96% of all the democrats in the house are sitting in district that is obama carried and 93% of the republicans in the house are sitting in district that is mitt romney carried. so there is just not a lot of elasticity in the house left anymore. . . . >> soyou want to do, if you're the dominant party in a state and you want to absolutely minimize the representation of

the other party, you could do an amazing job there now, much better than you ever could before. but there are other things that are at play as well. for example, population sorting. there's a wonderful book that some of you might want to read by a guy named bill bishop called "the big sort." and he basically talks about how people, in a sense, they kind of vote with their feet in that people tend to move and concentrate with people like themselves. people are more comfortable when they're with like-minded people, and that this is becoming more and more and more so. and that when you look at, say, democratic districts -- or look at, look geographically across the country, what are the districts the democrats tend to represent? they tend to be large urban areas and close in suburbs and college towns. and then you say, okay, where do republicans live? small town, rural america and in

the more outer reaches which are the faster growing of the suburbs. but that's a clear population pattern or political pattern that's out there. so even notwithstanding any political gerrymandering that's taking place, you have this taking place as well. and then the final reason is think about the last, say, four elections. in 2008 you remember the iraq war had gotten, you know, it was getting really pretty ugly. president bush's numbers were, gosh, at one point he got down to like 30, 28%, something like that. so that 2008 you had a really, really ugly election for republicans. and then 2010 it got even worse. i'm sorry, 2008 -- no, i'm sorry. 2008 had a ugly election for republicans, and so a lot of republicans that are sitting in competitive districts or districts that maybe a democrat ought to have, they got washed

out, they got washed out back in 2008 just as they did in 2006. so you had back-to-back ugly elections for republicans, the sort of win knowed out a lot of -- winnowed out a lot of competitive districts. then in 2010 the way it went, it was a fabulous year for republicans, and it kind of washed out to sea a lot of democratics that were sitting in districts that ought to be republican. so coming out of those in 2008, you know, it was a decent election for the democrats. it wasn't a wave, but it was a decent year for democrats. so you basically went through this sort of -- it sort of sorted out. so there really aren't that many fish out of water, so it kind of minimized the elasticity in the house of representatives. so that's made it very, very difficult for democrats to make a 17-seat gain just as it would actually be very hard for republicans to make a 17-seat gain in this environment. and when you just sort of look at the individual races one by

one, and we've got a fabulous house editor, david wasserman, who does this. and all he concentrates from the day after one election to election day two years later is looking at each of the 435 congressional districts, is right now, you know, more likely than not that republicans would actually pick up a handful of seats, three, four, five, six, something like that. a very, very small number just based on where there are open seats and where there are competitive races and what's going on in each within. but that's not -- each one. so then you get over to the senate side and, again, i don't want to poach into the next side, but democrats obviously have a lot of exposure. and the thing to remember about the senate always is that just as the house has two-year terms and so the table is set or the cards are dealt in the house two years earlier. in the senate with six-year terms, you have to go back and look six years. so whenever one party has a

fabulous year in the u.s. senate, you know, six years later they're going to be playing defense. because they probably got a whole bunch of seats that they had just won over from the other side, and, you know, and a big risk of vulnerability. and that's exactly where democrats are in the u.s. senate and where, basically, of the eight seats that are most likely to make a difference in the u.s. senate, six of them are in states that mitt romney carried. anyway, but again, i don't want to poach onto the next speaker's turf. so that's sort of how i view the political environment right now. it, you know, on a micro level democrats have a little bit more exposure in the house. in the senate they've got a lot of exposure, in the senate. but at the same time, for republicans to get a majority, they need a six-seat gain in the senate. they have to not quite run the table, but pretty close to run the table to win a majority

which is why i would put a republican majority in the senate at something less, considerably less than 50/50 even though it's, you know, almost a 100%, a very, very high percentage chance that republicans will pick up senate seat, but probably not the six seats that they need. and just sort of as an aside, it sure as heck looked like they were going to get a bunch of seats in 2012, and in the end they didn't do it. and part of it were because of these brand problems we've been talking about. but the other problem is one that's going to exist again, and that is that in this sort of posts-tea party -- post-tea party era, republican primaries have become pretty exotic places. [laughter] and there's been a increased tendency for republican primary voters to choose people who god didn't necessarily intend for them to be members of the u.s. senate. [laughter] and it's cost them seats that

they should have won. and whether you're looking at, you know, nevada, colorado, delaware in 2010 or whether you're looking at missouri or indiana in 2012, you know, arguably, you know, right now the senate's 55-45. arguably, republicans should have five more seats than they do right now, but they don't because they follow nateed -- nominatedder the write flawed candidates -- nominated terribly flawed candidates that were not able to win seats that certainly appeared to be very, very winnable, if not gimme putts. anyway, that's sort of one more consideration out there. so let's just open it up for questions, comments, accusations. you had your hand up a long time ago. let me go with you first. [inaudible conversations] >> i apologize for that, but -- >> no, that's all right. >> my question is throughout your talk you talked about two

scenarios, and i completely agree, obviously, because you're the expert. but also -- [laughter] >> you don't have to. >> right. [laughter] >> also it could be something else. but they would seem to be the two most plausible. >> also through my personal experience on campaigns that seems to be quite exactly right. my question is, could you speak to the difference between the electorate who votes and the difference between midterms and presidential elections? because it seems to me that those two are quite different. >> yes. >> and also determine which two scenario, which is more dominant >> presidential elections tend to draw, obviously, a much bigger turnout, broader turnout, and it's a turnout that more looks like the country. midterm elections you've got a lot of voters that are sort of casual voters. sometimes they vote, sometimes they don't. they oftentimes vote in presidential, but in any other

kind of election, they don't show up. and the group that sort of drops off the most is younger voters, down scale voters to a certain extent, but really younger voters. and one particular group that i know stan greenberg be, the democrat pollster with james carville have the democracy corps which is kind of a polling, think tank type thing for the democratic side, that they focus on young, single women voters. that, you know, women voters under 30, 35 who were single is one of the -- it's a group that when they vote, they vote very heavily democratic, but the win is a really operative term because a lot of times they don't show up on midterm and low visibility elections. so midterm elections do tend to have a turnout. now, it doesn't mean that, you know, republicans win all midterm lengths because, obviously -- elections because, obviously, they lost all control

of congress in 2006 which was a midterm election. but generally speaking, turnout, dynamic is something that's more favorable while presidential is more favorable of the democrats. that's absolutely true. but again, it's not completely determinative, but it's an important factor. okay, you were next. >> um, so i guess you spend a lot of time studying elections. what has been the most surprising result in your time, or what result or event in an election has shocked you the most that you didn't expect? >> well, wow, that's an interesting one because there are a lot of -- i mean, you're in this business long enough, you see stuff it's like, wow, i didn't really see that one coming. relatively recently, after barack obama won the iowa caucus and then turned around and lost the new hampshire primary to hillary clinton, that was kind of a shocker because somewhere

in this big country there's somebody who predicted that hillary would win the new hampshire primary after losing the iowa caucus, but i sure as hell never met him. [laughter] anyway, that was one. but i would say just sort of professionally i would say it was that 1994 gingrich midterm election. and the reason is that we had not seen a wave election since, in 14 years, since 1980. and there were -- and i had vivid memories of the 1980 election. long before i got into this business, i'm a moderate independent now, but i, you know, got my start, grew up as a democrat and had my first few political jobs on the democratic side. and i was -- the election of 1980 i was at the headquarters of the democratic senate or y'all campaign, and actually

lucy, who's now my would have, was working there at the -- my wife, was working there at the time. anyway, 1980, indiana and kentucky with are the first states for poll closing times. birch bayh lost by 6:30 in the evening, and then democrats lost a seat every half an hour for, til well after midnight. i mean, it was like boom, boom, boom, boom. and, you know, that was the first wave election since '74. the watergate election. but, you know, i was in college in '74 and sort of, you know, i was working on the hill but not really aware of that much, you know? but '80 was like, wow, that's really something. but we went 14 years before that was replicated. so you had people running campaign committees on each side who had never personally experienced a wave length. wave election. and there's a tendency to get too wrapped up in this all

politics is local thing if you go a really long time without a wave election. and so it's sort of like hard to imagine it happening until you really see one up close and personal. and so that 1994 one was probably -- it was you sort of step back in awe and watch it happening. and i remember the person that first, you know, there's some people on each side that can be relied upon to predict that their side's going to win huge in every single election, okay? that's fine. and you kind of figure out on each side who they are, then never listen to them again. but the first person that didn't qualify in that category, we were over -- my house editor at the time was a young man named ben who's now a lawyer and intellectual property expert at the motion picture association. but anyway, he was our house editor, our first house editor. and we were over at the

democratic congressional campaign committee meeting -- we do this with each side, sit down with their staffs and, basically, do the alabama to wyoming run through of all the races. and it's just sort of on background, what are you seeing, trade notes back and forth what you're seeing. because we meet with a lot of candidates, they obviously meet with all their candidates and sort of trade notes. anyway, we were over there and had just done the alabama to wyoming rundown, and the political director at the time, david dixon, he's a media consultant now, you know, ben left, some of the other people wandered off, so it was just the two of us standing in this conference room. and he said, charlie, are you seeing anything odd out there? and i said, no, not really. and he said, well, the last month or two we've started seeing some very -- now, this was april of '94. he said we've started seeing,

