tv Charlie Rose PBS November 3, 2014 12:00pm-1:01pm PST
>> charlie: well come to the program. we begin this evening with a new feature on our nightly edition, asking the best journalist we know to come and contribute as contributors, whether an interview or story, and we begin where we should, with al hunt of bloomberg view. tonight, secretary of state john kerry. >> let me use this program to deliver a very clear message to the iranians which is this is not a political decision for us. this is a substantive decision based on the proof of a peaceful program. it's not hard to prove your program is peaceful if that's what you want to do. so outside leverage, you know,
syria, i.s.i.l., whatever, is not relevant to. this it's not affecting us one way or the other. we have one set of criteria in our mind. >> charlie: we conclude with our political panel looking at the med-term elections. david lee, john dickerson, nancy corps december and anthony salbano. >> the democrats have been talking about the republicans nonstop. you look in north carolina, for example, not only is tom tillis talking about kay hagan's relationship with president obama but crossroads, super pac republicans running three adds against kay hagan, all saying she voted with barack obama 90% of the time, connected to barack obama. on the house side, national republican organization dealing with house races. almost all their commercials make this connection with barack obama. the problem for democrat, have
state john kerry. well come, mr. secretary. >> i'm honored to be with you in your first outing here. >> albert: thank you for joining us. we have so much to talk about. the deadline of the iranian nuclear negotiations is november 24. what are the odds of having a deal by then or being close enough to have an extension? >> i honestly can't give you odds and i wouldn't. i think i'm hopeful, but it's a very tough negotiation. there are still gaps that are fairly wide on a number of subjects. >> albert: are you getting closer? >> well, we're closer than a week ago or ten weeks ago, but we're still with big gaps. we have critical weeks ahead of us. i think the stakes for the world are enormous. i hope the iranians will not get stuck in a tree of their own
making on one demand or another in order to try to find a way together. and we're hopeful. we'll do our best, but we have to close off all pathways to a nuclear weapon, and we have to have enough breakout time in order to be able to guarantee the security of everybody who's concerned about this. >> albert: in these next three and a half weeks, do you have any plans to meet with high-level iranians on this issue? >> oh, absolutely. we're going to -- >> albert: so you will have meetings in the next couple of weeks? >> yes, i will. i have a meeting the 9th of november. i'll be meeting with the foreign minister directly. we'll have two days. we will be beginning a slog of going into the last two weeks. our expert team will be on the ground with a constant process. we'll be in vienna for the final days with the p5+1, all of us together, trying to come to some kind of an agreement. >> albert: mr. secretary, there are reports that the iranians believe, they've indicated to some people that their leverage has been enhanced in these negotiations because of their role in fighting i.s.i.s. is that a correct reading? >> well, let me use this program to deliver a very clear message
to the iranians, which is this is not a political decision for us. this is a substantive decision based on the proof of a peaceful program. it's not hard to prove your program is peaceful if that's what you want to do. so outside leverage, you know, syria, i.s.i.l., whatever, is not relevant to this. it's not affecting us one way or the other. we have one set of criteria in our mind. there are four pathways to a nuclear weapon. one a secret underground facility, one is the natans in richmond facility known to everybody, you know, sort of well-identified building. the third is the iraq as it is
called plutonium, heavy water reactor, and the fourth is the covert -- you know, whatever you aren't sure of because it's not clear to you and, therefore, you need sufficient verification and sufficient transparency to be able to determine there isn't that path being pursued. that's things like, for instance, knowing you have an eye on the production of uranium and how much uranium and where it's going and how many centrifuges and those kind of things. those four pathways need to be closed off. we're looking to the iranians to be as responsible as they've said they will be and as forthcoming as they promised which is to be transparent and allow the proof of this peaceful program. >> albert: you talked about i.s.i.l. let me ask you a few questions about that. it's been several months since president obama promised to
degrade and destroy the islamic terrorists. you have said repeatedly this is going to be a long fight, but over those several months is there any indication that they have really been degraded? >> oh, absolutely. there's a clarity to that. i mean, they have a limited supply of the heavy weapons that they captured when they, you know, routed portions to the iraqi army and as they marched through anbar province. we have been, day by day, destroying those. >> albert: so you think they are a lot weaker than a month or two ago? >> there's no question in my mind they have been stopped in their momentum. that was target number one. the point is, al, there's a very clear strategy which the president is implementing. the first part of that strategy was to make sure we had a government to work with in iraq, and the president made it clear he was not going to engage in
strikes and in a major effort till we knew we were on that path. successfully, the iraqis have chosen a new government, and that new government is working diligently to help resuscitate the iraqi army itself, to put new generals in, to reconstitute and to help outside marshals in the coalition to come together to help them. the second thing is to stop i.s.i.l. in sinjar mountain or at the dam or amerli where they were laying siege. we've begun to take strikes to their command headquarters, to oil production facilities they use to sell to get money, and step by step, that will deteriorate their command and control, training centers, supplies.
