'll be right back. ♪ >> welcome back. the next section deals with quality of life in connecticut from jane bernstein. >> mr. foley, both of you are from lower fairfield county that
has endured major traffic tie ups on the merritt parkway. what should be done to fix the stage transportation problems not only in fairfield county but the bottlenecks of places like water berry in new haven. how would you pay for it? what role should public transportation play? >> very good question. thank you for that. i think one of the biggest annoyances other than the governor's tax increases are traffic congestion. we drive all around this state and traffic congestion has gotten much worse in the last three and a half years. it is partially because we under invested in our roads and bridges in we under invested in mass transit. we have problems with our mass transit which has the potential for providing transportation services to people who do not need to use our roads or bridges. of usingnor instead the gas tax, which is dedicated
for the maintenance of our roads and bridges rated the special transportation fund. by some wiseide policy people who knew if those taxes, a user tax, were put into the general fund, they would not be recommitted to maintaining and improving our roads and bridges so they created a special fund and it was supposed to be to protect that money that was taken from taxpayers and used to maintain the roads and bridges. this governor went in and raided that fund them took that money to pay for pet projects. i'm not sure where all the money's gone, but it has not gone to our roads and bridges or mass transit. we've had some major problems on our metro-north. sorry to cut you off. your time is up. mr. malloy. weree allegations investigated by the hartford current and were found to be
untruthful. you read the article. you should change your talking points. what we are doing is investing in transportation at unprecedented levels. $500 million more than my predecessors administration. my democratic colleagues, the great number of connecticut bill o'neill. what we are doing is investing in highways and bridges. yes, bus systems and railroads. we are making a real difference. just today, i was down in norwalk celebrating the plan to replace the bridge and we received money from the government to help the net cost. on multiple occasions with the secretary of transportation. what i like to see is that money come in so it will allow us not just to fix the bridge but free other bridges. i am proud that the head of the
commuter council has now endorsed my candidacy and indicated to people that they would be foolish to vote for tom foley. doing ine transportation is very important and we will continue the unprecedented investment. >> mr. foley, your remodel. article said you did raid the transportation fund just not for 180 $9 million as was claimed. $40 million is a lot of money to most people in connecticut area do listen. you say you invested a lot of money in our transportation infrastructure. you drive around connecticut. you see our roads and bridges. you ride on metro-north and other mass transit. do you think a lot of money has been spent on transportation infrastructure? where has the money gone. please explain it to us. we simply do not believe you. i have some ideas to reduce trash it -- traffic congestion.
in other states in some instances, they use tolls for traffic management to reduce congestion and there are other good ideas out there. you're not pursuing any of those ideas for sticking with the plan that's not working. >> your rebuttal? >> no thank you. the issue of gun control continues to divide the state. should the post-sandy hook changes such as banning certain assault weapons be extended or rolled back? should they be left as they are now? as someone who takes the safety of our citizens seriously, i am proud of the changes we made with respect to gun laws that are making people safer. i'm proud we are going to have universal background checks and limiting the size and capacity of the weapons to get 94 shots
off in just a few minutes. that's what happened that sandy hook. we also said in the future we don't want these weapons of mass destruction to be sold in our state. i believe in all of that. i believe we need to invest in mental health and that's why we're doing it as well. foley, ist, tom telling you that he would repeal that law. that law that allowed us to lower homicides by 32% in 2013. that law that's making children safer in schools and on the streets of bridgeport hartford, new haven. that law which we came together on a bipartisan basis in the minority leader of the state senate championing that legislation. and larry coming from an urban environment championed it as well. tom foley will repeal it. i will never, ever do that. >> mr. foley.
governor malloy is, again, not telling the truth. i never said i would repeal the gun law and i won't. has notlaw he passed made people in connecticut any safer. we had a terrible tragedy in newton. to the governor through themedia please, let's fix problem. let's figure out the cause of the problem and let's address it. let's not do an overreaching gun bill, which is what he did. the source of the problem was mental health. opportunity had an to address mental health issues here in connecticut, which i would like to address as governor. it's a serious problem. there's not enough care for certain people with certain mental health problems.