we've started seeing some very odd numbers around the country in places where democratic incumbents ought to be -- now, this is in a different era, and numbers were almost universeally higher in those days than they are now -- but democratic incumbents who ought to be in the mid 50s are sitting around 50%. and people that ought to be just over 50% are well down into the 40s. and he was describing, you know, urban areas, rural areas, suburban areas, north, south, east, west, young, old, i mean, across the board. and i remember at the time thinking, gosh, i haven't noticed that, but, you know, early on in the cycle, you don't see a whole lot of polling data on individual house races. and be i remember thinking, well, you know, dave and vic fazio, congressman fazio was the chairman of committee at that point, maybe they're just trying

to lower expectations, you know, big victory. but over the next, you know, may, june, as i saw more data coming out, it started, you know, looking like you know what? i think he's on to something. and you could just start seeing it build over the summer and build and build and build and build. and at that election republicans needed a 40-seat net gain to get a majority in the house. 40 cements. and -- 40 seats. and if you gave republicans every conceivable seat that they could possibly win, they still couldn't get the 40. but it was building and building, you know, you could see the direction of the arrow, you could tell the wind was blowing strong. and so i, at the end, i was saying, well, maybe there's a one in three chance that republicans get a majority in the house, but that's sort of like i don't know how many of you have gone bird hunting, but with a shotgun, you kind of lead the bird a little bit.

if the bird's going this way, if you aim at the bird, you know, your shot's going to go behind the bird by the time it gets there. so you kind of lead the bird. and clearly it was moving this way, so i said one out of three. not only did they get 40 seats, hell, they got 52. and they, you know, you had republican candidates getting elected who didn't get a dime from their own party. their own party didn't even think they were going to win. and conversely, democrats losing that their own party didn't think were vulnerable. and that's the kind of sort of spooky, unnatural things that happened in these wave elections. so i'd have to say that one in 1994. and i remember the next really big wave election, 2006, was a wave against republicans. early on in that cycle i remember the two guys that were running the house republican committee, mike -- [inaudible] and jonathan poe be, political

director, field director. they started asking me early on where they felt pretty good about things, you know, we've raised more money than democrats, we've got this and this and this and this. by the way, back in '94 what did you see and when did you see it, you know? just out of curiosity, you know? and gradually, some of those things started happening, although it started happening earlier. but anyway, i'd say '94 was like the -- the first time in your professional career you really see a bigtime wave, and is you just -- and you just go, wow, look at that. okay, there was somebody else over here. okay. we'll go here, and then we'll go back over here. >> during your remarks you compared obama's favorability rating right now to bush's back in 2006 comparing midterms. what were the party favorability ratings for that time period? did the republicans get blamed for the iraq war as a party, or was it just bush? >> that's a excellent question.

i have not looked it up. but, um, that's a excellent question. i mean, and the answer's probably. but the other thing is, um, in these midterm elections, second term midterm elections, i mean, some of it is certainly voting, you're angry at a president or a congress, you're angry at something that's going on, and you can vote against them. that's part of it. but the other part of it is let's say you're in -- let's say, let's say it's 1994. and, well, no, let's use a more modern example. let's say it's 2006, and you're a republican. republicans have control of congress, deficits have gone up. you -- why in the hell did we get into the war in iraq. you know, you're disaffected. maybe it's not that you vote democratic, maybe you just don't

vote. because, again, that high variability in midterm elections where it's more socially acceptable not to vote in a midterm election than in a presidential election. and so a lot of times it's just sort of disillusioned partisans staying home. and independents who lean your way staying home. so i have not looked at those numbers. that's a very, very good question. but i think it's safe to say that the numbers weren't that great. it's a good question. how about back on the back row? yep, jack. >> you've identified the two narratives that could happen in this midterm election as both being branding issues for the party, it's either being associated with a president with lower approval or with the republican brand. so, and since there were just two major fights coming out of congress whether it was the shutdown or the failed rollout of obamacare, do you feel that the narratives that are going to

happen at the individual campaigns trying to separate themselves from -- candidates trying to separate themselves or trying to anchor to their party? >> that's another good question. when you're a member of -- you're an incumbent and maybe you're either an enemy -- in enemy territory or a district that's not friendly. there's -- and your president is not popular. there is a tendency to trash your president and to run like hell away there the him. away from him. and as a general rule, that doesn't work real well. at the same time, do you want to embrace him and identify yourself more closely with him? heck no, of course not. but there is something that's in between. and it's, you know, i don't agree with the president. i agree with him on some things,

i don't agree with him on others and, you know, i've got some real misgivings about x, y and z. you know, where you sort of diplomatically put a distance. and sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. but the thing is one of the things -- what happens if you just trash a president from your party is among the people that normally come hell or high water are going to vote for you, you're going to turn some of them off by doing that. and they're some of the few people you can actually rely on. and so that approach generally, generally doesn't work, but you, you know, you could establish distance without trashing, you know, an incumbent for your side. and there was a famous election, it was bush -- 1990. george h.w. bush, his midterm election.

and ed rollins who had managed one of president reagan's campaigns had top staff job at the national republican congressional committee. and he wrote a memo that went out to all the republican house members saying, um, you know, effectively, you know, we all love president bush and he's a great guy and all like that, but your most important job right now is to get reelected and do whatever you need to do to get reelected, and feel prix to put distance -- free to put distance between yourself and the president. not surprisingly, the white house went crazy. and i'm trying to remember whether ed had to resign or not. do you remember if he did or not? i remember they were calling for his resignation. i don't remember whether he actually did or not. but anyway, you know, so that's what -- it's creating distance but not trashing is generally the best thing. yeah, go ahead. >> [inaudible]

about how democrats can distance themselves from obama, but for some of the races sup as all the vulnerable -- such as all the vulnerable democratic seats do you expect them to try and also distance themselves from the gop, or is that going to be an internal debate within the party? because there could be comments about, like, republican candidates having to make firm statements about whether they would, like, shut down the government or, no, i would never do that. >> well, one of the good things for republicans about this upcoming election is that at least in the senate most of the prime races are in states that romney won and that where president obama's job approval ratings would be significantly below average. in other words, alaska, arkansas, louisiana, to a lesser extent georgia, a lesser extent north carolina. and michigan and -- wow, you can

tell i've been on vacation for three weeks. [laughter] michigan and iowa are the only two where there are really, really key senate races that are in states that obama carried. now there are gradations in all of these. for example, obama lost georgia but only by eight points. there were southern states where he lost by 25 points. eight is losing, but it's not getting destroyed. north carolina obama lost but only by two percentage points, and he had carried it four years earlier. but at the same time, you know, arkansas, louisiana, kentucky where mitch mcconnell is up, you know, obama, you know, lost by disastrous -- so each -- there -- where republicans need to do well in the u.s. senate they don't have to put as much, if any, distance between

themselves and the national republican party. certainly in alaska, arkansas, louisiana, kentucky absolutely for sure. so it depends, you know, and that's the answer to almost any question is it depends on the circumstances. but in the senate there's a lot his of that -- less of that that has to take place. yeah. >> i guess since we've, since you highlighted 2006 and 2010 as being the last couple of midterms of that have happened and one thing that our distinguished professor, dr. thurber has pointed out there's been a decreased polarization within the legislative branch, does that translate to more of a wave effect given the increased polarization from these different midterms? i know it throws off a little bit different within the presidential lengths, but, you know, in -- elections, but, you

know, in midterms especially the last two, there's such a swing. do you see that as being one of the catalyst ares because -- where i think i follow what you're saying, and if i do understand it, i would say what's been going on the last 20, 30 be years -- 30 years tends to amplify these kinds of wave elections and makes them more likely. back when i moved to washington in this 1973 as a freshman in college, this there were a ton f conservative moderate democrats from the south and and elsewhere. there were a ton of liberal moderate republicans from new england, northeast, midwest so that the parties if, um, this is your left, this is the democrat party, this is the republican party, there was a pretty substantial overp lap between the parties -- overlap between the parties. so was the republican party a right of center party?