this is a long haul, i've said that from the beginning. >> one of the keys, if you choke off their money, they're the best financed terrorist group in the history of the world, up to $5 million a year by some estimates. how can you can choke or can you choke most of that off? >> we're working with measures in concert with many other countries to close down avenues for banking, transfers, to identify people who are large donors and to block that and also to identify the means by which they're collecting money in smaller sums but larger numbers of people. all of these avenues are being pursued. in addition, we're pursuing a delegitimization effort that involves the council in saudi arabia that issues fatwas, the imams, cleric, ayatollahs,
people across islam that are speaking out to discredit claims that i.s.i.s. made with so-called legitimacy toward islam. that's a major step. >> albert: you put together the coalition, mostly the arab countries. how much will they pay for this war, the sunni countries? are they delivering? >> there's not a specific sum but a pretty open-ended commitment by a lot of countries to do whatever it takes in order to guarantee that i.s.i.l. is defeated, and that includes saudi arabia, the emirates, others in the region who are deeply committed to this effort, and they've proven it. they've put themselves online in ways that they never have before. we have said this will take time and it will take time, but i am convinced that because every country in the region is threatened, and countries that
aren't directly in the region, even russia that has been supporting assad, for instance, knows there are about a thousand chechnyans in syria fighting with i.s.i.l. and that's a threat to them. >> albert: so it's in their interest -- and we're helping put together some kind of coalition government in iraq because that's essential, you said, to this fight. is it at all possible to think about that in syria and have the russians and iranians acting in their own cente interest to put together a coalition to take on i.s.i.l. that may involve assad and the free syrians? >> we are talking with the russians and raised the subjects with the saudi arabians and others in the region about how to deal with syria in a more concerted way. it is greatly complicated, obviously, by assad, who is the magnet for most of these
fighters coming in. they came there originally to fight assad and, for a number of different reasons, that broadened into this other entity, into i.s.i.l. but i.s.i.l. isn't alone in presenting a threat to the region. assad, you have al-musra and a number of different groups but they've all come to take on al-assad. the bottom line is you won't have peace in syria ultimately as long as assad remains the focus of power and the center magnet, if you will, for extremism, it's impossible to envision that. i think the russians and iranians deep down understand that. the question, now, is how do you focus on iraq first, stop them from growing in syria, then
begin to bring more pressure to bear on them in syria. but it will not take away the of theridge tha -- of the region that assad ultimately has to go because he is the magnet and you can't stop it with him there. >> albert: is this the time to recognize a kurdish state? >> no, it's distinctly not the time for a lot of different reasons. we need to take one thing at a time here, and i think president barzani understands that, which is why he helped in the creation of this new government in baghdad. the kurds joined into that effort. they realized it was important to be unified and concerted in this effort against i.s.i.l., and that would be very
disruptive with respect to the coalition. >> albert: "washington post" had a story this week that our ties with turkey have frayed, that they're crumbling. is that the relationship? >> no, they're not crumbling but it would be disingenuous to say there haven't been some pensions over the questions of what exactly is turkey prepared to do to help on some of the fundamentals. now, i think we've made progress on that. alan has been in the region and been meeting with them. they have committed to a number of different important efforts within the coalition, training and helping. but they have a concern. their concern is assad, and they view assad as a significant component of i.s.i.l. in a sense because of his degree of attracting people there. they also have a problem with
the pkk, the kurdish terrorists within turkey itself. it's complicated, as a result. so they want to know that the strategy going forward is fully thought out, fully articulated, clear to them and one they can buy into, and we're working on that. >> albert: you are going to china next week. at one point when you're there and probably when the president is there, too, if the chinese seem to be retreating on their commitments to hong kong for autonomy and free elections, what message are you going to deliver on that issue when you're in china? >> well, we've delivered the message. we've already delivered the message publicly. you know, we obviously are for democracy. we want people to have the right to vote. at the same time, we understand that, you know, if people are blocking streets and engaging in civil disobedience, we have our