he had an opportunity to take a good policy direction as a and instead hewn went off in a direction that was unnecessary and when he did, he took away the rights of the people who consider those rights important. you recognize in our debate tuesday night that those rights exist and they are important. why did you take them away? we are not any safer? this inconvenienced a lot of people. i want to move on and address things that are more important down the road in the future like jobs, the economy, getting control of spending in the state. >> mr. malloy, your rebuttal. foley, i've had a lot of respect for you over the years. but tonight you've just told everybody in this state something that's not true. you have said repeatedly that you would sign a repeal of the gun law. you said it month after month after month. and now that you understand that people are catching on to what
you would do to their children, their streets, their urban environments, and now you want to fishtail around and flop that can force, have it both ways. let me be clear that it is a gentleman, there's only one candidate out of three running for governor who will never sign a repeal, never advocate for repeal. my opponent has done those things. if you believe as i do that these laws are making us safer, that they are connected with a declining homicide rate in our city, then you should vote for me. if you believe convenience is more important than the laws, that i guess you will vote for someone else. hunt.nter can still gun owners can still own their guns. the people who had i capacity magazines still have them but we are building a safer connecticut. take care of your children. dad's, teach them responsibility.
the let's not go back to where we were on december 11. >> governor, when you started the rebuttal, you said let me be perfectly clear and then you said something that was not true. let me tell you what i said. the governor does not make the laws in connecticut. when i was asked if the legislature passed a bill to of the gun law or the gun law in its entirety i said i would not veto it. that's not saying i would secret appeal. i never said that and i won't. that's be truthful with the audience and the citizens. [laughter] audience, please. moving on to question six unless there is a further rebuttal? jane bernstein. >> this comes from the yukon
undergraduate student government-- uconn. how does your plan plan to primary and secondary education in connecticut? >> the governor had an education reform bill that i call education reform light. it did not include things to have a high impact on educational outcomes like in other states. it mandated a number of things on all schools in connecticut including schools that are doing very well. we have some of the best schools in addition to some that simply do not perform every well -- very well. don't go fixing things that are not broken. he imposed common core standards on schools that are performing to different assessments that they are satisfied with. they are doing a good job with educational outcomes. i don't know why he would do that. he imposed a valuation on
teachers statewide. they were mandated in school districts and even the local control was working well and they had their own teacher evaluations. i think this governor made a tremendous mistake in both the way his education reform bill was conceived and it was never really implemented property. it was not funded. he did not fight for funding and the legislature. most of these were never implemented. i do not believe we should mandate common core across the state. i believe that was a mistake. i won't do it when i'm governor. >> common core was instituted by the republican governor of connecticut. yes, we are in the process of implementing it. i'm working with school district all across the state to make that as easy as possible. that's why we've made millions and millions of dollars in technology grants to school systems. that's why we're reaching out
even as we speak to the federal government to make sure we can lessen the amount of tests that 11th graders would take. tom talks about teachers to let me share something with you. t did teacher union seven doors to my candidacy. they did that after they saw what tom wants to do. he wants to get failing grades to schools. he wants to take money away from schools that are poorer performing and give it to other schools in the district. he wants to play a game with language and pretend that high-performing schools are not busting at the door. he talks about allowing people to go to those schools when i don't know of a single high-performing school in the state of connecticut that is already not filled. his plan would be a disaster if you live in an urban environment. his plan would be a disaster if you live in the second district or some of the poorer districts that are not urban. i have sent more money to your towns and i'm going to continue
to do that if governor. that's a promise i'm already kept and will continue to keep in the next four years. >> mr. foley, rebuttal? >> listen. the two things i proposed, this was in my urban plan. most of our underperforming schools are in the cities. proposed a system so that parents understand how well the in is their child is doing to make a decision about whether or not they want to move them to another school. you heard malloy said i want to give schools a grade. you said you have already given them an f grade. it was an fomented by massachusetts and florida, two states that used to be behind us in our educational outcomes and have since passed us. massachusetts is number one. this is something that has been
proven to work. aboutor, you are talking taking money away from schools. workedllows the child . the marketplace works. we do not want to spend taxpayer money supporting schools that are not doing a good job educating arielle people. there's no point rewarding failure. you are reconstituting schools under your commissioners network. that's exactly what this would do. if an underperforming school is not getting the funds it needs, it gets reconstituted and set up to perform better. >> mr. malloy. >> if you want more schools to lose money and get worse as a result, vote for tom foley. if you believe what he is saying with a-f and i have given schools that have competed to be in the commissioners network an he simply does not
understand what we are already doing. we are proving turnaround models here in connecticut. in some cases they replicate models in massachusetts and elsewhere and in some cases they are homegrown by teachers coming up with a plan for higher student achievement. we are working together for the first time in a long time. the battle was tough, but we are there now. graduation rates are going up rapidly particularly in the urban environment like bridgeport, new haven, hartford. they've seen an increasing graduation rates of 10% in the last few years. tom proposing are dangerous and i urge you not to accept his explanation. if you want your school to get an "f," he's your guy. >> mr. foley. you areerstand what doing. you're not giving a decent education to 100,000 young people in connecticut. it is absolutely shameful.