yeah. but there were a lot of people on the right this the democrat party too. yeah, they had actually some awfully conservative, people that were a lot more conservative than some of the republicans. and the conservative-moderate democrats acted as a ballast that sort of kept the democratic party from going off into a ditch on the left just as the liberal-moderate republicans kept the republican party from going off into a ditch on the right. now there's effectively no overlap whatsoever. and so i think it does make, um, there is a, um -- i think to the extent -- this is -- maybe it's a slight exaggeration but not too much, instead of having a left-of-center party and right-of-center party, we now have a very right party. and so, you know, people are

angry at something. it's a lot easier for them to pick out the red jerseys and the blue jerseys now that there's more ideological cohesion there. but also, but at the same time the force the opposite direction is that so few of them are in districts that are really enemy territory kind of districts that that tends to be an offsetting factor. so i'm not sure how to answer that. yeah. i mean, i tell you what, the thing is a lot of this stuff is a lot more complicated than it sounds on cable. you know? [laughter] it's, the world is a lot simpler in the high-digit networks. yeah. >> i had, speaking on to that to a certain extent, my question is, and i hold the unpopular view that primaries have only

increased polarization. can you speak to the idea that the democratization has led to more conservative and more liberal candidates? >> let me address it slightly differently. um, if i could wave a magic wand and do two major political reforms in this country, the first would be for redistricting reform, and the second would be for primary nomination reform. and on the former, you know, there are lots of, lots of different ways to do it. iowa has a terrific system where they basically have a room full of statisticians sitting in a basement that sort of do it, and it's kind of as close to an absolute honest redistricting as humans can do, but then again, it's not hard in iowa because you've got a state that's very, very white, and all the counties are square. and so, you know, it's sort of

like, you know -- [laughter] it's not a heavy lift doing that when you don't have to worry about voting rights act considerations and things like that. california just in 2012 went to a new system, and it's this very, very elaborate, complicated process of selecting these commissioners that in turn select the people that draw -- can you know, whatever. and someone said that if you diagrammed it out, it looked like the old diagrams of the hillarycare, you know, it looked like a pile of spaghetti in terms of lines of authority, but it worked very, very well. and you saw as much competition in congressional races in california in 2012 than you'd seen in probably the last two decades combined. so that would be one. the other side -- and, again, each state decides its own election laws, and each side has, you know, no two states are identical. and some states have party

registration, some don't. but, for example, in maryland my wife is a registered democrat, i'm a registered independent. so i can't vote this any primaries at all. she can only vote in democrat primaries. you know, if the next door neighbor's republican, he or she can only vote in a republican primary. i think if you allowed independents to choose on election day either a democratic ballot or republican ballot on primary day and vote in each one, i think it would help sort of bring things back towards the center as would redistricting reform. i don't think either of these things are a silver bullet. i don't think either one will solve the problem, but could address things. i think some of the bad things that have happened, i think having nomination conventions for races below president, i think, is really, really bad. i mean, in utah, for example, you know, you remember senator

robert bennett who was by any rational definition a very conservative incumbent senator and hard working and very highly regarded who couldn't even get on the primary ballot because of the rise of the tea party movement, and he had voted for t.a.r.p., and that was back in 2008. and so he couldn't even get on the primary ballot this 2010. polling i saw he would have won a primary if he could have gotten on the ballot. you know, virginia has these goofy conventions. you know, where they allow -- nominate some pretty exotic people -- [laughter] you know, particularly lieutenant governor and above, things like that so that even a pretty mainstream, relatively mainstream candidate for attorney general can't even win. you know, that kind of environment. so i would do that.

you know, after that it's a lot harder to do things. i mean, i think the increase ingly ideologically-polarized nature of certain elements of the nudes media -- news media with sort of very clear left, very clear right, i think that's sort of poured gasoline on the fire as well, talk radio, certain blog sites, that sort of thing. i mean, there are a lot of moving parts here. yeah. >> [inaudible] >> hang on one second. >> another reform that i believe's been done in california and louisiana is, i just wanted to ask for your view on it, is the idea that there's a primary with the top two candidates of either party makes it and those are the two candidates for the november election. i just wanted to ask you your view on whether you think that would help as well. >> i think it might. the louisiana and california systems are not identical, but

they're pretty close. it certainly hasn't done anything to moderate anything in louisiana, but in california i think it's sort of contributes to that. and where you saw cases where, you know, two democratic incumbents thrown in together by redistricting and they're competing but in a general election environment so that you had fairly liberal democratic members going out and trying to get republican votes. moderate independent votes. i mean, a vote's a vote, get it wherever you can. and i think that probably reduces some of the ideological, some of the rhetoric and breaks it back down. so i think that's something. you know, there are lots of different ways to fix things, and, you know, you never know which ones are going to work and which don't, and a lot of times you have a law of unintended consequences where, you know, you set out to do something that may be an admirable objective, and sometimes it just actually makes it worse. you know, for example, mccain-feingold campaign

finance reform actually made things worse than it was before. so anyway, so you always have to be careful with that. anybody that hasn't asked a question yet first, and then we'll double back. yeah, pack there. >> -- back there. >> there's been a lot of discussion in recent years about the political opinions of young people. have you actually seen an increase in turnout among young people, or is it just that a small amount of us are more vocal with social media? >> it's picked up some. maybe not as much as a lot of the popular press would suggest, but '08 picked up some and the proportion picked up some. the thing that i've noticed, um, with millennial voters and the institute of politics at harvard's done a lot of survey work in this area, but, um, i've spent a decent amount of time on campuses the last three or four years, and my impression looking at the data as well as anecdotal is that the millennial generation's kind of an interesting group.

that unlike conservatives, they don't hate government. but up like liberals -- unlike liberals, they don't love government. and that their experience with government has been it doesn't work very well. it's not very effective. and so this is a generation that at least on economic role of government in that narrow sense is more jump ball open to private sector solutions, alternative to traditional government solutions. however, they are also a very libertarian generation. and that libertarian aspect, including abortion, gay rights among other issues is cut absolutely against the grain of where the republican party has been and is one of the major barriers to the republican party doing better with younger voters. and that, you know, you just

look at the data on same-sex marriage. you know, it's kind of a no-brainer. and i was talking to a conservative leader who has been visiting campuses in a southern state meeting with people that are in the individual chapters of an extremely conservative organization. okay? and she was, had just come back from a couple of campuses, and she asked these conservative student leaders what they thought about same-sex marriage. and none of them had a problem with it. and these were kids that were, like, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really conservative. laugh and it's like, wow finish. [laughter] obviously, there's some people who don't hold that view. and i'm not suggesting the republican party changed their

positions or anything, but i think they eight to look at sort of -- look at how they sort of weight the issues and turning the volume and frequency down on certain issues they could be more marketable to this newer generation of voters. yep, harry. hang on one second. okay, you're live. >> so you mentioned a couple of times there's not a lot of flexibility, especially in the house. do you see that as a more permanent thing or in 20 years' time there'll be much more flexibility and we could be ready for another wave election? >> well, i don't often throw around terms like permanent and ever. because they sort of -- that's a really long time. and, you know, stuff happens. and so, you know, that's sort of one of the advantages of doing this for a really long time is you've heard people make these grand statements of permanent

this or that, and then it's sort of not so much. and i've heard, you know, the demise of each of the parties predicted several times in my career. so i'm not going to say. i think this is, it's a very real trend. it's showing some durability. but it's not to say that you couldn't have events or circumstances that could reverse it. you know, in terms of the bitter nature of the partisanship of politics, i think that -- i have a theory. i mean, no way to quantify this or prove it or not, but to me 9/11 was an event that could have been a real game changer in terms of the political environment. and that the day after the 9/11 attacks members of congress, house members, senators,

gathered on the steps of the capitol building, and they sang "god bless america." and i remember thinking, well, you know, maybe possibly something good can come out of this horrific tragedy where people sort of learn to work together and stuff. and, but after that sort of brief "kumbaya" moment -- and i don't blame either side exclusively for this because i think pote sides were at fault -- but the controversy should we invade iraq, yes or no, broke out. and that fight over iraq -- not afghanistan, but iraq -- is what sort of tore the two sides back apart to the point where, you know, it's worse than it was before. and so you just think, wow. if an event like 9/11 can't effectively change the dynamics, wow, what would it take, you know? that's pretty scary. but, you know, a lot of, a lot

of what's happened, it's been coming a long way. and to quote tom mann and norm be ornstein another time, they have another book that's it's as bad as you think, it's worse -- i always butcher the title, but basically it's worse than you think. which i agree that things actually in washington are probably even worse than most people think. but tom and norm, who are good friends of mine and i respect e nor or mousily, but they put a disproportionate level of the blame on republicans. and while if you were just talking about the last year or two or three, you know, maybe. but when i step back and go back to the '80s and sort of look at how did we get to this poisonous environment, i think there is plenty of blame on both sides, a lot of blame on both

sides. and i can actually point to just as many examples of democrats doing things that contributed to the environment getting to where it is as republicans. and just to throw two out, there was a house race in indiana back in 1984. it was first year i started my newsletter. between -- eighth district between frank mccloskey and rick mcintyre, two people there's no need for you to remember who they were. but it was, the rex result was -- election result was sort of like florida 2000. it was basically a tie. god only knows who really won that race. and different counts had mccloskey ahead, mcintyre ahead, back and forth. and what they probably should have done is what new hampshire had p done in a senate race in the previous decade and what louisiana did in a house race previous decade. be basically, just say rerun the

damn thing. we can't tell. there are too many screwed-up ballots and things. we can't tell who won. but the democratic leadership -- and to kneel was the speaker, jim wright was the majority leader then, and by understanding is that jim wright urged and convinced o'neill to basically gavel it through. basically say, you know, the house constitutionally is the final judge of its members, we're the majority, bang, we're seating our guy. and the thing is up until that point the republican minority in the house had been, they'd been in the minority for 30 years, 15 consecutive elections at that point. they were a pretty docile group. i mean, they just basically lived off the crumbs that the majority threw them -- [laughter] and that with very but of them having any realistic hope of ever being in a majority unless they changed parties. this seating of mccloskey over

mcintyre and sort of the brazen, arrogant approach to it, it so enraged republicans that some of the most moderate, mild-mannered republicans in the house went crazy. good example, nancy johnson, a moderate-liberal republican from connecticut. and that led to the rise of newt gingrich, kind of pushing aside bob michael who was kind of the get-along, go-along old school republican leader. you know, newt gets in. by then jim wright becomes speaker. he goes after jim wright on some ethics stuff, pushes wright out. democrats come back -- i mean, just sort of warfare develops. but i don't want the blame, put all the blame on democrats, but that's where, um, sooner or later maybe this would have happened, but i think that triggered it. and it was mostly in the house of representatives and where you had this bitter partisanship. and the senate really wasn't like that at all.