own approaches to civil disobedience here in our country. we need to sort of, you know, recognize that if you're engaged in civil disobedience, there are consequences, but we support the dialogue, we want them to come together. we'd like to see it evolve as carefully as possible. >> albert: north korea, are they being helpful as far as providing intelligence as to what's happening there? it's been really weird. >> yeah, the chinese are being helpful. they have taken measurers way beyond where they were a year ago. when i went to visit last spring, we engaged in a discussion where they agreed to step up their efforts with the north, and they have. they've actually reduced the amount of jet fuel going into the country. they've put limitations on trade going into the country. they've had at least five, maybe six visits -- five, i think --
with president park of south korea. they haven't met once with kim jong-un. >> albert: do you have a sense of what's going on in the north? >> we do. we think kim jong-un is trying to consolidate. he's got concerns about what's happening with respect to the human rights accountability and exposeé of his country. his economy is not great. they're concerned about the south, if there were a reconciliation, sort of engulfing them. and there are other concerns he has, obviously -- what's happening with the elites in his country, what's happening with the control of military and so forth. my judgment is that -- and this is the chinese judgment, too -- is there is an uncertainty where he wants to go, what he hopes to
do. the hope of the chinese is we can get back to six-party talks sooner than later. our hope is likewise. we're going to do it not just for the sake of talking. we want to know that north korea is prepared to discuss denuclearization. we can come back to those talks and we've offered all kinds of alternative realities to the north that if they did come back and engage in denuclearization, there is a path they could receive ultimately a normal working relationship with the rest of the world and economic engagement and other things. >> albert: you mentioned russia and ukraine a moment ago. i think americans are a little unsure of the russian-ukraine policy and seems sanctions alone aren't going to secure ukraine. have we basically given up? is there any chance of diplomacy with putten?
>> i met with lavrov in paris a few weeks ago, we talked about various approaches. there's a minsk agreement in place, a timetable for things to be done by a certain period of time in december. we're concerned that the recent russian statement about supporting the separatists elections on november 2nd, that that's outside the minsk agreement and we would not view those as legitimate and that could be problematic. that they just got a gas deal in the last 24 hours between ukraine and russia. there has been some indication of troops moving away and some reduction of violence, but it's very, you know, start and stop. it's not sufficient yet to satisfy anybody and i think we're concerned. but the sanctions have held, the sanctions are having an impact. the ruble is the lowest level it's been since the euro was
introduced in 1999. they have spent billions of dollars trying to support the ruble. oil is down hovering in the low 80s, somewhere in that vicinity, that has a profound impact on the russian budget and economy. their gdp is going backwards, not forwards growth, so they have some serious challenges. our desire is to see the full implementation of the minsk agreements and move to deescalate the confrontation which we don't think is doing anybody any good. ukraine should not be fought over in the way putin appears it has to be. we believe it can associate with west, with the east, can be a strong relationship with russia and a strong relationship with europe and could be a bridge between the two, but president putin really needs to decide that he wants to respect
the sovereign rights of the people of ukraine to make that decision for themselves and to work with us in a constructive way rather than to attack the norms of behavior and the standards which have guided us ever since world war ii. >> albert: secretary kerry, thank you. we've covered a lot today. we appreciate it. back in a moment with charlie rose. >> charlie: american voters go to the polls tuesday for the mid-term elections. the g.o.p. is expected to make gains in both the senate and house of representatives. many believe they will unseat enough democrats to gain a majority in the senate, making the remaining two years of president obama's presidency especially difficult. but it is not a foregone conclusion from louisiana to colorado, north carolina, to alaska, several senate races remain wide open. joining me from washington, david len hart, the manage of the "new york times" data driven upsight. john dickerson, political
director of cbs news and chief political correspondent for slate magazine. nancnancy cordes with cbs. anthony, tell me what it looks like today both in terms of the numbers on a friday and secondly how you get these numbers and how accurate do we think they might be? >> all throughout the campaign the reps have an edge. comes from a couple of different places, that they have options and a lot of states in play. we start with a sorn southern-leaning map. a lot of competitive states through south -- north carolina, georgia, arkansas, louisiana. so that just by the nature of the conservative voters down there favors them a bit. we see them expanding the map into more blue, democrat' leaning territory. new hampshire is in play, though still leaning democrat. but colorado and iowa, two states where the democrats really have to hang on.
