whites were overwhelmingly voting democratic there and probably did for president as well. so does it extend beyond the south, or is it the south that's really driving that? and then maybe a broader point to make is that one of the things i think we're seeing here is the southernization of the republican party. ..

less than 60%. and 60% to 90%. and that 90% and overt. whether you cured by percentage weight or the annex of racial and ethnic fragmentation, we've got to middle segment that that is 50%, whose racial and ethnic identities are activated by racial context as well. so it's not just in the south. they're sort of a continue on from the southern states to the central midwestern states, like ohio, going to upper midwestern states like minnesota where it comes from, where my cousin, mary lu, vote solid democratic. reese is not an issue at the click of a debt in vermont and maine. it is somewhat of an issue in ohio, central midwestern states and the further south you go, the more it becomes an issue both in the southwest and southeast.

>> thank you. i want to ask a question primarily for david campbell and colleagues about, i think you were saying the two dimensional alignment that michael talked about was declining over time and attributing it to party queuing and opinion formation. you can see another areas, republicans like to talk about how democrats are defending things they work for. is that what you are saying? i'd like to ask to react to it. are we getting back to one-dimensional, political alignment, based on people lining up to what their party tells them? thanks. thanks for the question. we didn't try to map out the two

dimensional view of politics like michael and michael did. we examined issues that really. i think more traditionalism of the social dimension and egalitarianism on the economic dimension compared to their work. we found both of them related to the increase in just the the opposite party. we can't really say. we basically treated ideology of this one dimension where we try to control daddies. we didn't do as there is a job and look at the two-dimensional nature of policy preferences in that way. >> i think mike can add to this, too if he agrees. the way we look at it, when we

examine party attitudes and feeling thermometers and other work done, it's the people who look like they're divided on one dimension who are having the greatest six engine and likes and dislikes. those who behave like republican and democratic lawmakers who are divided along that dimension. the ones who are divided into smaller bars and art in our view with the how to answer that. >> two comments. i don't find, at least when i look at the data that the two issues are strongly correlated. the caveats that don't ask the same questions every year, so you have to make some assumptions about comparability. i don't see a trend that are correlated. they started for an example graph that shows the people who care about who wins the presidency. we find that can't traded among

liberals and conservatives. no change among the others. same thing with respect to partisan identification. all those three groups are sort of in the middle over all an average. the liberals and conservatives polarize whether it identification, voting behavior to make up about 45, maybe 50% of the electorate are striving to change the offending others are caught in the middle. >> so, i've seen evidence that they're more correlated. opinions on abortion, which is consistent over time. the correlation between 19 ideological identification or between that and economic issues asked over time. it's definitely becoming more correlated. still, the correlations are modest compared with the correlations among economic

issues. but increasingly correlated with partisanship. so partisanship is increasingly correlated with both economic issues and cultural issues. as far as the people and diagonal boxes, the other thing about them is that they are less involved in politics altogether. but more consistent you are in your opinion overall, both within domain and across domains, the more involved the wire. the more interest if you are in the more you vote. so part of what's going on is we don't know whether their ball because they don't like what the parties are offering or the less interested and all because they're people who don't care about politics and they are not picking up on the queues and they are not as aware of what the party stand for in these issues go together now. so i think the people involved in politics and more aware on

this coming of the more liberal on that as well. and they have more consistent opinions. it's a very strong relationship between political engagement and consistent if opinions across issues. >> i do have one response. in terms of participation, the populace, they are less active, but that is not sure if libertarian spirit it's interesting to point out that ross perot did very well for a third-party candidate from that group. quit nuke of the two as well as another person. if you look up to support the democrats have gotten over time, they're getting a significant amount of support compared to moderate. they're actually getting more than they are from populist groups. i find that significant. >> may just add one thing. they have become more correlated over time partisanship and

ideology. we measured different ways. the single left right dimension is offering more purchase in explaining public opinion perhaps now than it used to. >> the correlation at heart and ship is it? it does two dimensions, the core values become more correlated. that's what i don't necessarily see happening. >> thank you. my name is bill being. this goes to you -- since we're talking about going forward and the libertarians. you brought the word up a couple

of times. the word libertarian up a couple times. you brought the word tea party a period which seems to be percolating, you probably know that governor key senate didn't and round with the republican legislature to impose medicaid. obamacare, which is probably maybe the most disliked policy by the tea party people. they have said -- i don't know who they are, i don't know who the tea party is. when i meet the tea party i go to republican dinners. there's never anybody behind them. i don't see an organization. what i'm interested in is the libertarians -- that the

qualified candidate. the former republican house member and the ohio house of representatives. it must have some kind of political skills. cities going to run apparently. republicans are trying to tax the law. just today, yesterday, make it hard for third parties to get on. at any rate, i just was wondering about this because alan brought it out. some of you referred to it differently. i think he is that as a philosophical group rather than a party group. is that what you're using quiet >> people of conservative views on economic issues --

>> you're describing them as a philosophical group. >> with their preferences. >> if people had those years, what they migrate -- i was very dismissive of the libertarians in virginia. the mac i'm not sure t. pretty libertarian -- >> now, but the tea party in ohio -- the problem i have, the tea party in ohio, trying to figure out who they are and who their leaders are. the most vocal once they get their name in the newspaper, which seems to be their hobby, they say they are not a keen to say. they are going to back the libertarian candidate because they're not going to go through a don't want to go through to actually create a tea party party. i have a hard time with students, explaining the tea party party as it was an event.

so that's an interest group is named after them. i was kind of curious and i think i'll be curious, those of us who are ohio watchers and 14 come in the gubernatorial election because this is i think critical -- a critical part of this election, this libertarian and may be -- i don't know if i actually have a question you can help me and there. but they asked the guy, they said you might be electing a democrat. the libertarians that so what. so even if he was seen as a spoiler -- i guess i'm wondering -- i guess this goes more to you for all of you. does libertarian actually draw a vote because it's a label

because it has a philosophical meaning that people who voted republican no longer see the republicans holding those to move to the other party and the idea that we're going to get down to that last week in waste or vote. is there something different going on here with the libertarians and the tea party? i'm just wondering if you could enlighten us ohio people as to what we are going to begin for in this 2014 election because all the news people love it. and the democrat love it because this is certainly a way for him to fall. they are going to protect them. if you can do anything with that, i'd appreciate it. >> i guess in a word, maybe barely. the tea party is a more diffuse

group then i think the news media give it credit for. a lot of times we think about their most prominent failures, sharon anglin nevada or christina donnellan delaware. may 2010 midterms they have some high-profile voters. both running for the right in primaries and also winning general elections. cheeky extent that the libertarian label is appealing to people, are evidence that for some people, but not nearly enough to win an election. so for true believing candidates and true believing voters, what do they care for republican or democrat wins? it's not what they want here for the small segment of people, they don't mind so much that they are spoiling the election for the group closer to their economic views. with respect to the tea party where bradley come i didn't get to show the table because they

drove onto another beginning. will it or ideological groups and their approval for the tea party. even conservatives. it's not like this is a super popular group. there's enough tea party lawmakers that can certainly play an important role in how governance occurs in the country. that's all you got. >> do we still have time quite >> one reason that john kasich opted for federal medicaid subsidy was that one third of our state budget cuts to medicaid expenses. the other aspect of your question is equally good. but as a libertarian? i think my son is a libertarian. someone who wants less government on every issue domain. the four issue domain. [inaudible] >> no, no. he's not that.