but gradually, you started seeing house members, democrat and republican, coming over the senate. and, you know, in the house it's majority rules, you know? it's -- and if the minority doesn't like the how things are going, well, that's tough. but in the senate, you know, with filibusters, unanimous concept, all -- a lot more -- the senate can't really deal with that kind of partisanship and still function appropriately. and so as you saw these, some of these house members moving over to the senate, it was like a contagion coming into a new body and contaminating it. and so oneover the first signs -- one of the first signs was the bork nomination for supreme court. now, up until that point judicial nominations, if you were rejected, it was for one of two reasons. either, a, ethical or, b, you weren't qualified. but the idea of being rejected because people didn't agree with you, that had never happened

before. and so when democrats basically rejected the bork nomination, forced it to be withdrawn, that sort of was the first sign that that contamination had started to enter into the senate. and now the senate's just as, probably is even worse than the house because its rules, it can't move -- you know, it was a body designed by the founding father ors to not move easily, quickly, you know? it was supposed to be a very deliberate body by design and does that really, really well. but you inject that kind of bitter partisanship and hatred and then -- particularly now where you basically have leaders on each side, harry reid and mitch mcconnell, who despise each other and despise the other side on top of a very partisan body that's not designed to function like that, and wow, you have a pretty disfunctional situation.

i don't remember your question. [laughter] who else? jack, you've asked a question. let's go to jeffrey first. >> you said how earlier most of these elections mid cycle, you know, usually they vote their pocketbooks. but we also talked about young people and their social view, do you see social views becoming more important this how people vote in some of these elections? >> um, i think voters do not -- americans used to vote their economic self-interest much more than they do today. or to put it differently, they now vote on issues that are completely aside from their economic self-interest. so that's why you see, um, a pretty large number of high, very high income people, highly

educated people, people who this very high tax brackets who are voting democratic. why are they voting democratic? maybe they're pro-choice. maybe they're green on the environment. maybe they support same-sex marriage, i mean, you know, whatever reasons. and at the same time, you see a fairly large number of down scale whites who at least theoretically, historically you would have said would be better off with democrats who are voting more and more republican and are getting be more and more conservative. and again, they may or may not be voting against their self-interests, but they're voting on social issues, cultural issues than along sort of straight economic class lines. and so, yeah, i think we really have moved away from that to large extent. not totally, but to a large extent, absolutely. and so it's made, it's made things, you know, very, very

complicated so that, you know, a very poor state like west virginia is becoming a very red republican state at least on federal issues despite the fact that it's a state that used to be as democrat as any. yeah, david. hang on. we're going to give this guy a workout. >> so you mentioned ticket splitting in terms of house, senate and the presidency. could you speak a little bit on how having an active and especially a competitive governor's race could affect that? specifically, we have competitive races in florida and georgia as well as a lot of house seats, so how does an active governor's race affect -- >> it's hard to quantify these things but, you know, i think active, high visibility races, races that really sort of engage people, um, they obviously draw a lot of attention and help increase turnout.

how much? you know, one of my beefs with political scientists is sometimes they try to quantify the unquantifiable. but, sure, it happens. how much? who the hell knows. but of course it happens. i mean, you know, theoretically if you had, you know, a knockdown, drag-out fight, high visibility, a lot of engagement on a mayor's race, it could drive up turnout in that city. but as opposed to, you know, really blah, you know, no real -- then why vote? i -- we hear a little bit less about it now than we used to, but a lot about why americans don't vote much compared to other countries. and i've always thought that, you know, if you talk to a european, for example be, and you ask them how many opportunities do you have to vote over four years, and

generally they'll come up with like two. three. you know, there might be a state election, a federal election and maybe one for e.u. but that's basically it. and only generally like one thing on the ballot for each one. think of that here. think of federal elections, sometimes state elections, sometimes municipal elections, bond issues, special elections. all these things so that over a four-year period of time i'm guessing if a lot of states -- in a lot of states you could vote 10, 12 times, be asked to vote 10 to, 12 times over four years. now, does that devalue the importance of voting some? yeah, i think so. particularly in states like virginia, kentucky, louisiana, new jersey, mississippi that have odd-year state elections

plus a lot of municipalities have odd-year state elections, it devalues it. but the second thing is we elect jobs in this country that for the life of me i do not know why we vote on 'em. [laughter] and, i mean, i consider myself a relatively politically-sophisticated person. the maryland special court of appeals, who are they? [laughter] what do they do? why are they special? [laughter] you're looking at a bunch of names where it could say elmer f be udd. nobody knows who these people are. or, you know, in my home state, louisiana. you know, we elect parish coroners. who the hell here is of qualified to judge who would be a good coroner? [laughter] or sheriff? or one of my favorite is the in south carolina. i think they still do this.

they elect the agitant general, the head of the state national guard. really? and so to me, if we just sort of consolidated elections and pruned ballots and, you know, why are secretaries of state for any state, why are those elected? there's no -- or state treasurer or, you know, commissioner of agriculture. you know? who's from texas? respect there, what, 11 -- i think there's something like 11 statewide office holders in texas. what? and so i think that, you know, i think americans probably vote more than anybody else in the world, but it's just sort of spread out over a lot of things. but i think if we consolidated it, you know, it would raise the value of voting, and our turnout levels would go back up.

okay, who else? who has not asked a question? you? you have not. >> my question is you're opposing narratives in both parties, do you think there's a possibility of more third party candidates entering the field, and if they do enter the field, more likelihood that they would be elected? >> okay. do you have, like, a grandfather that was a big lobbyist here in washington? anyway or there was a big ag lobbyist years ago, bill taggert. first of all, i think it's important to make a distinct between third party and independents. because a lot of time we sort of use it as a generic term. and third party, you know, libertarian natural law, green party, whatever versus just pure independents. yeah, i think we're probably going to have more independent candidates running for various things. and to be honest, actually, let me approach this a different way.

one time -- trying to figure out how to say this. one time there was, um, the mayor of an extremely large city who was very wealthy who thought about running as an independent for president. [laughter] and he sat down with lots of people to just sort of talk about can an independent win, you know, that sort of thing. and i -- my view was at the time was that an independent, you know, had a -- i mean, people were really sick and tire of both parties. they were quick to say they were sick and tired of both parties. but there was a real openness to this. this would have been in about 2006 or '7. and this mayor proceeded to in the course of the conversation basically convince me that there was no way in hell an

independent candidate could win a competitive three-way race for the presidency where there's a democratic nominee and the republican nominee. and the argument want like this. let's say you were the richest perp in the world, you were the smartest person in the world, you were a fab house candidate with a great story to tell, and you never made mistakes. assume that. and let's say you run as an independent for president. there's a democrat over here, a republican over here. what would happen? presumably, you would win a plurality of popular vote which would usually bring -- give you a plurality of the electoral college vote. but nobody got a majority. so the election gets thrown into house of representatives where each state has one vote, california one vote, wyoming one vote, and at that time i think republicans had, like, 29 dell gairgses -- delegations,

something like that. there was no way the independent could win. i mean, just couldn't. and, but at the same time there was this group or a couple years later americans elect that was out trying to get ballot positions in all 50 states for an independent candidate to get on the ballot. and i remember meeting the guy that was the executive director. i sat next to him at a lunch, at a conference in arkansas. and i kind of laid this out and said tell -- explain to me why it's not impossible, effectively, for an independent to win a three-way race. and, clearly, this had never occurred to him. [laughter] which, you know, prior to this other conversation never occurred to me, so i can't knock him. but it seemed to me if you had a group like that that wanted to do something good, what they would do is try to find really

substantial, accomplished people to run as independents for the u.s. senate and the u.s. house because if you had, like, serious, serious people who were accomplished and done things in life and worthy of respect and clearly competent to do these -- you put three or four of them that are legitimately independent, not these faux independents like bernie sanders or angus king, but i'm talking about the real deal. you put three or four of those in the senate, you put 10, 15 in the house, now, sure, there's some things, how are they going to get committee ape assignments? well, if you want my sport on anything -- support on anything, i would like to have one sort of political assignments for each committee. i think something like that would do a world of good.

