your qualifying contributions together and get a big pot of money. in a lace like new york city or other -- in a place like new york city or other places, however, you can continue to raise. you don't just stop at the 250 close ideological friends. you reach out to a broad group, and you get more money as a result of reaching out to a greater number of people. so again, i'm not a fact guy, right? an empirical guy, but it is more likely that you'd have a broad spectrum of contributors. >> michael, i know you've done work -- >> yeah. i want to respond both to jon and to michael. with respect to policy, it's very hard to do the research in a quantitative way. but we know that the main

documentable influence of large contributor networks on office holders comes at the agenda-setting stage of the process. not on final roll call votes. that's why it's hard to do the research. we have tons of exampled evidence of bills being especially kept off, not passed. it's especially the negative power of stopping a bill from moving forward, but also amendments to create special breaks for people. i don't think there's much doubt that this happens. the question is can you document that it doesn't happen in a clean election state. i haven't done that work. but i do know that a traditionally-funded state, especially working through party

leaders, the agenda-setting states that's quite important. second, on the question of whether clean elections produces more extreme office holders, i want to get -- again, this time i won't get in the weeds. we have have a private conversation later. i just want to say that i strongly disagree with the paper that, the unpublished article. i have a different interpretation of their data. and i find words like "extremist" to be misleading. but it's the data that i i think we will have in this conversation. when you move away from the clean election states, there has been, there have been statements out there that systems that favor small donors are more polarizing and will have a more polarizing effect on politics.

campaign finance research says that that's not true. we looked at whether small donors are more polarized than large donors and whether -- and the answer is, no be, there's no evidence for it. and we have looked at whether the candidates to whom small donors give are more polarized than other candidates. and, again, with one or two clear exceptions, the answer is, no. in terms of both candidates and in terms -- and donors, there's really not much difference with the one difference that small donors don't lobby. and that is a significant difference. >> so if i may just really quickly, this is, again, anecdotal. but i served with 89 legislators, and on one specific policy point in 2012, i believe it was 2012, there was a significant reform proposed to

the clean election system, and, um, with some provisions it would have entered, caused some limitations. i believe it was going to make it more kind of like the new york system to a certain effect. and what you saw was some of the folks that i would describe as perhaps idealogically nonviable without a public funding system, they -- it was of very interesting to see the coalition of folks who came together to defend the existing clean election public funding system. and it did include many folks on both sides. it was largely democrats, but then there was a very interesting subsection of the majority caucus that relied entirely upon the clean election system to get in there. so that's, again, anecdotal. but i do think it speaks to your point. >> [inaudible] >> um, in the case of those in

the majority that i was observing to be part of that coalition to defend the existing system? i would say, yes. in arizona, again, in my experience. >> of course, it's helpful to have bipartisan and cross-ideological support. >> agreed. [laughter] worked out well. >> this is a really important question. i hope that after the paper with seth maskett comes out we can get, you know, i think it's really a vitally-important question. meredith mcgee. >> hi, meredith mcgee with the campaign legal center. one of the issues you guys had not addressed yet is the role of parties. and i find this particularly interesting because when you talk to folks, play -- particularly on the republican side, many of their solutions deals with strengthening the parties. so one of the questions i have when you talk about looking at these matching systems whether arizona is what you think the appropriate role of party should be, one would say on one

argument that they're a moderating influence, the other argument -- experience in illinois might be that the parties are a corrupting influence. so what role do you see the parties playing in these systems? >> well, as a fellow resident of illinois, i think you're spot on with your take. um, that's a tough question. i mean, i, i'm not a party scholar, and i think there is some debate among political scientists about how we should interpret parties. but i think the role of the party is, you know, when you talk to the party leaders particularly in the assembly, they are looking in arizona at, you know, clean elections as a recruitment tool so that you can go, and you can fill out the seats where maybe no one would emerge to run to take on the incumbent who won with 68% last time. and it's just a way, you know, they're seeing it not as we're going to win the seat, but we're