>> four issue domains in american politics through the social welfare issues in the foreign-policy issues, civil rights issues and the cultural issues. i see libertarians as being different from tea partiers. they want less government i'm all for domains. they don't want government to intervene. support for the tea party -- tea party supporters are more conservative on economic issues. there are also more conservative funds social issues. i would suspect i'm not as well. >> or her government interveners is so cultural issues to establish order while libertarians are concerned about that. they are concerned about liberty.

and government intrusion means a loss of liberty. >> social issue to mention an interesting right now. this is another area where republic are facing a growing challenge. the electorate is clearly trending in a liberal direction on social issues. gay marriage being the obvious one. also, for example, on the legalization of marijuana issue, there's a dramatic change i'm not as well. so it's going to be interesting to watch the vote in the senate on the nondiscrimination bill and see what he got in the house. it will pass on it and get a fair number of public and those in the senate, but i don't think it's going anywhere in the house. >> i wasn't kidding in terms of a lot of the younger people -- [inaudible]

>> young people in general tend to be more liberal, though. >> i was just making a point that batters and attract his part. >> it is part of it, for sure. >> hi, casey weinstein, local citizen here. i have read congress is more ideological -- ideologically polarized in the electorate is. have you seen that data at all? if so, why do you think that is? visit the open primaries you talk about? >> nobody's disputing that i don't think. as a base in the political science literature as congress is become more polarized. i think it clearly has.

they're more polarized because you look at the way they are selected and what it takes to get to be a member of congress in the makeup of the districts and even state now. there's been a big increase in the number of one-party dominated districts and even the number of one-party dominated states. when you get elected for one of those states or districts, you are not worrying about competition of the general election. you're worried about the primary electorate. primary electorate they're much more polarized. idea mike [inaudible] >> just a little teaser for this afternoon. we look at people who are subscribers to freedom works, which is the largest tea party membership group at least. what we find if they went very heavily for romney. the more active they were for

the tea party endorsed candidates, they went for romney. the dislike of the other party drives this a lot. i think you really don't be -- the dislike of obama, bright. you don't see this move away to a third party. a few people might say it here but i just don't see it. here are in fact there was this talk about when the senator from a high of -- portman, on gay marriage, that tea party people were going to in a sense go again day. >> look at the tea party leaders in congress are due up in the most prominent leaders in the congress? people like michele bachmann and a jim demint who is not the heritage foundation. they are all social conservatives. they are anti.

i don't see any evidence. grandpa who flirts with libertarianism is a shall issue to the eric are produced. he's not a libertarian. pseudo-libertarian. >> i was hoping i get a chance. university of akron and to two. this question is for adam -- alan, i am sorry. basically you are talking about the 15% of the libertarian are the available voters. there's like a 15% group better in the data. there's 15% i were basically

targetable that could move up or down. i was just in years lied. >> i don't think there's a 50% libertarian out there. >> you can pass this to someone else. i'll try to talk to you about it later. >> i'm curious about the role of money. we've had unprecedented money flooding into politics. outside money. does this talking about the future, does this make it impossible for intense polarization? >> it is coming mainly from the right. the money being spent overwhelmingly on negative ads. i saw a breakdown of positive versus negative that are taking.

in 2012 it was overwhelmingly negative for the candidate as well as the tight groups. the outside groups were really negative. that's just about all they do is attack ads. [inaudible] which subjected to this intent negative barrage. wound up being a base election. i guess they can't let each other out. there's just a month singing contest. terry mcauliffe said twice as much money as kuchen only. the kootenai camp is now saying, well, if the republican donors had come through for us, we could have thrown more mud and may be taken -- won the race. anybody? >> this goes back to the question earlier about

polarization. it's not the outside money from these groups. it the candidates and how they have to raise money in small amounts and contributions. they go to individual -- citizen -- it liberals than conservatives and those who want to give and so it reinforced his the pattern. >> and i had one thing to back? on the big outside money, and dependent expenditure groups you have to look at the needs and wants of the donors. that is not something i know about. the countervailing cores that candidate are raising money in smaller amounts. there's some evidence that your anger and throughout our more successful at motivating individuals to give money. there is no surprise like michele bachmann have been successful fundraisers in context for that reason.

>> it is doing good money after bad. it's reinforcing everyone's views. it's a big waste of money. >> ultimately in the presidential race, they just cancel each other out. when you go spend how many millions of dollars -- i was wednesday. both parties spend tens of millions of dollars saturating the airwaves. they're canceling each other out. it not doing any gain. >> before we thank linda feldmann and the panel, i have a couple of announcements to make. one is that we will take a break here for a few minutes. those of you who are signed up for lunch will have lunch next door right in the room through that wall. only don't go through the wall. go to the door through the other side. i was asked to remind you out

there is goodness that are interested in the masters of applied politics program here. there's some reserve table at the front where we can help provide you with some information about that. and finally, have you all may have noticed i'm in your tote bags, there are evaluation forms. i have been told to act you ought to fill out evaluation forms. at this point, please join me in thanking linda feldmann. [applause] >> charlie cook with the cook political report gave his thoughts on the 2014 elections. he was a guest of american university's campaign management and two. he told students about what he sees are the republican party's

branding issues. here's a look. >> first, let's talk about the republican brand image problems. it kind of got talked about a lot coming out of 2012. the republican parties. you could land mitt romney for his lost in his campaign. to be honest, that was a very winnable race, had it been run somewhat differently that the obama campaign was very, very smart campaign and made a lot of smart decisions. notwithstanding that, when you sort of look at other races on the broader, you can see there is huge problems facing the republican party. minority voters come when african-americans make up 30% electric in your presidential candidate visits by 87-point

come and 93 to six, that is pretty bad. but hispanics make up 10% of the vote and romney lost by 44-point, 7127. the group that i like to point to is sort of making a statement as a smaller crew. asian voters come which make up 3% of the electorate. let's do some -- don't worry, i'm not going to say anything bad. let's do some profiling. what are the stereotypes of asian americans? hard moving, entrepreneurial, lower unemployment rate. the higher household income. they tend to be culturally conservative. with that kind of describe republicans? attributes one would attribute to the republican party. and yet, romney lost to the asian vote by 47 percentage

points, three points more than he lost the hispanic vote. that is really, really interesting to me. about for congress himself almost identical. in the thing about it is when you look at the polling, when you sit through focus groups with voters, the message that minority voters across the board are getting is the republican party doesn't seem to like anybody that doesn't look just like them. now, is that a fair characterization of all republicans? no, i don't incudes. that's the question so many minority voters are getting. today, what is happening with the asian vote is particularly dramatic either because because that has a lot less to do with immigration or anything else is republicans have an enormous problem with minority voters in the country is getting more and

more and more diverse. romney won the 59% of the white vote in the last election. historically, if you got 59% of the white folk coming to republican and you got 59%, you have just won the election. but it's no longer sufficient.

the mac we are in the gallery of the catcher building at the walker museum. we are looking at vanishing ice, alpine and polar landscape seminar. 1775 to 2012. the purpose of the expedition is to highlight the rich cultural heritage of the planets throws at it here, the alpine region, the arctic and antarctica appeared this is a photograph of the greenland ice sheet by german artist dating from 2000 may and is exhibited side-by-side with a photograph also at east greenland. it's from her last iceberg for