now, is it ever going to happen? no. no, no. [laughter] you know, for president i just sort of don't see the point. and while with ross perot in 1992 the exit polls showed that half finish first of all, the conventional wisdom is that perot cost george h.w. bush. now, the exit polls actually show that of the people that did vote for ross perot in 1992, half of them if you asked them their second choice or who would they have voted for if perot were not running, half of them said chipton and half said bush. clinton and half said bush. so that would theoretically suggest that perot actually made no difference. now, as the reality i bet if they had asked a year or two earlier who were you supporting, i bet the vast majority of them had supported president bush and that perot had been so critical

so early on of president bush that i think his candidacy acted as a chisel that effect be fly -- effectively chipped a lot of people off supporting president bush, and then had perot dropped out, half of them would have gone back, but half of them wouldn't. so i think, you know, deep down i think he probably did cost bush the election but not necessarily as clear cut as it seems. there's no question in my mind that nader cost gore florida and the election. and i think that's why we've seen third party candidates get less support sort of since 2000. the idea that not only that you're throwing your vote away, but you're potentially tipping an election towards your least favorite candidate, you know, if you were a relin in '92 -- republican in '92, if you're a democrat in 2000, i think that's

sort of settled in. so i would love to see more running for other offices. >> [inaudible] >> all right. thank you all very, very, very much. [applause] .. among the issues awaiting action federal spending for the remainder of 2014 and raising the federal debt ceiling. you can see live senate coverage

here on c-span2. the house as usual on c-span. >> we are in the gallery of the museum. we are looking at vanishing ice out time and polar landscape and art. the purpose of the exhibition is to highlight the rich ulsch rural heritage of the planets frozen frontiers, the arctic and antarctica. this is a photograph of the greenland ice see by german artist. dating from 2008, and it's exhibited side-by-side with a photograph also a these greenland from the last iceberg

series and 2006. many people understand the importance of a case for the planet, it's reflective qualities that help regulate the climate. but many people are unaware that there is a collective consciousness in western culture about these regions. and so it was important within the context of climate change to let people know that these regions are fundamental to our identity. identity. >> there is more from the transport museum this weekend as booktv in american history to look at the history and literature life of bellingham, washington, saturday at noon on c-span2 and sunday at five on c-span3. >> a look now at women in congress. california congresswoman jackie spee was joined by former congresswoman jane harman to talk about women and second careers. this half hour discussion was part of politico's women rules

summit. >> good morning. we will get started. i'm rachel smolkin, the managing editor for news at political. we are happy to have you here, and very excited about the next panel on second careers to a diverse group of women who have reinvented themselves and their careers through the tenacity and perseverance. rohini dey next and has a masters in economic and a doctorate in management science. she left a lucrative career as a consultant with world bank and mckenzie to pursue a passion for indian cuisine an in food, starting a restaurant. she is now a burdening restaurant -- she open the vermillion restaurant and it's also an avid supporter of women in the food in she. jane harman spent nine years in congress rising in the ranks of the nation's leading security and intelligence policy experts.

she left congress at what some may think was the height of her career to take the helm of the woodrow wilson center as its first female director, president and ceo. maria pinto designs fashions for michelle obama and oprah winfrey, and after closing her first boutique, we launched our latest brand m2057 with a popular campaign on kick starter. and congresswoman jackie speer has had a storied career in her path to capital your feel. just faced personal touches can expect professional setbacks and losses and has risen above all of that to save her agenda in congress and become a leader in the democratic party. so let's get right to the conversation. this is all about seconds, how do you start over, whether it is tragedy of economic necessity or simply boredom? is a second act a path of

self-discovery, imagine of the time is right? >> how much time do you have? >> they will kick us off in half an hour. >> in my case i grew up in india, and since the age of 12 my dream was clearly to save the world. at the age of 12 i remember in my school uniform crossing the street, going to the world bank office on a dusty, hot summer day in new delhi and asking them how do i get it job. they said go get a ph.d and come back. which is what i did. from save the world the upscale dining, it baffles me. but it's been many twists and turns th. and with mckenzie in the middle, and the last wrong was a combination of i would say

fashion. love dining hours on the road with a nice expensive -- travel tremendously. the world was booming when it came to food. still is. and combination of wanting to go entrepreneurial, and finally it was rage. i was furious at the indian options out there. all-you-can-eat, $8.99. this is the oldest civilization in the valley. the complexity is tremendous. so surely we can do what no one has done for japanese are others have done for korea and now french, italian. so this is what drove me to take the plunge from the frying pan into the fire. >> congresswoman? >> i already wear her clothes

and now i'm going to your restaurant. [laughter] >> let's support our sisters. so i think it's a couple of things but it is about early dreams. that's my story. i grew up in los angeles, public high school kid, early boyfriend, went to the democratic convention in l.a. in 1960, the age of your great-grandmother's. and was there on the floor of the convention when john kennedy was nominated for president. and my personal lightbulb went off and i just knew i want a career in politics. it took me 32 years to run for congress, the first elected office i sought since junior high school treasure, which i lost, but i've had at least three careers already because i was a congressional aide for a long time. i worked in the carter white house. i was in private law practice which was for me really boring and. then i ran for congress, served for nine terms, left after my third term to run for governor of california, which a lost.

got talked into coming back to congress, served another five terms and then left because the opportunity to be ceo of the wilson center was in a. i succeeded lee hamilton. a very well regarded former member of congress himself. and it's extraordinary. it's a big international stage and the very interested in international issues. the only other thing i would say about all this is, i see life as a journey. there are many stops on the way. where you go with this journey is up to you. you can't buy it. your mother can't give it to you. your kids, and i have four of them, and certainly inspire you him and grandkids are much better than kids, by the way. [laughter] but you've got to go there and you've got have the passion and drive to go. so this may be my fourth or fifth career. i'm planning on at least five more. [applause] >> wonderful. maria. >> well, first of want to

challenge the word reinvention. i think it is more about evolution and i like your perspective in terms it's a journey. i think that my career has just been an evolving process of what we learned and what would bring to the table today. so as a designer today, i can embrace think a much different way both as a designer and as a woman, and looking around in this room and saying what do we need, which brings the relevant to what i would consider doing now. so that's my first challenge. for some reason i always get twitchy when i hear reinvention because it feels like you're doing something to fix something as opposed to building on something that you've already invested so much of your life into. to your point, it always goes back to passion and drive. i always wanted to design and i have always had four or fives already. how many lives does a cat have? >> still have a few left. you've got to double the number to go. >> i think the first thing i

would say it's throughout the plan. because it's not going to go the way you expect it to go anyway. no need to waste any time thinking about what you're career is good to look like. much like jane, i had many losses. i am, i like to say a three-time loser. i lost the student body president in high school. i lost the first time i ran for congress in 1979. and i lost what i ran for lieutenant governor of california in 2006 went about as good to be the first woman to serve in that role. but every time i lost i found out that i had really one because it set me up to do something even more extraordinary than i thought i could do. so i would say that there is not just a second act, there are many, many acts. and do not confine yourself into thinking that if you do, you

have to find out what the perfect job is for you. because there are going to be many perfect jobs, and that in perfect job, a job that you hate, is going to teach you so much about what you really want. >> i think that's a great way to put it and i want to go back to the point that congresswoman harman made. i like the concept of a journey. how do you know when it is time to take the journey? when used in a place for a while and when you take that next step. >> are you asking me? >> i am. >> well, everybody in this room needs to be fierce. and we understand this? you need to fight for what you want. there are different ways to fight. fight doesn't always mean kicking somebody in the face. it can be a kinder, gentler, even more effective way to get what you want. jackie is right. i mean, failure is your friend. i failed a number of times professionally and also personal loss, which jackie has had come and maybe others of you have.

are right in front of the wilson job, 90s in, two and half years ago, my husband was diagnosed with leukemia. don't get that. i don't recommend, and died within a month. it was just brutal. but i kept going. so it is -- you know when the time is when you know. i don't know how to say that. i think it is true that being in the wrong job can teach you what you don't like. and being in the wrong job sometimes is useful to prove yourself to get a better job. but i'm looking around this room. be fearless. do it. inc. about what you really, really want to do. if you don't like what you're doing, check out other things. one other piece of advice, which you probably know, it's much easier to get a job from a job. don't just quit and sit on your bed and say, i need a job. somebody do something. doesn't work like that.