going to put out a full slate of candidates because a rising tide, you know, lifts all boats. so that, in my experience, is has been how the parties are kind of working with public funding. i'm not going to say that it's diminishing their strength. i don't think that's true. but i would actually be really interested to hear what spencer and michael think about the small donor matching program and the role of parties in those. >> um, i think it's important that we increase incentives for political actors; candidates, parties, pacs to reach out to average americans and ask more people and engage more people in a serious way. i also think that i am a fan of public financing. i think it's an appropriately and entirely productive use of government funds. but i also think strategically we need some insurance policies

so that when politicians in the future balance budgets and cut public financing money, we have other incentives to insure actors will, political actors will reach out not just to large contributorses, but -- contributors, but to average americans. as a result, i think that, you know, one idea that was brought to my attention by michael was the concept of allowing parties to spend more money on coordinated expenditures with candidates when that money comes from small donors. or you could do the first $200 of any contribution. that's one thing. another idea that happened in colorado is a small donor pac where a small donor pac collects a smaller amount from individuals, average folks, but then it can give a larger amount

to candidates than a conventional pac can. so giving these political actors incentives to and engage and bring more people into the process, i think, are keyment now, that doesn't deal with this underlying issue, and i'll let michael deal with that, of matching programs and parties. >> thanks. [laughter] i was going to start by saying i agree with spencer that we want to encourage activity and not discourage activity. one problem with the way the issue is sometimes debated -- and meredith's phrasing of the question was a fair reflection of the way it's debated, but you stated it with skepticism. that is, we off -- often hear

political party used as if it means the same thing in all places. clearly, it does not. a party in a strong speaker state with strong caucuses where the party carried the votes of the followers in his or her pocket, that's very different from a state where power is more dispursed, and the power of racing money is different. or the very large question, in general i think one doesn't want to see the rules making it difficult for impossible for parties to work. under supreme court ruling, parties have the right to make unlimited independent expenditures. something that has label of party can become a vehicle for making unlimited contributions that are intended to benefit the

candidate. if you -- 38 states that have contribution limits or the federal level where there are contribution limits on candidates, contribution limits on parties seems to be a necessary corollary. if you want it to mean anything, some people in some states don't want them to mean anything, and they behave that way. so you can't answer meredith's question in a short time, but it's a really important question, and it's the center of a lot of policy debates. and i think the issue is too often romanticized. >> briefly again, anecdotally here, i've seen, actually, the recruitment concept definitely in the democratic party within arizona encouraging candidates to run. which, in some cases, when you have such -- even though we have incompetent redistricting in the state of arizona -- independent

redistricting in the state of arizona which has been there since '92, i believe, we do have still quite a lot of lopsided majority either on the democratic or republican side s. sol the party's able to get candidates to challenge incumbents even though they may not have a high chance of necessarily winning to at least engage that, people of that district in a discussion, in discourse. so that's a good thing. i've also heard it also does, would pull money, right? if you're a challenged incumbent, you're going to start working the district a little bit more, you're going to pay more anticipation to people in the ticket -- attention to people in the ticket as well. so from my own particular situation, i became really by virtue of the public financing system of interest to the democratic party. so that is how i would kind of twist that a little bit. i was -- the party didn't find me. even when i stumbled into the

democratic party headquarters and presented myself awkwardly, they were still very kind of -- they weren't quite sure about me, they didn't know who, what that was about, and they didn't seem very interested in exploring that. so i would say that it can help, definitely help them with recruitment, though not necessarily in my case. >> hi. lee druckman, sunlight foundation. i'm going to ask a question that is in some ways an extension of the length question jonathan asks what is what happens in the actual course of governing. this conversation was a lot about campaigning, almost nothing about governing. a lot about politics, i heard spencer mention the word "accountable" one time. so the high post sit -- and, actually, i mean, i think the evidence tends to support about public funding -- is, one, you get better and more diverse candidates who are more representative of the population as a whole and, two, you get

candidates who are spending more time listening and talking to actual voters as as opposed to people who fund campaigns. therefore, you'd think that the people who are in office are more in touch with the general concerns of the populace at large. what happens is you have these matching funds or some system where you bring more people into the system, and then when you have the two years of the legislative session, that goes away. so you have people who are new to legislating and maybe voters who have gotten involved, and then there's nothing to support their participation through that two years. so one hypothesis, my contention, is that what happens, that all goes away, and then you're left with this permanent class of lobbyists and special interests to help part-time legislators do what the lobbyists and special interests want them to do. so i guess my question is, are there insights from public funding that we can take to actual law making, and should we