2006. many people understand the importance of the ice with a plan to, it's reflective qualities that help regulate the climate. many people are unaware that there was a collect of consciousness in western culture about these regions. so, it was important in the context of climate change to let people know that these regions are fundamental to our identity. >> a look now at higher education. sebastian thrun is the founder and ceo of massive open on my choruses or moocs. he's also the developer grupo

class. he sat down for a conversation at the annual techcrunch conference in san francisco. this is about 20 minutes. ♪ >> welcome. >> thank you. >> we asked a number of university presidents to come and represent the old world of education on page today. they all said mel. sebastian, why do you embed this? >> i think it is an interesting time for higher education to understand. what i would like to see is much more experimentation. in the state of california it is

a great model. i've nothing against faith to faith education. >> i serve on the use the board of regents, the california state university system board of trustees. the problem for us is our success. as a consequence i'm going to dramatically change our behavior. so we've been debating about the new crisis is not the lack of state support for higher education. that is then subsidies. crisis is an overused word. nonetheless, we've cut, for example in the last 18 months you see budget and the cu at about $2 billion. as a consequence, everyone knows the last number of years. the last six years we have double tuition. with more than tripled since 2001. the concern now is quality because we are not paying

faculty would other private universities and some other public universities are paying it becomes problematic. so all of these things are now creating an opportunity to have a different conversation. the conversation that sebastian has been on the forefront of another quote, unquote moocs. this time on trade idea of online education is taking shape and now a lot of traction in the debate is long overdue and formidable one. >> when he told me your own staff advise you not to get on stage with sebastian. >> like i said, things are going well, you want to get along. as a region, there is a lot of extra views on higher ed. a lot of folks are threatened by it. the faculty is very concerned about it. we had an institution that every year outperforms every two shins. why screw up a good thing? we are still one of the top 10 universe these.

ucla always in the top 10 or 12. others seven of the top 50. highest performing universities in the world. csu is the workhorse of american education. why screw up a good thing? from my days, that question is amplified back at the office because they say why associate yourself with sebastian? he wants to disrupt it. it's a radical new view of higher education. if it doesn't work out, the fact you are sitting on stage may not work out for you. so what. >> sebastian, are you a threat to higher at? or do you think you it and offering something. >> it's been this way because supposed reaction to understand what's going to happen to me.

there's so many students in the state of california alone at 470,000 students are willing to enroll and pay tuition. if you look rotter, china has 20 million freshmen this year. and then there is a huge gap in the professional development side of being software engineers did this no company or. it's so extreme that companies come to us and say please, please, follow the curriculum that get people trained to understand what the industry needs. there's a huge vacuum. by focusing on is the higher education that can really provide international education, education of people with economic disadvantage and so on. >> why do you think of this mistake that we graduate or bachelors in psychology than

engineering? >> a term that we do quite a bit more than engineering. i don't see a single person through saying i want to hire more engineers. i've nothing against ecology. it's really important to have a diverse set of skills in the nation. big deal of scientists. they drive forward to the nation as a whole. i talked to companies like at&t. very few say we need more psychologists were english majors are they all come salo, give us technical challenge and get on the markets. >> the backdrop of this is self-evident. from my days. pretax so much in the last year or two about the debt crisis. the higher costs and the issues of access, the inability to access higher education.

for me it becomes a more fundamental question. what are the trend lines that defined this world? to reconvene enough talent to meet the needs, let alone the jobs that exist tomorrow. sebastian wants to point out this data. the labor department came out suggesting that 65% of grade school kids are going to have a job that hasn't even been invented yet. are we as a system of higher learning him a particularly california that's been on the vanguard. we've been the leader. are we prepared to advance the work force development, the human capital for that workforce that can today little in the future? the skills gap is wide name in real time. we can't fail to afford more efficiently. it's dramatic and disruptive. it is and in case there was

pedagogy of learning and the opportunity that sebastian and his colleagues have advanced can be extraordinarily advantageous and start plugging a gap's. >> so, do either of you think it is okay for online education to divorce his cell for academia entirely to become a jobs training platform? >> i think the worst in academia as a binary word. as an educational need that goes across the entire population in many different ways. the need for critical thinking and a broad set of mind and a vocational needs to have skills that are necessary to execute the job. i think what he so nicely pronounces as a change of the skills gap effect in the nation. when my great grandparents lived and things didn't move that

fast. the world is on fire and moving extremely fast. my education expires after five to 10 years. everything is new. the qadisiyah. facebook is new. twitter is new. historically, what we've done is spliced human life into basically four slices. one is the first five years and then the next 20 years. it kind of resting phase afterwards. what i think we should be doing this at the mall at the same time. we should play, learn, work at the same time because the world moves so fast today we can afford having a single education anymore. we really have to stay up to date. we point out it's not just the new kids on the block. engineers have to stay up to date.

and something new comes along like a cybersecurity threat, they really care whether the existing engineers get those skill sets. a month of the degree for the life. it's an extraordinary thing, honestly. you think about the disruption in every facet come every industry. media, financial services, the sheer economies moments ago, et cetera. if you went back in time 200 years ago, they would look like contemporary classroom today in terms of most of the sort of professor student relationships, this broadcast model of academia that still exist today in some of the finest universities in the world. it's a remarkable thing, honestly. we are not even indulging in the k-12, where people are lined up in rows of desks. i mean, it is comedic in some ways. debate raging debates have

seniority and tenure come or seem pretty trivial in the context of the world we are leaning in and living in. with sebastian is offering is something imaginative, but most importantly not talking about taking a lecture and putting it online. he is talking about a whole new model of education that takes the latest in terms of how we learn and incorporate the. not arguably will make learning or interesting, meaningful in the sebastian points out, lifelong. >> sebastian, you're not just paying lipservice to this. you actually have something to announce. the mac today we put up an announcement that we have an open education alliance for a whole bunch of education and -- and we talked to two more educational outlets. the idea is a lot of a lot of

inquiries to ministries that day, look, all you have to do is this. we want to do this over here. so can we participate in the creation of curriculum for higher education quite it's been hard at the university because there's often conflicts between academia and university. it's going to poke workforce first. if you want a job, what have you, come to us with the skills necessary. work with the companies to keep them up-to-date. at any point in time, you can understand. we decided to make it an industrywide offering so we can really get education providers involved and open them up to a much broader set of companies. it's hopefully going to be a pit of a plot for the 21st

century. what skills do we need to find a job? a minute not just asking them to. anyone compete for the best education product to really serve our workforce needs and employment needs. >> so google university, sort of like the you see system would count as udacity. >> google university. nonbranded alliance for everyone is invited to join. >> seek him i love this. if this doesn't wake up community colleges, i don't know what does. i'll save you from my economic development beach. you know what two californians. not north and south. its coastal california and inland california. in the july unemployment numbers come a week at new one soon. 5.3% unemployment rate.

you were down in imperial county right now. 26.1% unemployment. we have a state with the fourth highest unemployment in the united states and hundreds of thousand of open jobs right now but we can't fill. we have a system of higher learning design over half a century ago for a world that no longer exist. note the conversation was when the master plan was conceived? the congress haitian sebastian has been happen with the private sector. what do you need in all these companies? whether salesforce.com need quiet what does google need? and that we can gain enough of that talent? the answer is we are not. we can't continue to do what you've done. we've got to radically alter our approach is addressing this need. if you take sebastian on the outs tied to the pressure on all of us on the and night, i save reagan on. i think that is a wonderful thing. i am very encouraged by his hard

work and most importantly a variant to see us take next phase of this announcement as he scales sets and a much larger level. >> it hasn't always been successful. >> first of all, the key to innovation, everyone knows is to try it out and learn from it and try out again and learn from it. it's been in the news quite a bit. our first set of numbers didn't look the same way it campas numbers -- it was largely involving inner-city high school kid. we talked to governor brown and many others to get high school kids a chance. most inner-city high school kids don't have that finance education. we took the big hit dominion and most weren't as prepared as a college student and.