they're democratic leaning states but right now they're tight, maybe even republicans up a point or two and if those go, well, i think that's the republican majority there. >> charlie: john dickerson, what's the biggest issue? >> the president. both sides have been talking about the president constantly and nonstop. their closing argument is on the president both in the house and the senate. you look in north carolina, for example, not only is tom tillis talking about kay hagan's relationship with president obama but cross rhodes, super pac support republicans running three ads in the final weeks making the point she voted for barack obama 90% of the time, connected to barack obama. on the house side, the national republican organization dealing with house races, almost all their final commercials make this connection with barack obama. democrats have been trying to emphasize every issue but president obama but have had difficulty doing so both because
people are focused on the president but also because of national issues whether ebola or even the secret service scam which doesn't affect people in their lives have been presidentially, nationally focused and takes attention from what they're tight talk about at the local level. >> charlie: if democrats has a chance, what will it be because? better candidates? better get out the vote operation, because -- >> both. because they localize the races and that can take several forms. one, they had the sandbags on the levy which is the turnout operation. that's what will keep the republican tide from getting too -- going too strong and that's basically they targeted the voters and found voters who weren't going to turn out otherwise, who had an affinity with the party -- minimum-wage, women's health -- they found the people and brought them to the polls. the other is what they did with the state to make people care.
while republicans were talking about barack obama, democrats made inroads talking about, that's fine, but here's what i did at the state level and then finally beat up on opponents, north carolina, if kay wins she was able to talk about a tom tillis and the cuts in education he was associated with. people in the local level understand the education piece. they may not understand the president and ebola, but they know what's happening locally on education and if she was able to keep that race local, then that's why she will survive and if there are other democrats that can do that, that will be good for them. >> charlie: national security an issue? >> absolutely. one advantage republicans have had in the final stretch is there was a focus on national a security that nobody expected, talking about i.s.i.s. and ebola and the administration wasn't handling it right, you have republicans running in the key battleground states, in new hampshire, arkansas, alaska,
iowa. all four republican candidates are veterans and have a special insight and can incredibly say, i have been to the battlefield and this administration isn't handling it properly, and that gives their argument a little bit of weight. so this is kind of an unexpected gift for these republican candidates in the final stretch. >> charlie: david in wade in. the biggest issues are the fundamentals. campaigns clearly matter. joni ernst has run a good campaign in iowa. gardner will run a good campaign and others. we are a pretty evenly divided country, slight edge for the democrats. the republicans have an edge because people vote in mid-terms about the president and people aren't happy.
b, the states are fairly republican states. c, the mid-term electorate doesn't look like the presidential electorate. young and minority voters don't vote at the same rates as in the presidential election. this is not a seismic shift. it's an election where each party has advantages and disadvantages. the republican advantages are bigger. maybe they will do a lot or a little better. it doesn't change what we know about american politics. >> it is a motivational election not a persuasion election which is to say republicans throughout the campaign season have been motivated to go to the polls. a majority say they see it as a chance to cast a vote against the city administration. so they're there, and we see that in the polls, too. and this difference between registered voters where democrats do much better, but when you turn on and we call the likely voter model which is you assign more weight to people who tell you they will vote and voted in the past, that makes
the electorate look more conservative and older, 3 to 5 points, and that is the key. >> democrats have been spending tens of millions of dollars to try to change the fundamental fact that republicans come to vote in the mid-terms. they have registered hundreds of thousands of new african-american voters in north carolina, georgia and arkansas. they've got dozens of operatives on the ground in alaska flying into the bush to try to sign up native alaskans. so they're doing what they can to try to get more of their voters to the polls. republicans air a do you, look, if african-americans didn't vote two years ago for an african-american president, the fact the newly registered african-americans are going to go out and vote this time, they think it's probably unlikely. >> my colleague has early voter files in four states and done an analysis and it looks like democrats are turning out younger and minority voters who