be thinking more about the two years of governing as a, as a complement to public funding? >> you know, we -- there are only three states with full public funding, and some of the experts are in the room, all right? but one has an impression but there have been no political science studies that look at this comprehensively that the lobbyists similarly do not -- simply to not set the agenda as much in hartford as they used to. i can't speak about arizona, and maine is just a different place. new york city is different. you're not going far away. you're a subway ride from the

legislative halls. and you live in your neighborhood. so this varies by place, but one of the mechanisms that lobbyists use to help control the agenda is not there. now, you have an hypothesis, i have an hypothesis. we both have the tools to do testing, but we'll acknowledge that nobody's really done it in a systematic way. >> and let me just talk about values and norms, right? i think there is in this traditional reformer notion of a trustee republican notion of government where we want to free legislators from kind of private interests, they're going to operate using their best judgment as trustees. i have a healthy kept is schism

of that vision -- kept similar of that vision of democracy. i would agree that over the course of a legislative cycle we want legislators to be accountable to citizens. not just lobbyists or a small group, but a broad and diverse group of people. and so just as a normative matter for me, that's one of the reasons that a multiple match is more attractive than a direct grant. and i understand there's some connection to citizens in is tense that you have to, you know, get 200 or 250 qualifying contributions, but the movement of public financing toward a more kind of accountable, diverse group over a legislative cycle or over a significant period of time, i think that's a good thing from a democratic values standpoint. >> i would --

>> sorry, go ahead. >> i had a professor in grad school who also was a professor at my grad school. we used to say that government is born of the cold smoke of elections, you know? and so in thinking about these two kinds of systems we've been talking about, if you believe that, you know, dr. heinz, like add you say, i could assess the condition of the people that lived in my district, i think that bodes well for representation. if more of that is happening, if you believe that more of that is happening in the fully-funded systems, i think you're going at least in a place where you can say there's evidence, preliminary evidence to think that that might be the case. but, again, we don't know. all we have is a hypothesis. i do agree, though, that the small donor match programs are, appear to be very effective. michael's got a very nice paper that suggests that the donor pool looks a lot more like the voting pool in these systems,

and i think they're very promise anything that regard. so by merging the campaigning and the fundraising elements into one, i think you're also getting that out of these systems as well. so i think both points are correct. >> going slightly tangential, forgive me, but as having been in a legislature where we have four termed limits in place, what strikes me more than anything else is what empowers lobbyists and empowers appointed, hired members of the staff. and i could observe this, because every two years between 30 -- actually, between 40 and sometimes 50% of the arizona legislature is new. every two years. and so the people that have the power, the people that literally write the bills and bring them to us and -- well, not me as a member of the democratic party

so much, sometimes. but mostly to the majority, to the speaker, to the president's office, those are the lobbyists that have been there for 20, 30 years. and i'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but what i'm saying is in my direct experience, that is what limited more than anything else the ability of legislators to, i this i, most faithfully represent their constituencies. because they didn't know what they were doing. we're trying to figure out where the bathrooms are, right? and there's always 40% of the legislature that doesn't know where the bathroom on the third floor is because they're new. and so what you have in this craziness, everything's new and different, you have lobbyists, and you have when you're not quite sure if you should be trusting that lobbyist or not, well, ask the chief of staff. east been there for 22 years. that's probably a good thing, too, but the chief of staff is not elected and neither are your legislative counsel lawyers, right? so those people don't have to go

door the door and ask the voters for anything at all. and so that is what really -- i know it's not directly the topic of panel, but term limits seemed to have more impact. >> yeah. i'm going to step out of role of moderator because nobody has endorsed the point you were making. i think it really reminds me of an article i just read recently by heather gherkin from yale law school, and she is basically arguing that because people have capacity to lobby are so limited, we could think about some lessons that come from are are public financing for how to build that, build that information capacity for lawmakers in a broader way. and that could come from things modeled on a small donor financing system actually help ordinary citizens get their voices heard in a legislature or something more analogous to a