understandably, california says nation, how's the job of making sure that it's appropriately funded them with the big funding crisis going on, the government should be on the right path or not. obviously, any moment there might be to education, regular on-campus education could be construed as a threat and we see the result of it to be honest. but i think in response to this is not about replacing or changing on-campus education. please increase the funds. please do it. it's extremely important. but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop innovating are these people out. there's many different paths in the world. in the most recent round, over 90% of the student in the

system. were actually reaching people in the entire world. this little tiny university can now go out and teach people in all countries that is a big success story. >> okay, life is served to you linear. you're an attorney here. this is just the first phase of people are quick to jump on this early example. this is just an interesting fact. we've been doing online education since the late 90s or he just hasn't a lot of attention. it's getting a lot of attention are these moocs, massive online courses that others are engaging in. there's breakthroughs, setbacks. but you can't be ideological. a sebastian said, it is the genius of and, not the tierney of war. it is having that robust,

interact the campus environment and the opportunity to remind sebastian when you get home or fast-forward him because of your unique status as these do that. your world is unique. her expression is unique. it's not mass education anymore. it's individualized to personalize. everyone learns differently. as a consequence camorra bring the disciplines and opportunity into a classroom and kill it to not just 2200 -- not just 20,000, but hundreds of thousands of people desperate for the opportunities to take advantage of this world. >> 10 years from now, are your kids, your toddlers going to go to udacity instead of stanford? >> i'm going to save myself the college money. >> i've got three and half year old daughter who runs it to the tv and doesn't know why doesn't do this. you can't educate my daughter

like i was educated. i thought she was a prodigy when she was one, just watching her on the smartphone. i think it was "vanity fair" magazine in the house and she did members and why the top of the magazine didn't flip. so there's no capacity to continue to do what we've done. you do what you've got. not in this world. continue to do what you've done, you'll fall behind because the global averages rising. so we've got to get serious about this. that's why i'm here was sebastian. the mac is important to be creative about this. to reinvent education today, avarice in the classroom to go exactly the same pace, the same time, almost like an industry of drones. when we go back and do what we do really well, which is for high school, k-12, not students can be at a level. if you spin it a little bit

further, why wouldn't education be as much fun as a videogame? we have mobile development in people develop games and compete for prizes as part of the extremes. it's as much fun if anything. why should education be fun? there's a lot of old-fashioned things that come from a world of not interact with, not online. we try to retain it. i think we should be created. >> a man. i know my species. you hear people like me say this all the time. i have been to legitimately think this is one of the most important topics of conversation that we must be having. not just here in california come across this country and around the world. this is code red. we've got to wake up to the remarkable world all of you have

created around a and the one you are creating day and day out. our educational system reminds me a bit of kodak. you think you are doing fine in the world who invented now is competing against you at a rate and speed that we've got to wake up or we will end up down the same path. i don't like that. >> well, i love the you see and cs you. no finer institution of higher learning in the world. or we can be so much more. we've got to be willing to invest in are the. you don't invest in the future, you're not going to do very well there. >> i want to put to do amazing jeff flake of whole bunch of wonderful act dignities that i think will really shape the future. that activity is important for us going forward. >> thank you. >> thank you very much.

thanks for having us. [applause] ♪

about 10 or 15 years ago, we started looking at the census department data. something very strange kind of pops out. when you look at where the prophet are multinationals, you know, if you look at a map of your pc germany, france and ireland, italy. but if you look at the data with the profits are, france, germany, ireland. it is a hugely disproportionate amount. one indication something is

going on. >> a look now at lacombe valley startup investors. the three owners sat down in san francisco in september. he is now, some language used during the discussion might not be appropriate for all audience members. this is about 30 minutes. [applause] >> i'm going to stay as far away -- >> i want to talk about this stuff with you. >> we are going to talk about it. i have to protect the blind night he or >> to you guys want to talk about all this stuff first or do you want to get in to the important stuff? let's talk

about your stuff first. you guys want to talk a little bit about failure and what you've witnessed overallotments turned out to very statistically transducing and how to avoid it, is that right? yeah, so what i did this past summer for about a month as i looked at 10 companies, around eight to 10 companies that didn't have the outcome they were looking for. and just looked at all the data, every e-mail we wrote, all the information we had at the time we made the investment and thought about, how we make our process better? >> knowing something fails, you look to a failed companies and went back to the original data and the, how could we've seen this from the beginning? >> what could we've done better and how can we use that to improve our decision-making process? >> what did you find out quick >> first of all, we focused on rounders over the idea.

one of the things that was pretty telling, and i learned things on day one is stronger dynamics really matter. i think trying to predict in the diligence phase out the sounders are going to gel when things are going their way. >> well, they asked not to be -- suffice to say look at these companies. >> they preferred not to be mentioned. >> but they failed, right? >> actually, why wouldn't they be joyous at the opportunity to share their failure to let other people not feel in the future? just start with one. >> well, i will just focus -- >> my previous bash. >> you are one of the eight. >> i've talked to david. i don't know if i was one of

those eight. i'm sure it was. it was a pretty random selection. >> these dynamics really matter. sometimes they could be harder they work together? rawness always talked about the chemistry in their meeting. that is super important. on the flipside, sometimes the chemistry can be too good, where the founders have similar skills that and the thinking almost becomes too alike. >> does that help you if you're looking at a new startup class >> it forces me -- there's no exact science to it. >> what is your failure rate? >> how many outright sale? is a 30%? >> in terms of the companies that fail or give money back, probably 50% to 60%. [inaudible] >> you so make good money with a 30% failure rate.

>> that is most venture capital s. >> our failure rate is lower because we've been doing it since 1994. we have repeat entrepreneurs who end up typically been more successful. >> okay. >> we talked about that on stage about her repeat entrepreneurs are twice as likely to not fail as the first-time entrepreneurs. is that right? >> there is some dated their, yeah. ..

and so the data is a little inconclusive here, there are some companies that have gone on to do well. there were some it was pretty clear when they asked for the basic help nobody answered. and so the take away for me or us was you have to think about the founders and are they self-aware enough to think about their known, unknown. what are the biggest risks? you can't anticipate all the risks. it you are a consumer internet company, who is going to help you? if you're good at -- >> you're saying it can be bad if people aren't realistic. >> yeah. that's what we have to ask

questions and figure out for from the founders are they being self-aware enough to think about what they need going forward. >> if they have ten investors put a little bit and they can't expect that much help from each investors. >> yeah. for some founders that's what they want. okay. warren, do you have anything to say at all or the pretty guy on stage? [laughter] >> i do. i think this is -- >> let me ask you this. you joined fc. we talked about it in may. who is running the show? one of the things you said was important there was a clear leader. i don't see a clear leader anymore; right? it's like you are jostling for position. one of you is going to go? who is the leader? >> i think we're -- >> yeah. >> david is the leader. a partnership. david is the managing director. >> what is bryan? >> the assistant managing director? >> a managing director as well. >> okay. is anyone not the managing