didn't vote four years ago. they've actually voted early already. so that could stem some of the democratic losses but doesn't change the fact that even if democrats do well with that kind of get out the vote, the head winds against the democrats are stiff. >> charlie: how do you explain that? we all sat here in 2012 saying what in the world is going to happen to the republican party? the democrats are young, getting hispanic vote which is growing, have better outreach, everything was about the democrats and the resounding victory of president obama. >> it was. but that was in 2012. the conversation was about the friday jillty of the republican coalition. 2014 is as the fragility of the democratic coalition. the electorate is older and whiter and that is the party of the republican party now. the conversation everybody was having after 2012 was about 2016 and how the republicans find a
coalition when the share of voters who are white and older is shrinking. >> charlie: have they found a new coals? >> no. >> charlie: what happened in terms of numbers? >> the fight is happening on their territory. seven of the states in play, mitt romney won, six he won by double digits. this is where when we look at election night and talk about a wave -- and a wave matters because if reps talk the senate, they say we have the country behind us, but if they win six states mitt romney won by double digits, they will have won the senate by proving republicans like republicans. that's not a national wave. if they win all the purple states, they will have a more plausible case to say our ideas were not just convincing republicans in arkansas and louisiana but we convinced the voters in states up for grabs in a presidential year and that gives us a chance to say our message has more resonance in
battlefield is basically our turf. >> it's not just nat the math is on the democrats side this year, it's that five very senior democratic senators decided to retire at once. they probably would have had a good chance of getting reelected. >> charlie: do you think that's the same in 2016? >> yes, we may make a fuss about whether republicans get to 51 on election night. the number might be closer to 53 or 54 because when we get to 2016 and a handful of republicans run in blue states, this isn't about control, it's about cushion. so the next president, this may determine whether the next president has a democratic or republican senate. >> there are nine obama states that have republicans in them. so if we're talking about democrats in seven romney states, there will be nine
states where obama won. >> not only that but you have the people who vote in the presidential election an and thy don't skip the senate line in the ballot which makes 2016 harder for the republicans. 2016 is a good year in terms of fundamentals pore the democrats. >> we ought not to diminish the coming out to vote just because the democrats don't have the same electorate as in 2012. the decision to vote is the first decision in voting. one of the things that handcuffed the democrats in motivating voters this year is they say the economy isn't getting better for them. so you're saying essentially come out and reward us, yet those people are not saying they feel like something's been delivered to them. >> charlie: we do a lot of stories about the economic global economy, u.s. economy, british economy, asian economy, chinese economy, all of that.
the u.s. economy is leading the world in terms of the level of recovery. china still has a bigger economy in terms of growth of gdp but the u.s. is viewed as the leader in the global economic recovery. >> but that does not translate -- >> charlie: i know this is your field so i'm coming there in a moment. first i'm talking about the political aspects of it. >> but that hasn't translated into how people feel. they don't feel they have more money, college is more expensive, kids can't get a job, the jury is out on obamacare, so there's a lot of uncertainty. there's a lot of worry. when people feel like that, it's only natural they will be a little skeptical about the party in control. >> charlie: david? that's exactly right. they feel that way for good reason. i mean, you look at gdp growth and you compare it to europe and japan, they don't look so great, we look better. but the level of gdp growth in this country is still pretty mediocre and when you look at
incomes which is the way people really experience it, it's even more mediocre. so we've had a 15-year period in which american incomes have done poorly, lasted through the second bush presidency, both of george w. bush's terms and the obama presidency. neither party figured out a way to help solve the issue. it makes us understand why we've had whiplash in politics. i think the reason you have all the back and forth which seems so confusing is there is a base level of anxiety and dissatisfaction in the country that comes from the fact that living standards are not increasing particularly rapidly for most americans. >> charlie: john and i were talking this morning about the idea there is a narrative to be written, understood and a solid fundamental to a campaign and probably will include somebody who figures out how to make both
the emotional and intellectual argument to those people who feels like things are worse than they have ever been and worry about their children having a life not as good as what they have and everybody's wish is their kids lives would be better than theirs. >> it's not happening. it's not happening in this campaign. in the battleground states where you have reps talking obama, democrats talking reproductive rights, they will talk about marriage and college loans but it's glancing relative to -- and i was talking to a strategist from one of the unions saying one of the stories on the democratic side may be that they were too narrow casted in trying to turn out and motivate the democratic voters, that in talking about these issues, particularly the women voters, and they should have been talking about the economic issues. >> charlie: and blue collar workers. >> $50,000 a year families and talking about their economic
