>> as part of book tv college series we set down with the professor from the university of

virginia. he talked about his most recent book pendulous win. the beginning of power and the house of representatives by the republican party. he also discussed his previous books on national alexian's and weighed in on the upcoming election in november. this is about half an hour. >> larry sabato publicly are we an impatient lot. >> we are. good reasons. the employment is high. the economy growth is minimal. people are happy and out of work. they have reasons to be unhappy. we are impatient. we always have been. maybe it is why we accomplish as much as a society. but it also has consequences for politicians. they have to hope that people are happier when they come up for election or reelection.

>> c-span2 is our most recent book. is that enough for congress to achieve big things? >> not anymore. out of the two years if you're lucky you have to with three months of serious policy-making and misleading. and the rest is been on electioneering. covering the same presence of the four year terms and senators with the six. think that is one of the changes and i have seen the memos to read over the years. at the net with many people my age would agree, in prior decades going back several decades, people in congress who would spend half a term on lesley a half a term on running again. we just seem to move back the start date for politicking earlier every election cycle. >> we're taping this interview in late march 2012. this densely the water tells

congress has faced its work for the year. continue resolution for a budget. the elections and not until november. is the fact that congress has sicily done -- what does that say about our country? >> well, i'll tell you what it doesn't say. it doesn't tell you that we have problems we could be working on. again, the politics is taking precedence over legislating. we have a voter imposed good luck because we have a democratic president, a conservative ronald the house, and a closely divided senate. this said, unless you have 60 live of those you can't do much. this was voter created. in that sense i suppose that congress is doing what the voters ask them to do. they gave on the agenda to barack obama, one agenda to different centers depending on which election-year it cannot

win. then the house a completely different agenda since they were all elected in 2010, but you're absolutely right. there is not much that is going to happen this year. this year is so empty that it makes the 2011 was the the year look like the new deals. ♪ -- >> to people go to the polls knowing they're going to have divided government? >> no, we have different villages from year to year which is something that i have discovered in studying elections won by one. the center for politics of the university of virginia we put out a book every two years about either the presidential election or the midterm election. what i learned in this process, and we have been doing this since 1996, have learned that you have to look not just at the conditions of an election year, not just presidential popularity

or this gated the economy. you look to see what kind of electric is showing up. a presidential elector seems to be much freer to much broader. in many ways more representative of the general population in the united states. midterm elections, the turnouts can be tiny by comparison with their president's a year. it is who is unhappiest, who is most upset, his angriest. most of the people that turn out disproportionately. it is why we have presence suffering that midterms. >> larry sabato, let's take two years, two dozen six and 2010. differences? will was the electric? >> almost a mirror opposites. that is not to say you didn't have plenty of people voting in 2006 she showed up again at the polls and to doesn't, in 2006, george bush's sixth year

election, we often call it the six year itch. week entitled that preceded the electorate was angry at wish, mainly on account of the iraq war. there was a strong anti bullish trend that was discernible, even in republican red seats. so democrats took control of both the house in the senate. the bush presidency it legislatively was over after the day of the election. still conducted for policy, had become a power and it is still issue administrative regulation, but it changes the character of his presidency industry, or various for the obama election in 2008. 2010, mirror opposite. you would have to start democratic, and a democratic president passing the controversial health care. the bad economy continued for the first two years. beyond the first two years of the obama administration.

who turns out? republicans disproportionately angry health care, unhappy with the bad economy determines to send it barack obama ... midterm elections are for message sending. presidents often don't like the message is a after receiving. >> 83 million people voted and 2010 may for rivers in the house of representatives. good turnout? >> well, reasonably good for a midterm election. love '40's, the 40% reading close to 60 percent of the electric age 18 and never did not show up. compare that to 2008, 62 percent of the potential electors show up. this year into c-span i will be very surprised if we don't have it 60 to 64% shot. a very strong turnout was started in 2004. people were polarized about the bush presidency. he won a narrow election. 51-48 over john kerry, but you

had people participating to a much greater degree than they did in the speaker election of 2000 or for that matter in very low turnout in 1996 when president clinton was reelected. >> -- larry sabato, when you look back 30, 40 years in see the same trend. >> fortunately i can be nearly 60. that was surely after the last ice age. some of my memories are not as clear as they can be, but these trends change would generations. they change with circumstances. the parties have changed. the biggest alteration of the process to me is the fact that it is not just the american public that is polarized. it is the parties there polarized. go back to the 60's, and you will find that a larger percentage of britain's in congress voted for the civil rights bill that democrats.