director? [laughter] >> the truth is you guys have known each other for ten years. you get along pretty well. >> yeah. >> okay. do you have anything to add? >> yes. i think david looked at a lot of data and feedback. i tend to at least within certain realms of apps like social media apps, which some people we talked about last time said it was dead. and look at s.n.a.p. chat success. and you can apply a lot of these thoughts to them. but at the same time, you have to just look at each independently or there's a gut feel on them. i think it's a combination that's what the partnership is. david can look at the facts. i tend look at the product as well as the founding team. >> yeah. >> there's always a handful of characteristic within the product that work. is it simple? can it be used waiting in the line at the grocery store. carve out behavior from instagram, twitter, facebook. does it a tweet, any of these

things? your eyes are glazing over. you called me to talk about this when you asked me about deal. >> no. okay. you brought it up. i'll finish it. >> okay. >> hey we're looking a the the deal. look like the founders are smart and we're in. then you go away far minute and come back. whatever your answer is -- >> let's talk about snap chat, for example. you can come back if you decided not invest or couldn't get to the round you come back with a 15-minute explanation. in-depth explanation about why it will never make it. if you get in, i disagree. at any point you have a yes or no discussion. admit it, you go with the guilt and fill in the bull [ bleep ] later. >> it's lead by the facts of what the product looks like, how it feels when you use it. other people's reactions early on. snap chat is unique. -- >> i'm not talking about that. i'm talk abouting when we have a start-up. we have a start-up we invested in a week ago. >> i sphoact team after the

discussion. >> and -- social network dynamic are not here the same way they were with instagram. >> i cut you off i said do you believe the bull [ bleep ] i don't know what you're saying. i truly believe -- it's like it sounds interesting -- i'm going on and on. >> no, no. >> but i'm right; right? >> i think the biggest factor when you speak to the team which i hadn't at the point. you hear the vision and look at the product further. that's the most important thing. >> all right. well, this is awesome data. you think it helps you with making current decisions? >> i think it does. it's a very limited sample set, but we went pretty deep to the data. we literally looked at every single e-mail. we looked at what was written at the time we made the investment. >> yeah. >> and we said, hey, what can we do better? there's one other point, this sort of waves in to what bryan was talking about. one thing that we saw was that for these companies that raise,

let's say, a million dollars for 18 months and runway. some companies i try to do two things in the 189 months. that's the recipe for disaster. >> do one thing, you're saying. >> yeah, for example. or raise more money. a good example is a company like payers. they had to get -- build a develop ecosystem and get developers on to the platforms. really hard things. >> so do one thing unless you do two things. >> if you do two things that are challenging -- >> do them well. >> raise more money. >> if you do two things in parallel -- >> it's all bull [ bleep ] do one thing unless you do two. >> it depends on the company. [inaudible conversations] >> and you can't -- it's not a one -- >> i don't know. >> i guess it's bull [ bleep ] i've been a -- i've seen it. i've seen the behind the scenes meeting you and it's like he's a dick. we're not investing him. who was that guy you were talking about?

[laughter] yeah. >> the purchase -- the purpose of the project that we did last summer was so that we would go do a deep dive in the failed companies so we would . >> yeah. >> could give new europes -- -- >> coach went through the experience and so now we have someone who just went through it, we do more research. we can give better advice to -- do you know what a soft landing is? we will help execute that. >> yeah. >> we do it many times with the 30% that fail. if you have a soft landing and you get the team to be part of a

bigger team. you sell the company to facebook or twitter. >> yeah. >> that's a soft landing. we define that as a success. because you found a place for the team and for your software to continue to be fulfilled. >> yep. okay. >> and that's important. >> okay response is it you feel like you said what you needed to say? anything else you want to add? okay. >> so we love founders. >> it is -- you're right. it's limited. it just helps us to think about, you know, going forward. how we make decisions but we don't look at it and say, hey, you know, this is the gospel. because everything -- all of this is so -- >> look. we have a responsibility -- yeah. >> to give good advice. >> it's arts and science. you claim it's bs. it's not bs. i've been working with ron for ten years. you see things after awhile. >> i'm with you. i give you all kinds of [ bleep ] and i call it bull [ bleep ]

because what you taunt -- talk about is bull [ bleep ] >> that's when we're talking about you. the most important early stage investor to get is sb angel. we include ourselves in that. we like to work with you and get you to the deal. because the huge amount of value you add you're not bull [ bleep ] bull [ bleep ] bull [ bleep ] can i talk about some other stuff? >> sure. >> okay. >> one, a year ago with the sandy hook tragedy you started this nub louse antigun platform. have you accomplished a single then with this. >> it's not quite a year. it's december 14. it. >> yeah. >> is there been any laws passed? any guns taken off the street. anything that is -- >> there's been a lot of gun buybacks. >> yeah. >> which is awesome. we're getting guns off the street. but i got had an epiphany on september 14th. the day of sandy hook mas --

massacre when gabby giffords happened to be a guest at my holiday party. the congresswoman who was gunned down in arizona. happened to be a guest in my home, the say day that sandy hook happened, and i'm in to karma, i guess. but as we quieted the group down, and we recognized sandy hook and gabby giffords. i said, hey, the tech community needs to get involved in this issue of gun safety. the u.s. congress had a proposal for background checks that was. the senate voted it down, actually. >> yeah. >> so -- >> well, there's a big disconnect there. >> you have bill of rights issue. i understand it's a long

battle. >> we're not interpreted in taking anyone's arms away. >> all right. >> background checks -- >> what about blind people? do you see in iowa there are a lot of blind people that get carry permits. i would like to take their gun permits away. blind people, i love them. i don't think they should drive cars or firing guns, personal lip. >> we agree. >> let me -- you put a huge machine to work and you had senators following you around. i've been to the events. it's a long haul but you put a huge machine to work to fight the issue. then we see what happened with the nsa and the nsa is strong arming the companies that are part of our ecosystem to give them data or companies companies are handing it over on their own. they're forcing the telephone companies to give the dpa that. they're grabbing data off the backbone and decrypting it. they have hacked the operating system on mobile phones, it looks like. they have presentations call zombies and sheep and mock us saying they would like -- they could pull off now.

why have you sat by and not done a single thing to stop? it's the entire rights and us as americans. you haven't done anything. not one thing. >> well, i absolutely agree that we have to balance national security. there was a thing called 9/11. the government's responsibility is to protect the country. >> yeah. >> but then you have -- so you to balance that with transparency. i think now this -- there is a debate that is starting about that. and i completely agree with that. >> are you okay with the government stores every bit of your online data as long as they're transparent? >> it depends -- for me personally it would depend how they digest the data and how long they keep the data. but for my involvement, i picked

three issues in the last year. gun safety, immigration -- i spend at least an hour a day working on the immigration reform that is in the house of representatives now. we hope it passes by the end of the year. >> what is the third? >> we have a lot of work to do. the third issue is civic engagement. >> okay. >> we have done with fs city to get the tech community involved locally in their community. >> is -- >> now. i'm one human being. >> no but -- >> why -- >> other issues. -- >> but -- >> is it because of an issue you're passionate about? the ron conway of the nsa issue. you should -- >> like. i'm speaking out but i don't have the ability to put together political machinery like you. >> are you kidding? >> he's trying to put too much personal data online.

you're saying you're basically comfortable with the government doing whatever they want. >> no. i'm saying it depends on how they digest my data. >> you trust any government authority to do the right thing when it comes to power? >> well, obviously the events of the last 60 days, with the nsa, says there has to be a balance between national security and transparency. i think there is a healthy debate going on about it if, you know, i'm probably not going the tech leader who is the head of that. because i would be misleading people. i'm spending between now and the end of the year working on immigration reform. with forward.us and the awesome founder group in forward.us. i can't sit here and say i'm going to do the same thing with the nsa issue. i'm not a bull [ bleep ] i'm not going to tell people i'm leading the charge on that when

i personally don't have the bad withwhen right now, immigration reform to me is important. >> we know nothing is going to happen with immigration reform next year. >> i hope you're wrong. and any senator who -- congressman who is listening he's not representing the effort. >> hey. we have to think positive about this problem. >> no -- you don't think the -- >> the u.s. congress hasn't passed immigration. >> we're not talking about immigration. we're talking about the end of civilization. we're talking about human right to have some level of privacy in your life. it doesn't seem to bother you. they can collect everything you do and look at it. what if nay decide people against gun control -- or people pro gun control. what if they decide they are communists in the '50s and go after you? are you afraid of future government having all the data?