you should be doing much more. to be claiming credit for what you have done is absurd. listen. you have done exactly what i'm talking about doing, but you do not want to degrade everybody and you want to keep giving schools thaty to are underperforming. this is not solving a problem. workalk about the tough you've done. this situation is not getting better. you refer only to the 12th grade reading test -- and a fourth grade -- that have gotten worse in connecticut while you have been governor. two beats one, if you understand math. the achievement gap in connecticut is worse since you became governor than three and a half years ago. guess what? connecticut has the worst achievement gap in the country. a little more humility on the progress you've made. you can talk about things you
said you are going to do but you've made zero progress on education. >> i will stand by the teachers union who have looked at your plan. tom, explain to people how taking money away from a poor school will make it better. try that with teachers in the room. try to explain how taking resources from districts already fairly stretched will do that. this is a very important issue. tom talked about where we are. all of the decline occurred administration. we were number one with a democratic governor and we will be number one again with a democratic governor. >> mr. foley. malloy receives very large contributions from unions, over $900,000 contributed by as an-sector unions independent expenditure supporting his campaign -- >> i have to cut you off because
your three minutes are done for this question. we will take another break. when we come back, more questions and closing statements from the candidates. stay with us. ♪ ♪ >> welcome back. the final question has to do with personality and character. chris keating has the next question. greatests been the influence on your decision to go into politics and why? >> my mother was. i grew up with very serious learning and physical disabilities that took years to overcome. some people in those days it referred to me as mentally
retarded. my mother knew that it was not true. she also had a different message. i have an obligation to leave the world a better place than having lived in it. it's what kept me going when i had to listen to all of my textbooks on recorded books for the blind and make a decision about whether i would apply to law school knowing there was via a test one day that i might not pass if i did not make a lot of progress. graduated magna cum laude from boston college, i went to law school, i took the bar exam in three different states. i was the first to take the exam or really who was not blind -- exam orally who wasn't blind. i had nothing to do with that and i had not been part of state government with the deficit, but we worked together. those words that my mother said to me almost every day that we shared this earth together, you
have an obligation to leave the world a better place because you were in it. every morning i could look myself in the mirror and say i'm doing my best, mom. >> mr. foley. >> i finally found something we agree on. it was my mother who also got me interested in politics because her family had been very involved in politics and wisconsin. we talked a lot about public service and making our communities and the world a better place and doing that by backing candidates, getting involved in the political process. no one had ever run. i got to understand how much to shape the future and people's lives. i took a step over and decided to run for office. of people i admire you served in public office. teddy roosevelt was an
extraordinary person and of course ronald reagan was an extraordinary person going back to our founders and of course president lincoln. the thing i most admired about them or their character. they were honest, truthful with the citizens. were ethically above reproach and they were guided by principles and they supported the constitution of the united states. they supported the principles that made this country so great. that's what motivated me. those are the people i would look to for guidance as governor and serving in elected public office. >> hard to imagine you would want to rebut each other, but you do have time left on the clock if there's more you would like to say? >> i would like to say something, tom has attacked my integrity several times tonight and i've kept quiet about it, but i want to say that is not the way we treat one another.
certainly someone in a glass house probably should not be throwing stones. i was not the person who was commissione election $16,000. i was the one who did not fail to disclose to the fbi that i had been arrested. i'm not the one who did not tell the full truth about an evident -- evidence you struck women in your car going as fast as 50 miles per hour. another person who denied to get that police report. you've said a lot of things about me, but this is what i want people to understand. i was a prosecutor. i tried 23 felony cases over 18 months, convictions and 82 of them -- 22 of them. a lot of the investigations i did had to do with sexual assault and making people understand the loss we could build a case against perpetrators. i'm proud of that record, what i
did, and when i was in the district attorney's office. it's one of the reasons i took community policing to stamford and brought it to other communities in the state. i have other inspirations but i can look what's going on in other places and understand that people don't always do what you do. they do not bankrupt companies. they do not lay off workers. they do not treat people the way you've treated them in the past. you've questioned me and my integrity. i would not have done that to you nor would i have brought the subject up but for the fact you've gone a little over the top. >> mr. foley, a response? >> have you seen any of your attack ads? [laughter] a prosecutor. you are a better prosecutor then you were governor. you repeatedly have not been truthful about things you said about me including tonight. i think an important aspect of leadership is being truthful.