republicans and a time of conservative democrats from the south and the border states. the imperial. you had a mixed in each party's caucus. so to get big changes through you needed a bipartisan coalition, not a consensus, but a bipartisan coalition. as a was your rating in his presidency. elective the votes of his economic plan, the big plan that he get pass in 1981 shortly after taking over. republican support was drawn. democratic sobor was split. he get a lot of support from conservatives and democrats in the south. today you have to caucuses that are as polarized and different as night and day. you have to go back to the early part of the 20th century to find to congressional caucuses that opposite one another to the

degree of the caucus is due today. it does speak the same language. sometimes i don't think they come from the same planet. >> is there reason that this has happened like this or has become so polarized? >> there are loads of reasons. people in my field, political science, punditry, lots of different fields look at this. journalists have looked at it. a wonderful book called the big sort has noted, i think correctly, that we have almost order ourselves out into committees that represent our viewpoint. to some degree we're picking where we live based on whether we feel comfortable politically in that place. so that makes it easy with the redistricting is to create a heavily democratic districts and heavily republican district, partisan redistricting. the controversial social issues have played a big role. your views on those issues correlate with, for example, your degree of education, your

level of education, you're into a certain degree, to a great degree. so we have won this order ourselves up by income coeducation, ability to buy a house, also where we feel comfortable. put all those factors together and it matches up into beautiful patches of red and blue. >> is this a pendulum swing or something that uc continuing? >> the pendulum swing, of course somalia until the book in 2010 because we would so quickly from being strongly democratic to voting system is a republican, and not just in the old sense, but very conservative tea party republicans. i think in bad times with bad economies, with people unhappy about the state of their life and the state of their currency because of debt and these sorts of things, we are going to see a lot more open those winds. he tends not to see a pendulum swing when the electorate is

pleased, when the electorate thinks that things are going along quite well. they don't feel motivated to show up and vote. it don't feel motivated to participate in politics to the degree that they do when they're unhappy about things. well, we had at the deepest recession since the great depression. it will take years for us to climb out of it. we have this massive 15 trillion allen is still dead. some projections, increasing to 25 trillion with continues if we do nothing. these problems will continue. they're going to produce economic changes that will generate other opinion swings. >> what is your crystal ball? >> well, the crystal ball is what we'll tell our website at the center for politics. and our center is all about civic education and participation. one way that we pull people into politics is by dangling predictions, the senate, house,

gubernatorial races. and other trends and politics. this is a newsletter that we sent out. it's free. good to our website in sap. >> the website is center for politics stop or. center for politics stop order. click on the crystal ball. >> part of the university of virginia? >> if everything we do. copyrighted by the university of virginia. a product of the receiver j. they have my heart and probably my soul. >> what is your to the accuracy? >> is quite high. in 2008, for example, where we predicted the electoral college

or $1 off. really missed one. the district of nebraska. nebraska went for obama. i kicked myself many times over that. i just did not believe it. we got 98 percent of the said house a very similar percentage in 2010. >> with benefactors deal like that. the demography is destiny. people just filling this out in the republican presidential race whatever you get to a state with a lower evangelical population and a larger percentage of republicans with incomes over $100,000 to have college educations mitt romney wins.