>> of course i am. >> yeah. >> of course i am. that's why there's a naicialt debate going on about -- >> but you -- stand up and you could actually make a big difference on the issue if you were to do that. >> of course, i could. but i only have so many hours in a day. guess what, i have a day job called sb angel. i spend 70 percent of my day helping entrepreneurs. you sound like the perfect leader, i think. >> no. [applause] i -- [inaudible conversations] right. i want government to be brought down over this. i'm not the guy to figure out a comprise over this stuff. but we can talk about that more in every other single discussion i have with anyone on the stage over the next three days. >> hopefully in the next three days you'll find tech leader --

>> i thought i found one. i thought you were going say i'm not going to stand for this anymore. because history will not look kindly on those that did. >> not when i'm spending seven hours a day helping entrepreneurs and another couple of hours a day working on immigration reform. you've got to pick your issues. >> yeah. >> and right now immigration reform, for me, is the most important. i'm hoping question get it passed. >> all right. >> that's why i have to be focused on that. you know, there's a lot of congressman saying it would be great if conway went to the nsa issue because he wouldn't bug us on the immigration issue. i'm on the immigration train. i can't get off until we pulling up to the end of the station. >> i appreciate your time. thank you very much. >> my pleasure. [applause] [inaudible conversations] charlie cook with "the cook

political report" gave his thoughts today on the 2014 elections. he was a guest of american university's campaign management institute. he told students that based on the current political environment and the polling data, voters don't like either of the major political parties. here is some of what he had to say. >> when i look at the -- i when i look at what is going on and look at the polling data ane one thing -- i didn't get a chance to go by y the office print this out. righr website is cook political.com. www.cookpolitical.com. you go to the homepage, this won't make me any money, right-hand side of the page there is a box that talks about political environment and says, read more and click that. and there's, it is about 10-page document that we update several times a week with the polling

date that we think is most relevant in terms of sort of ascertaining what's the political environment going to be like. and we start off with right direction, wrong track numbers. then we go to presidential approval. we have the gallup numbers and as well as abc, "washington post," nbc, "new york times,", fox, cnn, gallup and pugh. we go through consumer confidence. first of all, to the extent we are taught that midterm elections are usually a referendum on the incumbent president, then looking at the president's job approval rating is very, very important. but it's also said that americans tend to vote their pocketbooks and they tend to vote if they are worried, scared, fearful about the economy, they tend to pessimistic, generally not so good for incumbent party. if they feel good about things, they typically vote on other

things. but we have the conn conn ratings. then -- consumer confidence ratings. we have favorable, unfavorable ratings for parties from various polls. we have before that numbers from the kaiser family foundation which is largest, sort of objective body of polling on the affordable care act. sort of watching several questions there in terms of the popularity of the affordable care act. and we have the generic ballot test. maybe another question or two on there. that is sort of a good way to check in for free and look to see how things are going. so when i look at what's happening right now, the democratic party has lousy fav-unfav numbers. the republican party has even worse favorable unfavorable numbers. the president's approval numbers are 43% where exactly president george w. bush was at this point

in his second term which is after iraq already turning sour and after katrina. and so that's exactly, almost, actually some days digit for digit the same where president bush was at this point which is obviously not a good place and republicans took some pretty significant losses back in 2006. so the republican, there is no reason to believe that republicans have improved their standing one iota among minority voters, younger voters, women voters, moderate voters. none whatsoever. but at the same time, you look over and you look at the president's approval numbers and they're on the track towards where you have bad second term midterm elections. and it is what it is. maybe things better. maybe they do. we'll have to see. you don't just take a poll and skip the election. you carry up through the election. that's why you have campaigns but the thing is right now looks

like both of those things are going to happen, or both of those things look to be, if you're going to have the election today, operative. which would tend to suggest canceling each other out. when i talked about what kind of election it is going to be. at this point, there is not any evidence that this is going to be a wave election because for people to vote against somebody they kind of have to vote for somebody. and the thing is, they don't like either side here. and so i don't see them handing out compliments or willy-nilly handing out victories to either side because they're not really happy with either one. i guess meteorologist would look at this and say it is kind of like an unstable air mass. it is very, very volatile situation but neither side looks to be sort of naturally advantaged by sor

that will resume next week. you can see live house coverage on c-span and the senate right here on c-span2. you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events. and every weekend the latest non-fiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedule on our website. and you can join in the conversation on social media

sites. now a look at the future of ride sharing. the founders of this conversation at the annual tech crunch conference in san francisco in early september lasts about 20 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> how is it going? good. all right. so the people in the audience, you've been in san francisco a couple of days, or if you've here you've seen the mustaching riding around town on cars picking people up and dropping them off. how did you start with that? like, where is the pink mustache come from? what is the idea behind it? >> we wanted to create the light and the second you saw the lift. we think about user experience and the perspective of not just

in and out, but the actual user experience when people connect in person. and so the mustache is like a smile. oftentimes passengers smile and drivers smile, then we had the fist bump. when you get in the front seat of the car. we actually staged it out in the beginning. sat in cars, thought about different ways to do it. we wanted to think about the user experience more broadly than traditional -- >> what we wanted to convey it was a peer-to-peer experience of equals. we wanted to break the idea of a service relationship. where you get in the backseat and the person in the front seat is work forking you. we wanted to create one of equal. >> okay. but so -- i mean, does that translate to other markets? it's one thing to have a mustache riding around on cars in san francisco. because we're quirky like that. but, like, how does it play in indianapolis? is some dude in dallas -- you're in the in dallas but some dude in dallas getting to the

front of a car with a mustache on front of it? >> it was one of our biggest questions when we launched second market of l.a. and went to seattle, chicago, and boston. it's translated in every market. every market, you know, nobody has seen it before. and so, you know, a lift driver is going down the street with the mustache on the grill. they feel like a celebrity when people are stopping and pointing and taking pictures. it creates, you know, this sort of, you know, mystique around it. people start asking what is going on? what is -- a viral word of mouth effect. >> right. drivers pass out cards when people ask them when they are. you have expanded pretty quickly recently. you started out in san francisco, i think, for nine months or there about. then you did another market for a few months and another one. you just added three, like, right before the holiday

weekend. you're at ten now, how quickly do you plan to expand on cord? >> yeah. like you said, if we back to last year we were in one market. we were in san francisco. since then we have launched ten additional markets. we raised $75 million from founders fun. even in the last three months, we've doubled the number of rides we're doing per week. and we have reached a million rides. we will continue to grow rapidly, and we want to maintain the sense of community at the same point. we're going to be going as fast as possible. as you saw last week, we launched three markets -- actually two weeks ago. last week we launched another market. we'll keep spreading it across the country and the rest of the world. >> how fast is as fast as possibility? do you have a number or a target? >> yeah. -- [laughter] >> we do have a target.