you referred to a fine. but you wereined, investigated for corruption in stamford. you were investigated for corruption. i'm not sure what all of these things were talking about, most of which are not true, but even if they were they happened 25-30 years ago. yet you are telling people on i'm sureon when they would much rather hear about your plan for getting the state back on track and getting the economy going so we can create jobs and get people's lives moving forward. >> if you believe in telling the truth, tell us how you lost 2.8 million dollars in two years and why you did not pay any income tax in 2011 or 2012? why did you disclose that information to the public so they can put in context what you call is a great business career. that's the second time you brought up the investigation. you should tell the people i was
cleared and thanked the prosecutor for my frankness and giving them documents they could not have otherwise received. what you are doing is trying to imply that somehow i'm corrupt. i'm not. people who work with me now that's the case. they may have disagreements with me. they may not agree with the policies of implemented. they understand i worked really, really hard, sometimes too hard. perhaps sometimes i take the work too seriously. that's a charge i will plead guilty to. i've never been charged with hitting another car five times that had two women in it and then lying to the fbi about it. you did that. you got a job as a result of not disclosing that information and then you told us it was a minor traffic offense. no one in this room thinks hitting a car at 50 miles an hour five times is minor. mr. foley, you have two minutes and 55 seconds of rebuttal time left if you care
.o >> there were never any charges filed. it was dismissed. you say to bring up the fact he were investigated for corruption and it was dismissed means i should not bring it up? you are a prosecutor. not get that people do investigated when there's not a lot of suspicion or reason to suspect that something went wrong. a lot of people not charged with things, they just could not get the proof for there was not enough evidence. listen. we can call a truce on this, which i think would serve the connecticut citizens well, or we can keep it going. is your plan going forward? you have not talked about how you will reduce spending. you say you will not increase taxes but without reducing spending, you have to increase taxes. your corporate welfare program is not working.
august.3600 jobs in why don't you tell us how you are going to solve that problem. we are not hearing any new ideas or literally any plans that you have for the state of connecticut if reelected. need to move on to closing statements now. i have to inform you we have enough time left for each of you to take 60 seconds for your closing statement rather than 90. mr. malloy first. >> thank you for tuning in. we're making progress in connecticut. tom might try to deny that time and time again, but if you look at the cranes up in stamford, you understand things are being built. abc the cranes in new haven, a company that left years ago is coming back. bioscience is growing rapidly not only in new haven but in farmington. you understand we are making
massive new investment in that community as well. , youu are from torrington understand we are investing in your community. if you are in hartford, you are celebrating 1500 units of housing no one ever thought was possible. if you work for united technologies or anyone of their 75,000 folks who supply them, you understand striking that deal saved jobs in our state. >> wister foley. >> and four and a half weeks you will be making a very important decision. do you agree with governor malloy that everything's ok in connecticut? or do you agree with me that under governor malloy we've lost a lot of ground here in connecticut and we are on the wrong track? governor malloy slapped the largest tax increase on you and your family in connecticut history slowing down the economy. he's failed to get spending under control. he is wasting billions of your taxpayer dollars giving it to
large corporations and the job corporation simply is not working. he's not talking about any plans he has to fix this. i've talked about lowering taxes, getting control over spending, reducing job growth back. with new leadership and smarter policies, we can get this state going again. working together, we can restore pride and prosperity here in connecticut. thank you for listening. >> esther foley and mr. malloy, thank you very much. but concludes the fox connecticut and "the hartford courant" gubernatorial debate. thank you to the connecticut daily newspaper association, the league of women voters. and to uconn for letting us use this facility. good night. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> if you'd like to watch this or any other debate we've covered the season they are available on our website, www.c-span.org.