and you will have to sometimes bide your time. especially if you're raising a family sometimes you have to bide your time. i don't mean quit again, but it's hard. when i had four kids at home, it was a really hard thing to juggle all this. when i finally ran for congress, two of them had already, one was in college and one was on a school year abroad programs whose more manageable but just one last point about this, just the life balance, work balance thing. i won i called him to tell my then nine year old daughter, my youngest who is now 29, she survived me. she's not a drug dealer. she's very happy and beautiful, but i said, justine, i can't come home to put you today because i have to stay late to vote. her immediate comment was, mommy, why is staying late to vote more important than coming home and put me to bed? >> what did you say? >> i haven't answered that question 20 years later. if anyone knows the answer, i

would be interested. >> can i suggest something? all of you upon one point in another in your life want to have -- it took me a long time to have my first job. i was 38. and then had a couple of miscarriages, one at 17 weeks, and it was very tough. then we adopted a baby and then another 10 days later they took the baby away. i was crying coming home and saying to my husband, why do these bad things keep happening to us? he said, wait a minute. we have this beautiful sunken we have our health and we can try again. so i go to the are to be specialist who says to me in the most unkind way, based on the age of your age and -- [laughter] your medical history, you have about a 10% chance of getting pregnant with in vitro. well, that sounded like bad odds

so we close that chapter, grateful to have her son. i started running statewide for secretary of state. in that time of the month came and went and came and went and came and went, and finally at 11:00 at night ran out to walgreens to get a home pregnancy test, come back, take it. my god, it's turning the right color for the first time after doing it many times to i called my husband wasn't the our doctor. i think i pregnant. he said what was it, immaculate conception? [laughter] and sure enough, come down to the hospital to come down to the hospital and let's do a blood test. get the blood test, calls me at 7 a.m. and says you are pregnant. so i get pregnant naturally at 43. [applause] so don't give up hope. the sad part of that particular story was that two weeks later i

announced i was a run for secretary of state any longer because it was a very high risk pregnancy because of my two miscarriages before. and then two weeks later my husband was killed in an automobile accident. and i was then a single parent with a five and a half year old, a widow, pregnant with her second child, and my husband it was a remarkable guy, he was an er doctor and a live animal, let his life insurance lapse so i was three months away from personal bankruptcy. >> and look at you now. >> how do you take that next step? >> i frankly wanted to die. and i think that come into, i would sit -- is a high-risk pregnancy size in bed rest for a good part of it and i remember my dad who was this big guy coming to visit me one day and i said, dad, i just don't know if i can go on with this. i miss steve so much and i just,

you know, this pregnancy. you look at me and he said, jackie, it's been three months, get over it. tough words. but in part that's what we have to do. whatever it is that comes our way that is painful and somatic, we've got to kind of get the wherewithal internally and surround ourselves with family and friends to help us through get the bad times. and have to be willing to ask for what you want. you know, after losing my husband, it was tough and people did want him you talking about it three years later, but i was still in a lot of pain. but i found ways of sort of creating a universe of people around me who were of like mind. we called ourselves the merry my widows and nobody wanted to join that club. and that build a friendship of women who even today get together three or four times a year to support each other. so develop that universe of

people to help you. >> i would like to add to what -- because you are not in a situation where circumstances had imposed a change on you. you were at a job earning a lot of money and in a high profile position. why make that change? did people think you're crazy to do it the? >> i want to write a book on this. that it is. it's ridiculous, especially when you come from indian background and you have invested in the ph.d, to go from that to a small business, all of those restaurants, it is appalling. i think my parents are still hoping i will come back to sanity. and my in-laws even more so. we all have worked at mckinsey, worked with countries, the world bank, and so you think you are smart, right? and beaten out a lot, so that makes me a connoisseur, right?

man, was i in for a journey. i really -- but what i would counsel to anyone who is looking to grow, and for me, there are people who live in different ways, and i thrived outside my comfort zone. i get my energy from that, from a little bit of insecurity and fear and push. and so for me, i didn't just quick mckinsey and say all right, this is a. i took a leave of absence. i took a couple of months to really invest in myself. we call it early emotion. we have to tear -- we even had to do at mckinsey. i would speak to owners, operation managers. i went and lived with the restauranteur. i did the numbers inside out. i spoke to vegas. iran a business plan. i wanted to convince myself is this viable, conceptually and financially? financially? it's not philanthropy. i'm not just throwing away a career for ego to build myself up.

it's only after i did those few months, still it taught me very little. i so miss having a jar. i.t., legal, travel, corporate. one day when i get to the empire i will get all of that back. but it's been such an amazing journey. hugely gratifying. and i strongly endorse, not just still but making a change, whether you call it second act, renewal, evolution can whatever. >> we will call it evolution as i go to maria. you are in a position where you have your dream job. everything was going so well and then because of the economic downturn you have to step back and rethink everything. how do you like not fear hold you back in a situation like that? >> i think you have hit a point where just sort of tells you to move on. and to your point, you surround yourself with really dynamic, strong people that, of course, you don't make any of these

major life decisions without consulting and gathering information. and it's not easy. i mean, it's easy to sit here and talk about it. when you're in that space, it gets very dark and scary, and then you just have to find whatever you want to refer to, whether it's in your soul, your network of friends. there's a pragmatic side and the emotional, spiritual side that all comes together to movie to the next place. it's absolutely not easy, but i have absolute no regrets. i think the best thing that ever happened at the close my company in 2010, gave me time to breathe and is able to do consulting work, able to gather new information which is informed what i'm doing now and it's so much more interesting, so much more dynamic. i have absolutely no regrets at this point. did i not have three years of a big roller coaster ride? absolutely, but i mean if i were to invite someone i would say

take a leave. there's always something better on the other side. you don't know what it is but you have to have faith and kept the faith in yourself, and courage. it's always scary. when isn't it scary? look around the room. coming here today, rising fear, what's going to happen? there's always some kind of fear that plays into what we do. i think when you don't have that sense of, call it a thrill, whatever you want, it's an emotional kind of drug, and that drives you to the next place. i lived probably on the edge a lot more than most people i know and they all think i'm a little -- the respected but at the same time they know i'm a little crazy, and you have to be. but otherwise it's boring. i have absolutely no regrets. my life has never been boring, but it has been definitely scary, but i had great experiences just like everyone sitting here. >> can i just add one thing, and that is women supporting women. a lot of what jackie is talking

about -- [applause] is about this network of women support. when my husband died one of the first people to come with jackie. she sent me this lovely book and we had breakfast and we talked about this. >> what was the book? >> what was the name? >> this is not the life i ordered. >> a beautiful boat and the beautiful gesture. but not all women help women. about i would share this little secret with you. [laughter] spent malik albright says can and malik albright says can and will issue but, there's a cold place in hell for women who don't support women. but all of our careers of their and a lot of yours are going to depend on women mentors and women support group of win. that you should families but there may be strong women in your families but not -- use the support networks but also do-it-yourself. pay it forward. it is so important that you become the mentors and the

people who inspire younger women who are wondering whether they can get out of their comfort zone. i bet they were strong women in your life who maybe didn't do as crazy things as you did, but maybe in your own family got out of their comfort zones and you said your parents were probably appalled but i'm sure there were other people are who you saw out there, even in india, who were role models for what at least the kind of jury you wanted. >> i do think role models masses should have to be women. i also don't think mentors have to be women. i think men can be incredibly helpful, but it's up to us to reach out. but i totally agree with your point about hoping that network. in our case, and culinary, i'm glad you brought it up, i was having a conversation with rachel earlier, but the statistics for leadership of women and culinary, when i talk about leadership i'm talking being restauranteurs, restaurant magnets or leadership. not pay to ship.

it makes the senate look like halle lose your. [laughter] truly. -- hollowly a bunch now a little over 50%. but when it comes to winning a war being and easily positions well below 10%, but incentives even as low as 3%. i'm now on the board of trustees of the james beard foundation which is -- we're making a concerted effort with them to literally build leadership. so it's not more education grants. it's not more scholarships. you don't need more education. it's about pulling you out, giving you a one year accelerated entrepreneurial, and less you can do your finances, balance sheet and invested capital, p&l, talk to lay was of voters, those things cost. management and running the

entire kitchen. so we are rolling that out across and helping to build around change in the industry. why is it important? not because i want my daughters to be restauranteurs. god forbid. [laughter] but women need to all have the sky, bright? so why not? >> i want to pick up on congresswoman speier store. you share some personal tragedy with us but there was other -- you were shot five times at jonestown trying to rescue constituents and left for dead. give us a sense of, again, how you come back from an experience like that. you've talked a lot about surrounding yourself with good friends, but what do you draw from yourself to go forward? >> i was 28 when that happened. i was the legislative council to congressman leo ryan, and it was

a cold, although it is called a church in sever cisco called the people's temple and 900 members, along with the record, jim jones, went to south america to guyana to set up a commune there. and many of congressman shrines constituents were concerned about their loved ones, young adults often, who they felt were subject to mind control and edges cut themselves off and their families. so we made the trip down there. many people wanted to leave. on the airstrip, unbeknownst to us, a tractor-trailer have followed behind us with seven gunmen on it and shot and killed congressman ryan who shot 45 times, a number of members of the press along with and i was shot five times on the right side of my body. and i've got to chile, at 28 thinking oh, my god, this is it. i'm not going to live to be 85 but i'm not going to get married and have 2.5 kids. this is it.

and we have moments like that in your life, a kind of puts everything in perspective, and i just made a commitment to myself that if i did live, if i did survive, that i would never take another day for granted, live everyday as fully as possible, and commit myself to public service. so i am one of those who literally have had a couple of lies. and i am very lucky to be here, as i think we all are. [applause] >> i think that's a wonderful note to close the gun and i'm being given signals that that needs to happen soon but before we do, maria, i promised my daughter who wants to be a fashion designer that i would ask you a question from her, which is, what will your next line look like? do you think it will be a big hit?