>> you're not going tell us? >> no. >> all right. let talk about the investment. at the time that you did it, it seemed like at lot of money; right? and i talked to some people, and it kind of felt like maybe you didn't need that much at the time, but if they wanted to write you a big check and scare off all the other investors that might enter the space. is that what happened? >> so the -- it is expensive to launch each city, and so the reason we raised a larnlgt round because we knew we were gearing to launch a lot of cities very quickly. that gave us the cash to do that without, you know, any concern. >> and we didn't want -- we didn't want this kind of marketplace to be about who had more money. we wanted it to be about the experience. for us, we wanted to take that kind of money piece off the table. and be able to focus on the experience. because we think that, you know,

the this market will play out with, you know, who has the experience that is the most mass market. i think you have seen different type of experiences coming from dpircht companies. >> ultimately kind of comes down to who has the most money; right? >> i don't think so. i think in the space, you know, we are all not saying we're talking about hoover, and, you know, we both have raised a good amount of money. we have access to some more capital. i think it comes down to, again, it comes down experience. we really invested in the sense of community and a peer-to-peer experience. in the lodging industry so you, you know, companies like hilton that offer a professional experience and -- i think we're closer to the experience. that's working well. ..

so we have a code we are doing. every user in san francisco it arrived up to $20. i'd both companies know that free isn't a long-term sustainable strategy. we are differentiating based on the experience of the community around lyft. >> we haven't seen any impact of the sufferers.

our demand is growing at double digits week over week and not something that we've needed to push any further. >> when you see youtube or raises, $250 million or whatever, that doesn't worry you. as a competitor. >> winning to stay focused on what we are doing and not get distracted by trying to do something else. what we are doing in terms of community and experience in your superior is resonating. when we launched two to three years and we are writing here. because we are offering a different experience. that will continue to be -- continue to work for us. >> i want to take a step back and see how you got to that experience. you have been doing lyft for about a year and a half. for five or six years before that, you have this company called zimride.

it was also a peer to peer bride marketplace. as more corporate university trips, that kind of thing. so i guess the question for the arch burgers in the audience, you put your heart and soul into this thing. you do it for five years. how do you decide to step back and say, you know, let's do something now it's quiet i mean, was that this is not working i just can't grow quickly enough for there is a better opportunity somewhere else, how did that happen? >> john and i started back in 2007. the vision i was going after at the time i was on the board in that district in santa barbara. i was really frustrated with the transit realized across the country, public transit systems were stagnating. there were no investments being made. it was because of the funding

mechanism. and so, when we started zimride, the idea was to start this crowd sourced marketplace, where people could get access to ibm dc-10 cars on the road. the vision with zimride was you could pull out your phone to buy a car. in 2007, very few people were carrying smartphones. it wasn't possible. so a list came out of a project, where we were trying to figure out, what does the mobile zimride look like? they're actually going to college zimride instant. luckily, we took a second and stepped back and change the branding. the lyft is the ultimate incarnation that we've always been going after.

>> okay, but at some point you had to flip the switch and say to other people that have been working for you, all of your employees and say this thing we have been doing for years, we are going to be focused on this other thing now. >> yeah, that was mentally difficult. you had to literally change gears in your head. you're driving hard at something for so long. one product and you had to make this gamble on the new product that you believed in, but it was a lot earlier along. so it was a task switch. logan and i were pretty decisive about it. we actually launched lyft three weeks after we said let's build this. we had our first right three weeks later. and then i say, a month or two after that, after feeling the weight of trying to do two things really well, we said

let's completely focused and get 90% of the team on lyft. it was a tough decision, but it worked out. >> at what point did you say, okay, this is working. we've cut lightning in a bottle. luscious go for it. this isn't making us a lot of money. >> we never experienced the poll that was coming from the user, the passenger in this experience. we had never experienced a bout with zimride appeared were at 150 companies and universities, thousands of rides him on after a few years, but we were seeing thousands of rides a week ready early on. there was a poll for more. we had to create a wait list because there was so much demand and we had never seen anything like that. it felt like we had had product markets it and we wanted to continue to invest in that.

>> i want to talk about regulation because this is something you're going to run into in every market. you had it in california early on. you've been working with them. it seems like you're at least, you've got that works out. where are things right now? >> so we take a step back about regulation general. there is the changing tide. you have leaders like mayor lee, who declared it last day on july 13 and has been supported by with the puc in indianapolis that are supported for these types of evolution of transportation. the question we always get is what are your concerns? bitterly, we can't figure out the application. we don't own vehicles. we coach them from a collaborative one of you.

we say great, let's talk about safety. in fact, in california, black cars and lemmas are required to do background checks. we have a strict criteria of what's acceptable and what isn't. they do require those, but you could have a few duis and still pass on their driving rack or check any would-be of the past on lyft driving check. if safety is truly the concern, let's show you everything we are doing. you can confirm we are doing everything we say we are doing. let's find a path forward. >> safety is now is the concern. a lot of times it feels like they actually regulate. and so, you know, when you look at market like new york possibly as an example, d.c. has had a pretty strong taxi lobby over the last year or so. when you look at these markets where it's not really about safe

to your regulation, it is more about who has political power, how do you deal with that quite >> you try to shine light on it. you try to show, you know, why they are against it and ask them a tough question, which is why are you against this? are you trying to protect an existing industry? or do you care about consumer choice and consumer safety? you push that question. you try to get a real answer and you work with your community. lyft community is strong and has been helpful for us in many markets in los angeles preholiday community of events, had hundreds of people attend, share their stories, send e-mails to politicians. we do not similarly in seattle and will continue to do that. consumers have a strong voice and often will be listened to by the politicians. >> what do you say to the taxi drivers? these guys spend all this money

on battalion and routine maintenance and stuff like that. and then you guys come in, you don't have any of those overhead costs, right? so what you kind of creating an unfair playing field? >> i think the taxi industry has been around for decades and decades. there's been a lot of regulatory cracks that is built up on it. when rico went and opened up this discussion, part of it his shining light on policies and regulators realize they put on her burdens on an existing industry. i think it's absolutely fair and nonregulated look at those that aren't helpful as a whole. at the end of the day, i don't think it is a zero-sum game. i think taxis serve an important market and lyft server and a new market. >> very different regulatory structures.

for example, the first structure california tried to put on us was for a company that owned vehicles. that didn't work for us. these new platforms were and imagine. it also is necessary that there are separate categories. >> okay come you guys don't think this is a zero-sum game. when you think about the market opportunity, you are not just saying there's $30 billion cap market worldwide. we can take a share of that. >> not at all. i mean, there is before higher transportation market, which is 11 billion. but when you look at how much people spend on transportation, it is the second highest. it is about 20% of every household budget. second only to housing. that is the market that is incredibly exciting when lyft becomes something you can use twice a day. >> our vision is different than

before higher category, where from the early days, we see the opportunity to 80% of roads and highways are empty at all times. what we are doing today is the first chapter of what we want to do. the original vision as you can go outside and find an empty seat and cars that go similar direction than you do. maybe they have a friend in common with you. we want to build the infrastructure, the information infrastructure on top of our rows for consumer transportation. that is different than competing with an existing market. >> at some point, does that break down? it is easy to do it in a city like san francisco or los angeles or whatever, where there is a large enough population, population density. does that work in the suburbs? were to rural areas?