is a look at some of the ads running in the oklahoma governor's race. i'm joe dorman. in my hometown, my mom lives close by. here, i learned to stretch every dollar to support the second amendment and to value my public education. i will improve schools by taking franchise tax revenue out of the hands of legislators and using those funds for classroom instruction. no exceptions. i'm joe dorman. i will be a fiscally responsible, pro-gun, pro-education governor. the last 20 years have challenged us in ways we've never imagined it but we've come through stronger, tougher, better. the leadership of governor mary fallin, oklahoma has changed for the better. she made the economy her top priority and today, we are a
leader in job growth attracting new business opportunity. she promised to make government smaller and she has closing a budget shortfall and balancing the budget while cutting taxes. she stood up against an intrusive federal government fighting obamacare and an out-of-control epa. when we face our greatest challenges, she was there. to lead ahand, prayer, share a hug. it's what makes her who she is -- a leader. our governor, mary fallin. because no one cares more about oklahoma -- no one. >> i'm joe dorman. as governor, i will always put oklahoma first. mary fallin sided with washington bureaucrats on common core and when she beat three second amendment bills, i worked with leaders in both parties to override her veto. rating and a champion
for our schools. who doesd a governor not care what washington thinks and put oklahoma first. of thean.org has all debates we've covered this election season. here's a look at the debate between the candidates for texas governor's office where democrat wendy davis faces republican greg abbott. >> it's incredibly important whenever we talk to a woman whose a victim of rape or that we start with the compassion and support they deserve. that's what i've done is attorney general by providing a record amount of financial support to the dems, victims organizations, supporting women who have been victims of rape and. that's when i'm done as attorney general by arresting more sexual
predators than all attorneys general in history of the state of texas, but you bring up the issue. you know that i'm pro-life. i'm catholic. i want to promote a culture of life that supports the health and safety of both the mother and child, both before and after birth. in texas, let's be clear about the law. the woman has five months to make a very difficult decision. >> thank you, senator davis. >> you catapulted into the spotlight on this issue with your filibuster against abortion restrictions, but you recently told the editorial board of "the dallas morning news" that you might not have filibustered if it only banned after 30 weeks with allowances for rape or. what kind of restrictions are you willing to accept?
>> i've always believed that it's for a woman, a woman guided by her face, her family, her. her, to make these very difficult decisions for themselves. i do not think the government should intrude in that most personal and private of decision-making. greg abbott on the other hand believes that it is his right to woman hasen when a been the brutal victim of a rape or the victim of. this should come as no surprise to us given that mr. abbott's attitudes toward women have revealed themselves in other ways. he's payed women in his office -- he's paid women in his office less than he's campaigned with a known sexual predator who has bragged about having sex with underage girls. thank you. >> on saturday, the candidates
for the open montana house seatmate for their first debate. john lewis, a former staffer for max baucus, and ryan zinke competing to replace congressman stephen daines. live coverage at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span's 2015 student cam competition is underway. this competition for middle and high school students will award 150 prizes totaling $100,000. create a 5-57 minute documentary on this topic -- the three branches and you -- a 5-7 minute documentary. studentcam.org for more information. grab a camera and get started today. >> on the next "washington journal," the latino agenda in the 2014 election.
our guest is crystal ball -- cristobal alex. schlapp from the american conservative union. the latest u.s. census bureau report on poverty and income for 2013. our guest are charles nelson and gnome leavy -- noam levey. live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> here are just a few of the comments we've recently received from our viewers. >> i just watched this c-span "q and a" interview and i enjoyed her interview. .he is inspiring her comments about spirituality, i would really like to see another interview with her. >> i would like to complement
c-span on their coverage of the representative gutierrez of texas. i was a wonderful segment. you will probably do that again and i thoroughly enjoyed it. >> i just watched a segment you had eli on from "the daily beast." you said that he is a frequent guest. please widen your scope. i think he was very limited in and there are far more serious experts to have on your program. youes, i would like to tell how much i enjoyed and how informative this kevin barrons guy was. it was really interesting and i think he's very knowledgeable. you should have him on again. i wonder when this will repeat. >> continue to let us know. call us.