[laughter] 100% because how many women are in this room? you all promise to go look at my website, m2057. >> that is beautiful. >> you said something earlier and i did appreciate having mentors, males pick up against a, i thank them come mentors have been men and friends that have been in who have supported me. but i do recognize and appreciate what you said earlier in terms of women supporting women. it's our responsibility, but you just got off the call this morning, i launch my new collection on kickstart a which is a cool platform like fashion meeting, great world of the web. this woman e-mailed me instead of launching a project. t. have time to speak with me? i've had many of those and i tried respond to all of them because i know if i can have five minutes and share some insight. it's easy to say it, it's another thing to make time to do. i know it's our responsibility

to get a answer her question? >> he gave a fabulous answer. why don't i've aged you give give me a one sentence closing thought, anything you want to wrap up on our we didn't get to engine which we had. >> i will go last. >> okay. spend my daughter, justine, the one i disappointed profoundly 20 years ago is now the beauty and features editor at elle.com. she's my resident fashionista and shall be really impressed that i met you. >> i just want to thank all of you. i'm always inspired a women that i meet and i've been looking -- thank you for allowing me to be here with you. >> thank you. >> i, too, am delighted to be with this great panel. i would like to end with equal. life cannot get you in the and attention and arriving in a well-deserved body. but rather, to be totally used up, totally worn out, chocolate in one hand, martini in the

other screening. what a ride. [laughter] [applause] >> okay, it's your turn. >> i have come up with nothing profound. [laughter] but who can beat that? except i would turn the martini into a rum and coke. but again, a pleasure to be here. i really hope all of you pursue your dreams. it is about that. and as long as there's passion, it's worth right. what a lovely morning. [applause] >> up next women on to produce highlight the importance of networking. this discussion was part of politico's women rules summit in washington, d.c. speakers include founders of them use and black girls rock. this is about 20 minutes. >> i'm a defense reporter at

political. i'm delighted to be joined this one by seanez senior white house correspondent and a really great group of women for this conversation about the new network. we are joined by the founder of the muse, a critic of the platform and she was named to his and roche affords 30 under 30. glynnis is next her, cofounder of the list, a social platform for awesome women which has grown from a startup to a powerless of women over 400 strong. is also a columnist for capital new york. we have with us today to returning -- the leading national not-for-profit provider of resources for women to grow their microbusinesses into million-dollar enterprise. last but not least we're joined by beverly bond, the founder and executive director of black girls rock which is mentors and

celebrated exceptional women of color have made outstanding contributions in their careers. don't forget to tweet questions. our hashtag is women rule. we will try to work some of those into this morning's conversation about the with that, let's get started. >> we are talking about networking today and have specifically this applies to women. is something i think a lot of people are may be uncomfortable doing actual because it forces you to self promote beyond your comfort level, forces you to be outgoing if you are not completely, if it isn't for your personal. we want to talk, something we discussed at a time come we want to talk about practical applications for this. if we can start with you, kathryn. maybe something that example in your own life or in some sort of advice that you've given someone in a networking situation. >> i am a big fan of networking because i used to be so opposed to it are afraid of it. when i started my business, turn one, all of my sudden my success

will depend on getting it for investors and clients and people who work with. i had to very quickly start putting myself out the. one of the things i found thoses most effective was coming up with one or two things that i potentially wanted that someone could help me with and just casually dropping the into almost every conversation i had. when we were talking earlier -- [laughter] i got very good at it. about what we wanted to get a partnership with yahoo! because we wanted this partnership and i had no way of getting it for an entire month evidence of them asked me how's it going, what are you up to, i said things are great. working to try to get a partnership with yahoo!, something else. how are you? 97% of people said i'm doing great and the conversation continued. 3% said my colleagues such as postman works at yahoo!. i got seven offers a connection. three people fold up and one did the deal with us. that was about four weeks later.

>> what do you think, glynnis? is this something that comes to mind of a way to kind of push forward a? >> we spoke about, i think the flipside of this is people, one, showing a. i think social media can be sort of a deceptive sense of connection that perhaps does not run as deep or as long as you need to be to be rewarding. i'm a big believer in just showing up to everything. the flipside of knowing what you want is having a sense of your you are speaking to them what they can offer. i think so you're not just blindly walking up to people and saying, here's what i have. you walk up with and knowledge of what perhaps they can fight you. people want to be helpful but you need to make it as easy as possible for them to be helpful. so you want to know who's in the room that you're going to. you don't have to be a deep google.com not like a first date or anything. it could have a sense of the room you're in, the people who

are in it and some sense of what they do and what they consider valuable so that you can figure out how that message with which are doing better. make it easy for people to help you. >> what do you think? >> one of the things i think is most important, particularly in washington, is being able to very quickly just let people know what it is that you do. and how you can be helpful to them. i think two-way street, women are particularly challenged by this. the our favor banks we all use. the fast he can let -- we get it at our table, and people didn't say the name necessarily. you've got to say your name. where are you from, and this is what i'm about so you can hear that so other people, almost the opposite of what you were saying, or to the covenant of that. how do you quickly get to know each other to start to see we can exchange information, help,

contact and those types of things. we do a two-minute pitch in the small business world. but in this room if you have a minute doubt about i am so-and-so, this is what i do and i'm looking for a promotion, a new job, whatever it is. but none of the women sitting at my table, by the way, when they said they kind of hoped something changed, only one of them had told somebody at work they wanted a promotion or a raise. it's a lot about telling people what it is you're looking for or that you want, whether it's in your workplace or in a networked situation. >> say it out loud. >> absolutely. if it is in your head, you are the only one who knows. [laughter] say it. i would also say you have to say it. this is truly, the point about social media, you have to talk to someone about these things. this is not a female or a tweet or anything. this is a conversation looking at somebody and saying i'm looking for, or can i help you.

it's a different, friendlier, open kind of exchange. >> beverly, unique situation because you're a formal model and dj angie decided you wanted to create this group black girls rock. that's quite a right turn for you so how did networking come into play? and what did you, i guess what are some tips that you get from that that you can share with others? >> i'm actually one of those leaders, i feel challenge by networking. i was pushed into the spotlight, especially when i started black girls rock but it wasn't something, i knew it was necessity to start the organization, talk about messages but it didn't necessarily want to be the spokesperson. i just wanted to do my work and kind of laid back, you know? that did not happen. i was forced to be in the spotlight. in the process -- i made them work amongst each other.

it helps them build their confidence and it helps me build my confidence. this event at my table, table 16, shout out -- [laughter] what we did in our roundtable was we did introduce ourselves. it's really about not just wanting something consumable letting you know -- letting them know how you can work together to a lot of those people want to network but they don't necessarily know how to make themselves of service to you as well. >> i want to ask the question specifically about jini networking and start with neil. in order to be a successful networker, the women need to network like men? >> no. no, no, no. because we are not men. we are not men, and we need to be ourselves. you need to be yourself. so i think there is a way of,

but that's why do you think you need that short explanation of who you are because you want to work with men and so you want to meet them halfway. you want them to understand who you are and where you are a negligent offer them in the same way you would understand that about them. but do i think you need to do it in the same way? absolute not. i think you need to be yourself and do it in a way that is authentically you. but i -- i'm just thinking about networking with men, and it is much more straightforward in a lot of ways. you have in your cart and say going to do something like call me or whatever, and i want to know a little more than that. and so i ask more questions. and i think we can lead them into a conversation where both of you would end up knowing more about each other and whether there's a point in following up or not at all that kind of stuff. so i would say it's intimate upon us and if the couple for us

to really try and engage in a bit of a longer conversation to get some sense of who is doing what and how we could be helpful to each other. so i would say there's some leadership that women can provide into situation where everybody might get more out of it. >> i was just going to say, when you say network like men, what you are really addressing is i think what we're speaking about before which is women tend to be somewhat shyer about declaring their needs and what they want. it's oftentimes is infused with a sense of apology, and i think that's what needs to be addressed. it's very difficult for anyone to walk into a room of people they don't know, but you need to wager some of the sense that you're asking permission and just say, here is why i'm here and here is what i want. i think that's what you mean by networking. because men don't apologize. >> it actually of tales

perfectly into what i was thinking. i think having to network and a lot of very, very aggressive male environments has had me -- has made me better at it. a special running a technology startup in a field which is often 90% male investors, something like 80% male a windows. when i first started, as we started growing in prominence people would mistake me for the significant other or the girlfriend of someone in the room. so i found of any conversations i had to get over my fear of self-promoting and said oh, great to meet you, what do you do? i run a venture backed up tax. all of a sudden they're not writing a. it wasn't something i was comfortable doing at all in the beginning but because i felt like i had to do it to get hurt, i think in some ways it made me better in general with a wider variety of networking situation. i do find the flipside of that is i'm sure a lot of you have probably encountered this, sometimes you run into people who are very, very helpful.

let's say powerful men in your field but the only people they think they should introduce you to our other women. that's great on the one you in because you can get introductions to some incredible people but it means you may be missing out on a large part of the network. someone was said, thank you so much am so excited to meet these people, do you have any men in your network that i could speak to you as well? she literally stopped and visited i think in his head went, my goodness, you're right. and thought or directly about people of both genders. >> i hear you guys kind of talking about, feeling more entitled to just be part of the conversation and changing the mindset. you sort of say you're someone who may be a little more reserved but how have you done that in just changing your mindset? >> it's a process, a process of growing into your confidence it and again been forced to because of your business. there was a time when i started black girls rock in 2006. i did not speak on a mic until