concerns. now, we can argue whether that is true but i think when we look back andeth a bad night for democrats, this question about what the message should be. >> charlie: did they fail in terms of articulating a message that would resonate? >> that's correct. because they were too scared to talk about the economy. >> charlie: in terms of the house, we expect based on polls that republicans will add seats in the house. does that include tea party seats? >> yes. you have retirements in the house where the candidate who is running to fill a reliably red seat is even more conservative than the person who left it, in several cases. so republicans will pick up i would say anywhere between 5 and 15 -- >> over 10, maybe. if they pick up more than 13 seats, republicans will have the largest majority of any party since 1928. but, you know, you're going to have more tea party types there
now than you have had before. we have been told speaker boehner who has struggled to reconcile the two different sides of his party in the last few years is basically going to look around after election day and say am i really up for two more years of this? >> exactly. so the house is getting redder, then if senate control is delivered by six very red states, why wouldn't a republican from the more conservative wing say we have to dance with those who brung us, which is to say a much more conservative -- that's what won in arkansas, alaska, louisiana, that's the message that won, so forget all this sort of establishment kind of moderation, let's -- you know, let's have programs that appeal to that group. of course, john boehner and others would say and kevin mccarthy the new house majority leader said pretty much the opposite. >> charlie: basically, if they get aelected and don't do that,
it's over in 2016. >> it's interesting, i interviewed senator mcconnell yesterday, went to kentucky, he would be the leader if the senate republicans take control, and even though he's clashed mercilessly with this president for the last six years, he was preaching agreement, saying let's look for areas where we can work together, i want to work with the president on comprehensive tax reform and trade agreements, i don't want two more years of gridlock, i want to meet him in the middle. what's interesting is in the past when he has tried to meet the president in the mid 8, the conservative wing of his party yanked him back. >> his definition of the middle is having the president come to his side. >> i don't think we should take too seriously the claims of bipartisanship we hear from each side. i think the odds are small. >> charlie: including immigration reform? >> that's interesting because many republicans feel they need it but i still think that's below 50%. we're at the funny point in the
country where the times we see big legislation seems to be when one party controls the senate, house and white house. the democrats care about all these things -- immigration, climate change, won five of the last six elections in terms of the popular vote -- but till they they have a strategy for recapturing the house, they won't get what they want. gerrymandering matters but more important is the fact that democrats have increasingly crowded in cities and democrats now win huge margins in the major metropolitan areas but leaves most of the rest of the state that tilts republican in all kinds of states, the only way to redraw districts that lead to a democratic house would be crazy gerrymandering where you take slices and put it out in rural districts. democrats need to win rural voters if they retake the house. >> one thing i would add is
partisanship. even to the extent it is gerrymandering, you cannot draw a line around people and say this is a republican or democratic district unless you know those folks will behave in the same partisan manner every years. the fact is they do. if you go back 20, 30 years, you will see people who cross over and ticket split for the house in other races. it's about 25% now. partisanship in washington starts with voters. >> why you have five democratic senators in red states not replace bid five democratic senators because you're having an ever increasing situation which is how a state votes for president is how they vote for their senator. when you have a republican president and democratic senators, the democratic senators knew their republican
leaning voters will look for them to be more republican themselves and the vice versa was true. now they don't have the same political push to make compromises. >> charlie: what can we say impact of this mid-term election on the presidential run in 2016? either on individual possible candidates or in fact on issues that may emerge? >> i think the 2016 run on the republican side seems to -- i think it will break between legislative group and a governor's group. we haven't talked much about the governors here. but you will see a number of republican governors emerge -- scott walker in wisconsin, in a tough race, chris christie -- who their calling card will be i can run, i can win in a blue state, therefore that's the kind of nominee we need versus a legislative group, the rand pauls, the ted cruzs, paul ryan,