@c-span.orat comments @cspantweet us #comments. about the discussion upcoming midterm elections and political tracks. thursday, charlie cook joined former pollsters for president bill clinton and mitt romney at an event hosted by "the national journal." this is 90 minutes. [applause] >> thank you for sponsoring these. i'm still waiting for my free helicopter. in montgomery county, maryland, oneubt you can land anywhere. anyway, the peoples republic of montgomery county. thank you all for coming out. we have a great crowd and i'm really 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 to 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 competing theories of what the 2014 midterm elections could be about.
one theory was some of the challenges facing the republican party in 2012 which 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 arty, 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 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. [laughter] republicans are doing really well with the pre-dead and not so well with the future. then you can slice and dice it, there are some specific challenges that are rubble met at or 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 may develop in those two elections of nominating exotic and potentially problematic equal. 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. war republicans going to nominate again some of these people that would have a chance to seize defeat from the jaws of victory? these are real challenges facing the republican party. on the other hand, one arm and term elections about? it's a referendum on the come in president will stop occasionally, there's an exception to the rule. bill clinton's election turned out to be a backlash against impeachment. 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 him 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 disapproval and the low to mid 50's. lousy approval ratings on the economy, handling foreign policy, think of the wall street journal poll -- neil's from is the republican half of that whole 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 prose year 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 it 13. that's just a bit above the range of the likely out comes. 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 seat up in states romney carried and only
one republican seat up in a republican state and that's susan collins of maine -- she could not 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 2014 i would not want to be a democrat running for front -- running for federal office. it 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 it 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 hand, 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 biologists are 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. >> 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%. [laughter] 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 enthusiastic vote. [laughter] when they are able to turn out 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 hear about the intensity advantage, cautionary tale. i saw those numbers. we don't have 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 both? can we? how close is north carolina i've learned a lot of valuable lessons in working the romney campaign; an unenthusiastic vote counts just as much as an enthusiastic vote. 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. 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. 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 -- but you should know that this is the future because my schedule said
that charlie palmer, but my uber app sent my car there. so it was automatically programmed, and what i said when i walked in, i said maybe 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. 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 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 part 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 recognized the change. 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 bipartisan 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 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. 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 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 democratic is because they began associating those candidates with their parties. 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 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, but 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 with women. 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 always have, 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 -- 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. you'll see it's a much more complicated issue than that. the 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 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. 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'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 -- >> no, to 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 says, wave your hand in a nonthreatening fashion, and we'll come to you. there's one. >> 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 district 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 each of the models were doing, what larry sabato, i should have mentioned earlier, 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 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 -- [inaudible] 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, 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 -- [inaudible] 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 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 -- [inaudible] and there was a reality show that had the -- it was taking
some alaskan women and taking them to florida that were single. [laughter] kind of an interesting premise. >> where's this leading? [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, 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 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. >> the 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. for some reason there has been some resistance or inability for republicans to knock off incumbents. so, yes, they do have to overcome that to get the majority. okay, where is the next question? 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 -- >> 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 surface 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 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 -- 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 penetration of market, saturation into the market in which they just -- people roll their eyes. the 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 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. >> [inaudible] >> 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 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, 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 excepted 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 as 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 focusing on these issues instead of jobs, 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. so i think you're seeing some shifts there. colorado is still a tough state. 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. 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 joanie's campaign -- 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 feeling on bare row? >> nope. >> 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 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. but at the same time, and everybody up here has seen candidates that were able to survive and 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 carolina, 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. as i remember, it's 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 so far this year et looks like finish it looks like he's
working so that if you told me democrats were going to lose ten seats nationwide, i don't think barrow's would be in 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 already picked. so it's just sort of a mop-up operation after that. i think barrow's going to be okay. if you saw early on -- and georgia's not one of the first states, but relatively early -- if you saw barrow going down,
you'd be saying, okay, democrats may be having an even worse night than we had thought. 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 -- 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] >> not to name anybody but, yeah, okay. >> so west virginia, kentucky, that's just sort of where it all comes together. 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. 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 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.
you see that in all of our states right now where republicans are doing much better among men and not as well among women. is ask 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. everything neil said was absolutely right. >> 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 men outside that heartland, there have been no trend against democrat, no shift against democrats outside of the republican -- >> while we're on sort of the gender thing and i'm not going gendere we're on the thing, and i'm not going to put either of you on the spot, even though i suspect you both have work in louisiana this cnn pollt there was a couple weeks ago that showed mary landthe
drew-phil cassidy race that gender gapctively no whatsoever. i have not seen cross tabs in the state,urveys in so i don't know whether that was just an anomaly in that poll or there was a pattern and some unique reason why she wasn't doing better among women than men. >> that's an anomaly. a good warning. take every poll you look at with a grain of salt. when you start looking at independent voters or women or african-americans or hispanics, you know what, the margin errornd the on those things can vary dramatically. how that sampling is done can vary. if something doesn't seem right, right.obably not probably --