when you go to state that has a high percentage evangelicals with lower-income to lower levels of education car wreck santorum wins. so we plug in a lot of demographic variables into our analysis as well. >> in unit most recent book pendulous wing, you have a lot of different reporters and authors writing in here. one of the focuses, christine adelle in 2010. was that an aberration? was a predictable? >> it was not an aberration for 2010. there were several tea party candid it's who lost a race that could have been run for the republicans. there was a tea party candidate in colorado, lost a senate seat. kristine of a lost a senate seat in delaware. >> mike castle would have won their seats in the league. so there are three seats right

there. that would admitted a tight senate. now, biden would have broken that tight, but a 5056 is a very different atmosphere for policy and everything else. the republican tea party electorate in the state's hits to themselves. now, they would say it is our right to vote for people we believe in. they're absolutely right. the consequence sometimes and not be practical is losing seats >> how do you see the tea party right now? this year? >> still a big part of the republican party, showing a panel of of these perris is. they seemed to be having less impact, mainly because there are republican incumbents are now either tea party people or have moved to the party positions. so we are getting the endorsement caught the imprimatur of the tea party. serenata as these challenges, but there are some. we are working on sunset and house races word tea party

members are challenging more senior republicans. we will have a better read on this. the you foresee california ever been a republican state for the presidency? >> 1988. look, a long time. i'm not going to say that it will never again be a republican state, but it is hard to see how , given the demographic changes that are carrying california. the biggest single problem that republicans have nationally is that they are not attracting many votes possibly from african-americans, but that has been a long-term trend. the loss of the hole with hispanics that george w. bush developed for the. he got over 40 percent in his reelection in 2004. john mccain get 31 percent, the same percentages for 1996. asian-americans are voting heavily democratic. almost all minority groups are. california is already majority

minority in becoming more so with each passing year. so one of today's hot happen, either republicans will continue to fall further behind in california and many other states or there will adapt to the new diversity of america, which between 2014 and 2015 destroyed to produce a country that has majority minority. >> same thing with taxes on the upside. d.c. that becoming -- d.c. that in place the democrats. >> eventually. it is of point to happen, you know, within the next few years or the next decade. let the longer term the traffic patterns and taxes going to become not just majority minority in terms of people, but majority minority in terms of registered voters. they have already moved in that direction or crossed the threshold in not just south texas. it is inevitable. >> given the fact that the budgetary problems in this country, economic issues.

why are we talking about birth control and topics like that? are the major topics? >> talk, they are major topics for importance lies in the republican party and the social conservatives. the vote in large numbers, particularly in the south and border states. indies' republican primaries and other states, like ohio. a great large percentage evangelicals. they talk about the issues that the decks for interested in. for the republicans to win an election you need to have not just as conservatives, not just neil conservatives on foreign policy. you have to have social security as well. that is why they talk about these issues. of course the she's get there in trouble. independent moderates who might be open to a republican appeal on fiscal issues, sure it matters. >> one of your earlier books is called feeding frenzy. >> feeding frenzy?

first 1991, and it was about attack journalism. it was about the tendency of a large portion of the press at that time to jump on every conceivable hit a scandal, whether it was real or -- weather was evolving since the major like watergate, major is an understatement. a look this statement, say, by an aide he mentions an old toilet is a sketch. there are in there together. they focus the orders controversial things that don't matter much of. that was pre internet. we had a long way to go. the whole world was different, and get the whole world is very similar, even with all these new

outlets in the internet we still have feeding frenzies almost on a weekly basis. >> units and a recent one, the excess deaths. will result of the ones that you're writing about in 1991. >> we covered everything from mixing seek refunds of the lead to very reason once, gary hart and his affair for 1987 in '88. bill clinton who was the ultimate super feeding frenzy of that time. again, the substance of it was less important than watergate, but bill clinton certainly provided several extra chapters. >> but internal we're taping this interview at the university of virginia as part of our universities series. late march 2012. currently what does the crystal ball say about the house, senate, and the president? >> i'll let you emphasize current because we do use election models will but the

only ticket in midsummer because in the current economic data. you need current presidential job approval. often what appears to be true in late winter or early spring in an election-year turns out to be frost in the summer sun. we don't even get to that tent. if the election were held now i think the president would reelection by a much smaller of its raw margin. maybe 300 electoral votes. if the election were held today but think the republicans will hold the house. democrats need to gain 25 seats to take control. i think he would gain to our 1250 election or up-to-date. the senate would be right on the fence. it would be 50-50, 51-49 united direction. the tiny eggs to the republicans it could easily end up being 57