full public financing system which would to create more centralized resources, and i think it's a real smart direction that she's laid out, and i recommend that article. probably on your mind. shannon brownlee. >> [inaudible] it's a nonprofit based in boston that's working on health care reform. and let me give you a little bit of background for my question. we're interested in promoting public deliberation around health care reform and health promotion. so i'm wondering whether or not in this small donor model increases civic engagement not just at the voting booth, but also in people having conversations in their communities about what they want and how to get it, and does it actually increase people's ability to affect legislation, both -- so is it the conversation in the community

and the legislation. >> yeah. gettingen gauged -- getting engaged in a campaign in a low cost way increases your civic knowledge which makes it easier to participate the next time around. so you increase social capital, political capital, and that's a plus in the direction you're talking about. but deliberation, public deliberation requires an enabling structure. it doesn't happen by be itself. so it's a step to create -- a tool. it's useful but not sufficient. and whether a candidate does town halls, whether a candidate encourages it, whether the candidate uses this for deliberation as opposed to using it for a selling vehicle, that's -- those are all

possibilities. but you don't move directly from one to another. what you do get out of this small toe nor is you model, you've broken through the one really important hurdle which is to get the person engaged and to get the person who is potentially in power to ask the person to be engaged. >> yeah. again, door to door. that's, that's where, you know, where all those voter contacts occurred. and i know of actually from one year to the next i had, there were a variety of legislative candidates running around the same district, talking to the same people, and be those relationships really mean something. i know that there are many situations in which if a voter had given $5 to me, then they

would refuse to give it to any finish they get very, you know, protective of grow because you have that -- of you because you have that bond. so you definitely are simulating that kind of, that sort of civic engagement, and then that can, i believe, go on to do other things. at the very least, you're teaching them about all the different levels of government, what your legislators do or are supposed to do and getting folks that maybe would only typically vote in a presidential year or for the president or u.s. senator or governor. you're getting them like, oh, no, no, that doctor guy came to my house, and what's this? wow, judges. so no one votes for judges, we all know that. i'm kidding. yeah. i do think that i have no way to measure it, but i think in my own experience i could see that. >> i want to piggyback on this even though i've already spoken once on. but one of important differences between the clean election model

and the matching fund model, most people are most willing to be engaged; that is, they know the most when you get close to election day. and what the clean election model does is it gets you to give $5 before most people have even heard of the candidate. it's strictly door to door. and then it shuts off. and the candidate does have to engage directly but doesn't have this lever, this vehicle. so that's why most of the people who supported election funding and some are in this room are now looking at hybrid models where you can continue the small donor fundraising up through election day as a way of getting people into the system. >> further questions? david donnelly, i see you back there, and you were mentioned by

name. do you want to comment on that -- [inaudible] >> i'm actually just raking it all in. >> terrific. i did see a hand. i saw somebody -- yes. >> hi, kurt walters with public campaign action fund. i was really interested, professor miller, by your emphasis on rolloff a opposed to turnout overall. if such a system was to be in place at the the federal level, do you think we might see a slight increase maybe since they're at the top of of the ballot in overall turnout rates? >> i think so. for me, it was a -- well, yes, possibly. so now i'm already walking that back. i think my distinction in the book is merely theoretical because, as i said in the presentation, i just, it's really hard for me to get to a place where i believe that's the

race you care about, that's the reason why you're going to go and vote, is state legislature. no offense be, dr. heinz. but i think people are really focused on the federal races as voters. the reason that they're going there. now, does a, you know, if a publicly-funded candidate, you know, is running for congress, does that make you more likely to vote? i'm not sure. i'm not sure that my findings are going to translate to federal races, and the reason for that is because most congressional races and certainly the presidential race and senate races are already pretty visible, right? so where are you going to affect voter education and salience? it's going to be very marginal, i think. and so i'm not sure -- and others may have different thoughts -- but i'm not sure, the more i think about it, that we should expect higher turn from public funding because

particularly since the proposed programs, you know, are going to be this 6 to 1 match and we're still going to have fundraising and there's no reason necessarily to believe the congressional candidates would totally do it in a face to face way, i'm not sure we would see those effects. i really do think, though, that we should give up turnout as the thing that we all want to seefect in. -- see effects in. >> i would just note that i think corruption and the appearance of corruption are important values and could be affected -- effective in especially congressional elections. many of us have an idea that the president i is, you know, what we think of when we think of politics. and i think that that's just not the case because there are so many other political actors, and there's not as much transparency because there's not as much media cover averages right?