to name drop a few who have been mentioned -- who will take a different tack, maybe more ideological or appeal to the base. i think watching the governor's races out of these mid-terms to see how that starts to split. picking up on the governors point. if scott walker wins, his message will be i governed loud and proud as a conservative and reelected three times. be conservative and you can survive in a purple state. john kasich will win and said i was part of the affordable care act, i did moderating and that's why i won in a battleground state. so you will have two different conversations about what is successful and those states will be seen as proxies for the national conversation. senate races, republicans win in north carolina, colorado, iowa, they can say we've got this
message. if just in the red states, they will have a harder time. >> i think there are a lot of risks for reps when you look at 2016. i think the republicans don't have a plausible path to a national majority in a normal year. that's why they've lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential electiont. if the economy got terrible between now and 2016 or if there were a war, you can see the democrats getting blamed and the republicans winning so i'm not saying the democrats are guaranteed to win. i think until the republicans change the democrats will be the favorite in almost every presidential election because of how well they do among all the vote growing groups in the electorate. young people, latinos, asian-americans. so the risk for republicans is they will fool themselves into thinking they won in ways that translate in the presidential election but in fact most of the reasons they are likely to win next week don't translate and may keep republicans from doing introspection on things like immigration that they probably need to do to get back where
they were in the 1980s when they were the stronger party. >> immigration will be such a test because you've got more moderate, main-stream republicans and the party saying, as david pointed out, we've got to do this if we're ever going to have a hope of winning latino voters. but there is an enormous chunk of republicans especially in the house who say in in my district i have less than 5% hispanic voters and no reason for me to go out on a limb on immigration. that's why it's been shut down time and time again in the house. as far as battleground states. if republicans pick up states like colorado and iowa, it will be a sign republicans are doing better at the get out the vote effort that democrats have been lauded for over the years. they've had the get out the vote coalition and republicans have been incesting in the last couple of years that they're catching up. we didn't have the evidence of
that. hard to know in the absence of a big election like this one, if they're able to win in some of these states, means they're getting closer. >> and this they've found a way to overcome the terrible brand. the republican brand is in terrible shape leading to a lot of people deciding i may not home. if in that situation the republicans can still get their voters to the polls in the purple states, that's another big benefit of the battleground. one thing to mention about legislation if reps take over, and dave can weigh in because there's a great piece in the upshot of affordable care act and who it's helping, and goes back to the question about the economy, because the president and team have said the best thing we'll be able to do in terms of the economy for the middle class is reduce some of the healthcare insecurity, the people who either didn't have it or thought they were one catastrophe or one sickness away from bankruptcy. there's evidence in the up shod about who's getting helped by
this. may be the case the affordable care will help republicans take control of the senate just at the time that bill is no longer under threat, because republicans have basically said repealing it is no longer a possibility even if we take control of the senate. >> charlie: i want to read to you from david brooks, "new york times." your colleagues said the 2014 campaign has been the most boring and uncreative campaign i can remember. do you agree or do you find ways to agree and disagree with it. david? >> i think if you're talking about issues and policies and big ideas, i agree with david, this has not been a debate about big ideas, john earlier mentioned the same thing. it's been relatively uninspiring in terms of grappling with big issues. i think the candidates realize they're not going to do that much in the next two years and if they claim otherwise it won't pass muster. i think from the standpoint of strategy and the closeness of some of these races, i think
it's it from fascinating. i think we go into tuesday night having a good sense it will be a good night for the republicans but a wide variation of outcomes within that and a lot of interesting statements, so i think there's a lot of exciting stuff to look at on tuesday night that matters to the future of the country. >> when you listen to the speeches a lot of the candidates give with the exception of mary landrieu in louisiana, she's kind of all over the map but also an older time type politician, they are so bound up and swaddled in their talking points that they are constricted. they say nothing interesting and it's simply a recitation of a bullet point after another, one talking point after another, both on the republican and the democrat side. in the debates it's hysterical because they stand up like a kid on roller skates terrified they won't be able to get the 38 points into this answer they've been told they need to do, all creative thinking and certain deputy, the only certain deputy is if they don't get the 37t 37th talking point in and they get this look on their face.