2000. i was sort of forced to ask a speak to the world. but i had to go into that and it took a while for me to grid into that because i did suffer from, i guess feeling -- i don't want to say i wasn't worthy, but apologetic. grateful. and even sometimes now i find myself, i'm always fascinated him even when you called me for the al. [laughter] like really? they want me? and i have to get through that, you know what they mean? i to get to that and understand and value what i bring to the world. and it's a process. >> speaking graduate about networking, what has worked for you guys and what hasn't? is it a facebook invite? is it an e-mail? is someone following you on twitter? glynnis, we talked about your

thoughts and how it has impacted networking. >> my cofounder, richard, was on the panel before me. -- rachel. i am the flipside of the. my presence on social meet is far less because it's less of a cumbersome for me. i would think, it depends on what level you're starting at but if you're just starting at sort of field, showing up and you showing up in meeting people and shaking hands and putting your face in front of them is the most important thing to me. when i met someone and i can't associate a face or a conversation or event with them, i feel so much more likely to respond to the e-mail or the tweet or the facebook invite. when i look at my own career in media which really took off in 2007-2008, and we talk about this all the time, attending all of those events was thinking change. i know that twitter was in such a clear at that point but really

showing up, really shaking hands, just saying hello increases exponentially the chance that when i see an e-mail, it's going to trigger a response because i associate it with something more substantial. >> i think of it as the first time you meet someone at an event and they aren't acquaints bracey that same person at another event, especially you can recognize each other, you almost can't move past that and the, friends. you're almost an ally. it's funny, i love going into rims and seeing, is the sum of i have met maybe once before and invited him and saying, i'm really glad to see a familiar face. even if i know a lot of other people in the room better. it's nice to say i recognize you, i know you, let's kind of brave this. networking is uncoupled for everyone at some level so i think -- sorry. no matter how comfortable someone seems, most people are happy to make that connection. the othe other thing i was to ai

can start at the food table. because i find first of all, i'm always hungry. people love food and it often, you have these funny conversations. you can go up to someone and ask about whether they've tried your granola or sushi or whatever does. i think muc allegedly conversatn with less force especially when you just warming up. if it's an evening party to get an excuse when the conversation is winding down, so great to meet you, i'm going to run to the bar. no one can fault you for that. [laughter] >> for more practical information on this, so if you're going into a room full of people aren't making a phone call to try to get a meeting, how do you prioritize who you are calling? how do you state your goals very clearly i guess? how do you go in with kind of an articulated coal? >> i would be as straightforward as possible. in terms of the phone call, who are you closest to?

who's the most direct link to what it is that you want? and how many phone calls just to make to figure out who that is what how many e-mails are how much research you have to do to understand who knows the person best that you know? because you can call them and say, i'm so-and-so and so-and-so is up in des moines and they said i should talk to you, and this is what i'm looking for. because busy people, i'm telling you, that thing that drives me insane are these long stories that i get. and i'm sitting there like what do you want? [laughter] so what do you want? seriously, get to the point. although sensitive, i wish i could remember them because if you are busy, if you are busy i want to help whoever calls me. but if i listen to all the stories, i would have not done half of what i've done. so i think the issues i'm so-and-so, here are my

credentials, here's who i know, so you know you're not talking to start her on the phone or whatever. and then can you help me with this? most of the time you get, say me more information but you made to contact. i would say the same is true in person. what is it that you want? and be clear, because the person you're asking, you think about who it is, the person you're asking use has got more going on or too much going on. so get into their sort of lexicon of task that they're going to perform and make it easy for them to help you. make it easy for them to help you. give him the letter, give them the thing, whatever it is. most people want to help you. but make it easy for them. >> i think that is the most important thing because when i started the ninth i would shout out to every celebrity to before reading on television we had a strong, healthy group of well-known people that supported this. it was just because i was clear about the mission, what the problem was, what the mission was, what would want them to do

and how we needed their support. they responded in a way that was favorable to what i wanted. not because aashto i didn't write them long letters about the issues. i made it clear, this is the problem, somebody's got to do something about and this is how i'm trying to affect change. >> don't have some sort of -- [laughter] women tend, the sense of apology, just you can be polite and direct at the same time. write a subject line that is to the point. when you are all on the receiving end, have a subject -- it has to be direct. just state it right there. the e-mail doesn't have to be blah, blah, blah. it can just be hello, here's how we met. here's what i need. make it so easy for the person to help you and don't get too wrapped up in thinking that you are being abusive, rude or impolite. if we think of e-mails that we receive are often one of two

lines. this is what i need. >> three words. [laughter] >> that makes it very easy. >> yes or no? >> it's kind of fascinating, when you look at studies women don't always articulate their career goals. this is something i can identify with. so what sort of says what you want to do next? i'm sort of like, excuse me? are you asking me how much i weigh? that's a very private. what advice do you have in terms of articulating career goals? >> i think it's something a lot of women struggle with. >> you've got to haggle. seriously. no, you seriously have to haggle. we've got to think about this. it is likely to happen to you. you are going to make it happen. so you've got to spend some time because somebody is going to ask you, and hope that a lot of people are going to ask you. and you got to be able to say,

i'm considering such and such, such and such, and so-and-so. what do you think? just it's not like -- i was listening, i was at table 18. wonderful women but their talk about wanting to forget how to make the right choice. you've got to put out there because you've got to get back enough information to start to understand what the right choices for you. but they can't all be in your head. if everybody left here today writing down what they would want in your future, and it could be three things on anytime anybody ask you that, you've got that. you've got it. so that the conversation can continue rather than you sitting there thinking, gee, i missed an opportunity. and you may have. so think about it and like commit it to yourself. you can answer that question. because if you could, you will get there. i will tell you if you can articulate it, you can have it.

>> we are unfortunate running short on time so we will leave it there for this morning. thank you so much for spending time with us this morning. give these guys a hand. [applause] >> the house and senate will return tomorrow morning for the final day of the first session of the 113th congress. the house will meet friday in a pro forma session starting at 11 a.m. eastern and the senate galas in at 11:45 a.m. the first session will officially end when they adjourned at 1159 time they get the house will reconvene at noon eastern and pro forma session to officially begin the second session of the 113th congress. they won't do any bill debate. that will resume next week. you can see lighthouse coverage on c-span and, of course, the senate right here on c-span2. >> i have been involved in politics or four years in one way or another.

i worked on reagan's 76 and 80 campaigns. i work in his administration for eight years. the fact of the matter is i have never seen so many people quoting and waving around the declaration of independence and the constitution. many of you 10 years ago you never gave it a second thought. now i bet it's at the front of your mind. and it is with tens of millions of us. the fact of the matter is, tens of millions of us love this country. we don't want it fundamentally transformed. so we have to get to as many other people as we can wake them up, educate and to the truth is and i'm not trying to come us on the back. that's the purpose of the book, the purpose, i consider part of the purpose of my radio program as do a number of my brothers and sisters in broadcasting which is why we are under attack all the time. these utopian status. >> sunday best selling author, lawyer, reagan registration official and radio personality mark levin we'll take your calls and questions "in depth" live

for three hours starting at noon eastern. booktv's "in depth," the first sunday of every month on c-spa c-span2. >> october marked the 50th anniversary of the release of a report by president cares commission on the status of women. eleanor roosevelt charity commission until her death. the jfk library held a symposium in october marking the anniversary. up next, brandeis law school professor anita hill, former labor secretary hilda solis and attorney sandra fluke. from the jfk library in boston this is about one hour. >> well, i'm just going to sit back and let you take it from there. seriously, anita hill here on might immediate left was pressed into the headlines when 20 years ago when she testified before senator and a confirmation

hearing for than supreme court justice nominee clarence thomas. the televised hearings galvanized women politically and we got the year of the woman 1992 when a record number of women -- [applause] -- were elected to congress. and since then professor who has been writing and lecturing at brandeis numbers should be writing and lecturing around the country, and, indeed, around the world about law, public policy and women's rights. so professor hill, if you could just give us a little window into what that personal expense was and how it transformed your life and i think maybe redirected your nation for the intervening decades that have since passed? >> oh, boy. well, i will say that it is columbus day weekend, and it was columbus day weekend, 1991 when

i testified. so it was very interesting. i think amy captured in a story that she said she was at a wedding over the weekend in 1991. and there were arguments of house the wedding party and it was sort of men versus women. i think that there were a lot of arguments that took place about women's real expenses in the workplace where women said, you know, that sounds very familiar. and men, just like in the u.s. senate, were pretty incredulous. and i will say, and are going to come back to this at the end of some points i want to make, we have come a long way since 1991. ..

and have been able to move on and to make some positive changes for women in the workplace. and you know, that has been 22 years of a lot of people working really, really hard and we are not entirely there yet. but we will be moving in the right direction. but i tell people it has taken decades and scores and thousands of years really