and then also in terms of the presidency you're raising money from so many more people that a large contribution that's $35,000 even isn't as significant whereas if you're running for congress or you're running for statehouse or city council, a big contribution is important. and you -- there's not the leverage to attract those large contributions, because you don't have the celebrity. that's not at play. so i think that these other candidates are more susceptible, have to do more to raise money and are more vulnerable. and i think that, you know, even though i personally believe that there are values other than preventing corruption that are important, i think that preventing corruption is key, right, especially with this supreme court and a multiple matching system can, you know, help prevent corruption especially at these lower level offices including house, u.s.

house. .. [inaudible conversations]

>> you can watch this entire discussion. it will be available on a website and we will have more from the new america foundation later this afternoon with a discussion about the 2001 act by congress granting the president broad authority to use military force in response to the september 11, 2001 attacks. will be live at 12:15 eastern. on capitol hill today both chambers of commerce will return to the house gaveling in at noon eastern, and working today on a bill authorizing the construction of a peace corps monument. also a bill to fund the federal government past wednesday and in the senate live on c-span2, lawmakers will gavel in at 2:00 eastern and continue debate on extending unemployment insurance benefits. at 5:30 p.m. the full senate

will vote on whether to confirm robert wilkins to be a judge on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. earlier we spoke with the capitol hill reporter for more about the weekend in: congress. >> host: we want to take a we wo step back and talk more broadly about congress at this point in the morning because as we said it's going to be a busy week. pete kasperowicz is on thea reph "tone. is a reporter with a hill.he good morning. >> guest: how are you doing? hou >> host: thanks to join us. doi? talk to us about the budget first. we been waiting for the larger omnibus spending bill to bewe hn wunveiled. has that happened yet? o be >> guest: you know, it happened as of last night andt'n remind me to check. we haven't seen as of yesterday. that is the big mission of themf week for congress. what they will do is do it in two stages because they have to pass a short-term bill -- sarday. short-term bill. of the year.

that is what we figure they will do this week. the sense is that in the house it will pass pretty easily on tuesday. the senate will probably follow on the same day and knock that out. given 3 or number four days -- it will that is the big mission of the week and it seems like for all the drama we've had, at least so far he should be able to push that through. you make a good point we have yet to see the bill and members will have to sit and that of a few days to look at it and i should of these things come with a few surprises and so we'll have to look through to see if there's language in there that draws opposition but otherwise they should finish it by friday or saturday. >> host: take us to the unemployment benefits bill that's been working its way through the senate. what's the latest on that? >> guest: that sort of blew up last week innocent. we had democrats came up with a new idea for an 11 month extension of emergency

unemployment benefits paid for by extending the famous sequester that we all talk about for another year. and then democrats said it wouldn't look at any republican amendments and that hit people funny because republicans held advance the bill earlier in the week and suddenly democrats were saying we won't consider any of your ideas for paying for this. that change by friday. harry reid said we'll probably look at some republican amendments but didn't say which ones. today will be an important today, how might they perceived a certain number, certain kind of amendment they might look at that might help advance the build. >> host: was the timing on the senate bill? do you see the house picking this up at all? >> guest: it's hard to say. the senate could take a while to. we need to hear what the plan is. if they can pass something where they get some republican support for how it's paid for, then you might see the house consider it. but as long as it's based on -- the house will not move first.

thousands make the republicans made it clear they want to focus on things like job training -- as soon as they get people back to work as opposed to extending unemployment benefits. the senate would have to go personal matter want to even generate any interest over there looking at it. if they can do it in a way to get some gop support i think the house could look at it. too many bank shots into the future. we have to see what the senate is capable of doing. >> host: it's only monday but right now together when we recess next week. they are looking to move forward as far as they can to take us over to committee. last week was a necessary the busiest week in committee. what do you have your eye on this with? >> guest: this week it's not, there's not a whole lot going on but the house will have to obamacare hearings. the republicans continue to push up that issue. this week they even have a vote on an obamacare bill that would require people -- require weekly