it means the way people watch the ads and debates and speeches, it is so shrunking and a shriveled that the way the campaigns play out, it's not interesting at all. >> charlie: it is also today a modern reality that everybody's scared to death because everybody has a smartphone and opposition candidates will point somebody to go with you and making sure, asking you repeated questions just looking for sound bytes that will do what a sound byte did against governor romney in 2012. >> and the other reasons -- the two reasons they want to avoid that 37th point, one is all these are narrow casted. every point is aimed at a particular segment of the electorate they have to turn out and build up to the 51% is. overarching theme really doesn't exist. part of the starting of the primaries, too, when the republicans set out to get the candidates the day, they being the establishment, wanted, so,
you know, if the end depend on the beginning, a lot of this started in may and june, what hasn't happened is that that one candidate for one party hasn't made the catastrophic flub that then goes out on twitter and goes out on social media and then accrues to the brand image for the rest of the party. so they've so far avoided that. they're trying to avoid that, but that's a big part of why. >> when you are out there on the campaign trail, you can't help but thinking why would anyone want to put themselves through this? it is so painful to watch these people have to watch every single word because they know it's all being recorded, you can't make a flub, you can't make a mistake, and the problem is that some of these otherwise very charismatic people get overfocused groups. you know, mark udall, someone who i think has had a lot of appeal in colorado in the past, but someone told him early on the only way you beat carey
gardner who is charismatic is you will have to harmer on him on reproductive right, and udall did that but it crowded out his message on other issues, crowded out some legitimate accomplishments he had in the senate, that's now the only thing people know about him and if he loses on election day it will probably be because he took the message too far. >> charlie: more money in this campaign than ever seen? >> yes, two things. one, when you look at where a lot of the money is spent on these television ads, you despair because you go into these states -- i was in north carolina watching one of the world series games and it felt like i had gone into a political debate and the world series had broken out because in commercials that ran between, it was responsible americans for loveliness attacking hagan and -- (laughter) so that's a mess. but the other interesting thing
about the money is it used to be one side could come in with money on commercials and the other side would act lie a grassroots army. now the money is being put into the grassroots effort and particularly on the republican side. so the role money is playing is getting out those voters which changes the races, too. >> and for all that money, how hard it is to move the deal, even a little bit. when david and i had the tractor project and were following all these races, and we said in july, oh, i bet we'll see a lot of swings back and forth, can't wait. then what happened? id moved just a little bit here and there. >> americans for prosperity has 45 operatives on the ground just in north carolina. >> charlie: 45 operatives? 45 operatives on the ground in north carolina. >> charlie: whose group is that? >> the koch brothers-backed group though they get a lot of money from other people as well. 10,800 negative ads aired in
north carolina just last week. 10,800 negative ads. noñlwonder that hagan says peope don't like us. >> charlie: david what do you look for as television and the internet opens up to cover the election results? what are the signs you're looking at? >> i talked about the risk for republicans in 2016. i look to see are the republicans making inroads for the kind of voters they'll need in 2016? it doesn't just mean taking the senate. it means winning new hampshire or colorado c by 5 or 7 points which also make it win in a presidential year. that to me will be the first thing i look for. >> charlie: anthony? looking for the patterns of how well they correlate with the past and goes to a lot of what david's point is, too. if the republicans can actually go beyond the base that is motivated, if they can win more moderates, they'll win
independents in part because a lot of independents are lapsed republicans, move into moderate, then start to have a chance to break into some of the other states. >> i'm still not convinced we'll know which party controls the senate at the end of election night. it's very possible we'll end up with a runoff in louisiana, a runoff in georgia which is kind of a political reporter's dream because it drags the tension out for two more months. the runoff in georgia does not take place until after congress is set to get sworn in, in january. upso can you imagine the scene if the senate gets sworn in and we still don't know which party controls it? so that's what i'm going to be watching. >> i'm going to watch the governors, the republican governors in particular because the republican nominating conversation will be the interesting one and for a lot of reasons, there will be a lot more players in it and there will be a split between the governors and the members of congress. the country is soured on the members of congress. in fact, the republicans who are
governors, will essentially run against their brothers in washington saying we're the party who has to get things done. after two terms of president who came out of the legislative branch with no executive experience there's a buys against governors in the field. so the question is the governors who had to make decisions, work with legislators, put their money where their mouth is, how does that shake out and what eamericans from that, who survives? but a that's not rhetoric, they've had to do things and get voted up or down as opposed to congress where they just talk a lot and we have lots of money spent but things are not affecting real people's lives. >> charlie: thank you, thank you, thank you. thank you, david in washington. >> thank you, charlie. >> charlie: maybe we'll reconvene after the election and look at it from that perspective. thank you for joining us. see you next time. mormore about this program and earlier episodes, visit us
the following kqed production was produced in high definition. ♪ and their buns are something i have yet to find anywhere else. >> cause i'm not inviting you to my house for dinner. >> breaded and fried and gooey and lovely. in the words of arnold schwarzenegger, i'll be back. >> you've heard of connoisseur, i'm a common-sewer. >> they knew i had to ward off some vampires or something. let's talk desserts gentle