the. bryant would break your initial sign. if you have a close and that -- said, they can do much. since the @booktv closed senate specializes in doing nothing. it gives an extra excuse. but she said one of the factors you look at his fund-raising. why? >> it matters below the presidential level particularly because in a presidential yearbook them have house members, senators and their challengers and territorial candid it's fighting for a pension with the presidents of credits. the median naturally tends to cover the presidential race. they need paid advertising. they need all kinds of things. they have to pay for it themselves. there is a giant differential. the to make a difference. the candid suspending great jim moret

have a considerable edge. there are some lows been intended to one. president silly at the there is so much free media, so much coverage by the networks and everything online. people get what they need to know what the candidates, even if they ever see the advertisement. a little different. adult ticket matters as much. maybe in one area, and that is our contact. getting off about, not so much of the election day as early voting. taking your votes. that is somewhat romney has won a number of these ) varies. he has the money to bank votes early. we will see how he does in the fall. president obama probably will have considerably more money. >> a normal basis, possibly falls normally, are you surprised that they sit there and decided to back. >> welcome it is becoming rare. it is becoming something that

you don't hear very often for people. often people will tell you, well, an independent. i could go another direction. when you really examine their voting record and are a listing get to the use you find that they have a strong party predisposition. they call themselves independents because they're is a social pulled. but in fact most independence have a party lean. in practice they vote for their party's candid about as often as people who have a strong partisan identification. so in general i don't think that undecided people are as undecided as they pretend to be. rita just trying to avoid an argument. the son of bad ideas sometimes. ♪ how many people switched from one party to the other every two years? >> that is a great question. is a question of different electorates, motivating your party's to show up.

some news you're successful. some years the other party is successful. i don't think people with the party it change very often. this is not like the 1970's only did have a lot of splitting its switching to a crossover voting for various sundry reasons. perry helped sterling issues. as i was suggesting earlier, both parties had conservative and liberal and moderate elements. we don't see that a great deal anymore. maybe we should. maybe it would be better if we have more people voting between the parties. >> when you look back over our 250 year history, what elections are your favorite? >> oh, gosh. so many. initially being here, the election of 1800. just imagine if thomas jefferson had lost. i can't imagine.

he made a big difference for the united states, the louisiana purchase alone. i think it was useful for jefferson because his philosophy evolved. beverly has that effect on people. it tends to shave off the sharp edges, which is good for all of us. anybody would name 1828 the election of jackson because it began with entirely -- everyone would name 1860 the ultimate election for lots of reasons. probably after than we had a long dry spell. alexis did not make that much difference. i was saying probably because 1896 was the realigning election. leggett 1896. cahuenga mckinley won the first time and we shifted from a closely divided country, fairly

close to what today is essentially republican country until 1932. the next election i would pinpoint. the democratic side, and that is realignment that lasted. we had our role that went on from the late 60's through reagan. and now i think we are in flux again. we have a very divided country. we're going to see how this develops. depending on whether you are in power when good things happen or whether you're in power when bad things happen it is obvious you want to be empowering good things happen. >> what is so fundamental to life and politics? one of your books was the citizens' guide -- of zurich, lost the book goes looking for. well, this is a series that you have. what is this? >> get in the booth is fairly for college students. these are little college but those that are handed out in

hundreds of colleges throughout the united states. giving students the fundamentals of the up to election year, letting them catch up. after all, many of them are new voters. the other thing to do. j. hyde and his cool and so on. so they don't have the background. we charge provide them with the background to bring that up to speed on the election issues and candidates of the year. the background to the parties and candid it's said they can vote intelligently in november. >> 2002. mr. madness. you put out a book on the terms. >> every two years. that particular midterm was fascinating because normally they go against the incumbent presidents. because of 9/11, that was a pro republican midterm. but the control, give republicans a few extra seats in the house made it easier for bush to govern