>> that was one of our big questions. they purposely picked the second city to test that because l.a. is a very suburban city. it took longer to reach the scale. you have lower density, so it takes longer to reach the scale across a large geography like that. but it works just the same. >> okay. so, i guess when you take -- let's go back because we didn't really talk about what is actually happening here. >> the puc has put forward a proposed decision which would create a new category called transportation companies that would require safety standards, many of which were modeled after what we already do. that will be voted on probably in the next month or so by the public utilities commissioners. >> is the hope that you say to

all of the other jurisdictions that you launch any say okay come with practice framework in california. it seems to be working. is that sort of the plan? >> it provides a model. every city and state is different. it definitely provides a model and a framework we can refer back to. >> how about international? are you going international and a time soon? >> we will be going international. >> how soon? where? all right. well, i guess that is produced much it for us. thanks for joining us and thanks for listening. >> banks. [applause]

>> i've been involved in politics for 40 years one way or another. i worked as administration for eight years. the fact of the matter is i've never aims though many people quoting and waving around the declaration of independence and the constitution. many of you, 10 years ago never gave it a second thought. now i bet it is at the front of your minds and it is that 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 them. i'm not trying to pat myself on the back. that's the purpose of this book. i consider it part of the purpose of my radio program is

to my brothers and sisters in broadcast, which is why we are under attack all the time by these utopian statists. >> michael moritz spoke that the techcrunch conference about the technological revolution because the data factory. this is about an hour. be smart ♪ [applause] >> good morning. you can tell we are sitting right here in the center of the world of technology because this little clicker doesn't work

wirelessly. it is connected to a bout and then to a light and there is a gentle man that actually moves the slides along. so here we are, right in the center of the technology universe. thank you very much for having set up to -- the sequoia in the conference this morning. i want to spend the next bit of time sharing some work at all a bus at sequoia have done over the last year or so, trying to distill our thought about where we are and testing and how we are investing. and to share a few ideas that users a little rough around the edges. but i hope will give everybody the sense that right here, between san francisco and san jose, something utterly remarkable has been going on, is

going on and will go on. found and that really has only occurred in one or two other places in the whole course of human history. to begin, i would like to go back and give you a snapshot of life as it was in 1750. and take a close look at the slide, just for a couple reasons. one, this farmer with his plow, his most important tool in 1750 was that living all that differently from other farmers 2000 years before. he was aiming to solve sustenance for his family and a few close relatives and friends. he didn't think much about selling. he was disconnected from consumers and the idea about going to an organized work place

would not have crossed his mind. about that time, in a small portion about a small silicon valley is, the north west of england, the first phase of the industrial revolution began. take a look at this site. here you will see a very dramatic change in the organization of the work place. decentralization of tools that lay at the heart, the learned of the evolution of the textile industry that changed everything. and instead of the farmer working in the field, people for the very first time were organized in a work place and in a factory.

the factory had a set of suppliers and the products were made for consumers and the whole raft of communication and distribution facilities were installed to help these businesses, about. but the big, big change was the move to an organized work place. now, the second phase of the industrial revolution occurred here in america. again, in a very confined plays. around detroit and largely among pittsburgh. in the northeast, in a confined geography, much like silicon valley is today. and if you look at the organization of the work place, it didn't change very much between 1750 in the early textile mill and the growth of the steel mills and later the

growth of the automobile factories. again, what i suppose people call blue-collar workers, went to work in those factories. over time, a lot of white collar jobs were created in and around those factories. the factor itself is also isolated from consumers. there were multiple distribution channels between the factory and for consumers. and the feedback train consumers in the factory was, to say the least, very lengthy. now, that is just as much as a reason i am going to bore you with this morning. i wanted to go down memory lane because they think it is going to accentuate some pain that, for lack of a better phrase that sequoia we call the data factory. i want to spend a couple of

minutes explaining the powers that have enabled the nrs rise of the data factories in the last 10 years. so, a few quick thoughts. first, the explosion of bandwidth and the change here has been unlike anything anyone has ever seen before in any comparable period of time over the last 25 years. the second is in storage. it is hard for us to imagine today that about 14% of stored information in the world in 1986 existed, and believe it or not, on final records. and then, we all know what happened to the power of computers and computation.

i am going to show you an example in a moment that further illustrates that. 25 years ago, most of the computing power in the university was still coming believe it or not, and a pocket calculator. obviously, that shifted dramatically as the years have gone by. finally, the other thing that has helped change everything for spammers and workers everywhere and in particular these data factories is the absolute, massive explosion and applications in the last 40 years. hard for us to conceive today when we have, as you see on the right, and against now available on a little device that just 40 years ago were barely 200 computer applications running on the most popular set of computers in the world.

and this is the final real idea about what is happening. think back to the live. think back to the assembly line and the tools and the out of mobile factory. what has happened to the cost and dispersion and distribution of tools in the last two decades. there has never been anything like it ever in human history. imagine, it's 1973 in the sam's son -- sam sun or apple iphone that you hold in your hand, the equivalent cost of that computing power was about

$33 million. bear in mind those ibm computers didn't have cameras. they didn't have video. they didn't have audio. they didn't have gps. never before have human beings been furnished with tools as powerful as the smartphone that we are all able to buy at the drop of a hat today. the other thing that i would like to put in perspective is the enormous explosion in the size of these tools. the numbers that you see on the side illustrate in the first three columns that peak production anywhere -- the peak production in the u.s. of automobile that peaked in the early 90s, just over 15 million.

washing machines that change lives -- have changed lives over the last hundred years. everybody in the homes in the apartment, the peak of 17 million. this year, around 700 million, $33 million computing facilities will be put in the hands of people all around the world. there has never been anything about it. the other thing that's changed, particularly if you're a small business, particularly if you are an individual looking to set up a small business is what happened to the price above the other tools that you need to operate your business. look at the left-hand side of

the slide and imagine what all of these things cost 10 years ago, let alone 20 years ago. today, most of these functions are free or very close to free or can be rented. the same goes for the different functions that you need to operate, whether it is a big company or a small company. the service is that you are either unavailable or you pay a nominal leg for a decade ago again are verging to free. so, you might well ask if this juncture, what does all of this mean? i think a change actually are extremely profound. it's given rise to some name that's up to her for lack of a better phrase because the data factory. and let me explain the composition. you will look at the next few

slides and say i can think of other names that should be on the slides and you are right. i just wanted to offer you some are brushstrokes of how we think about it. there are companies that specialize in the matching of labor, linking obviously the largest bear. there's a lot of other specialty companies that operate in the center matching demand and supply. there are a variety of companies that do the same movement and the raising of money, ranging from a country like kick starter that has helped a lot with money -- unconventional money raising, like paypal and strike. but the center, the largest

emerging category of companies in these data factories but the real global data factories. what differentiates them from some other companies is the range and the extent of the tools. think back to the loom. in fact to the auto factory, that they furnished tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions of people around the world ways. this has never happened before and it's changing the complexion of our entire life, starting with the work place. this is our representation of a data factory. ..

enriched the data factory without the data factory having to pay for anything. and the data factory sits in the middle, far more closely connected than any automobile factory or textile mill ever was directly connected to these consumers, who in turn provide immediate rich feedback and it's all maneuvered and massaged by these central data factories. and i'm going