reports on how the world is going to what kind of glitches we have on the website. republicans are not letting that go. it's still a big issue for the gop. this is something we can expect all your. republicans keep thinking the premiums are higher and people are losing their plants and so it seems like there's at least one or two this week herein lies that we have on obamacare. it just seems like it will be the issue they ride into the election. >> host: one more question. it is two weeks down the road by the state of the union is coming. from what you can tell on the hill these days, over at the white house, what was that speech be like? but just as importantly, how will republicans combat the presidents that such? >> guest: that's a good question. it's a funny time. i think right now the white house is kind of caught between two funny realities. i think they want to say that there is improvement in the job market. it always comes down to jobs it seems. and yet there at the same time

pushing unemployment benefits to have it extended. i think most people still think it's kind of a mixed up economy and that's going to make it may be a difficult speech to tie all these ideas together. to say we are improving but we still need help for people. that's been sort of an overall messaging problem i think the white house has had. and you have a bunch of republicans who, they're still fueling their opposition. scandal, i risk of all these things they don't want to let go. we are still in a classic battle of a split government, which you're a lot of us was people call it messaging but it sounds like a lot -- like a lot of fighting back and forth. i think it's going to be, in a lot of ways it's similar to what we've seen over the last few years and i think the gop will combat rising with a better view of how to get jobs. this whole year is turning into one great watch. it's already election season answer everything is a message.

the speech will be a message and the gop response will be a message and we will all be messaged to death until we finally get to vote, feel like voting. >> host: pete kasperowicz is a reporter for the. thanks a lot for the update this monday morning. guest lecture. anytime. >> the house gavel back in at noon eastern. the senate returns at 2:00. you can watch the house live on c-span, and the senate live right here on c-span2. on c-span3 we will take you live to a discussion about child health and the role of health care providers. it's part of a report released by the robert wood johnson foundation's commission to build a healthier america. a little bit on flight remarks and house republican budget committee chair paul ryan of wisconsin talking about social mobility at the brookings institution at 430 p. nation. you can watch live coverage of both events on c-span3. >> nancy reagan was the first sitting first lady to address

the united nations and the first to address the nation in a joint appearance with the president. >> so to my young friends other, life can be great but not when you can't see it. so open your eyes to light, cnn visit covers that god gave us as a precious gift to his children. to enjoy life to the fullest and to make it count. so yes to your life, and when it comes to drugs and alcohol, just say no. >> first lady nancy reagan as our original series "first ladies: influence and image" returns tonight live at nine eastern on c-span and c-span3. also on c-span rated and c-span.org. >> next summer addiction for 2014 by political strategists and journalists and the potential for a shift in power in congress. this discussion was moderated by washington post political reporter chris cillizza. it's a little more than one

hour. >> if everyone can take a seat will go ahead and get started with the program. thank you all for coming today to the first quarterly event for 2014. i know it's bad weather. we originally scheduled this for late last year and it snowed, and needless to say we get sleet. but thank you for coming. center forward brings together members of congress, nonprofit, academic experts, trade association, corporations and unions to find common ground and common sense solutions to challenges. our mission is to provide thoughtful bipartisan discussion across party lines, but the biggest challenge facing the country. with this in mind we brought together today's terrific panel to discuss what we can anticipate this year in congress and with the midterm elections and the wake of the launch of obamacare and the recent government shutdown. i'd like to introduce our

moderator. we're delighted to have chris, chris cillizza today. he's washington's premier political journalist. he's with "washington post." chris covers congress, the white house and all things political for the fix, his political blog that we all probably read day. chris came the "washington post" from roll call, and other washington publications i'm sure we all read as well. prior to joining roll call chris covered governors races in house races at "the cook political report" and wrote a column on politics or congress daily so please join me in welcoming chris today. [applause] >> then has decades of experience in politics and this international recognized for working as a campaign strategy, message development, targeting and persuasion mail, which i'm not sure what i know what they do so i would like to learn if we could.

and 1982, and formed targeted creative communications, a republican direct marketing company based in alexandria, virginia. t. cq has worked with campaigns in virtually every state, this past flights include bush-cheney in 2004 and 2000, dole camp in 96 and so senate and governor races and over five dozen members of the house of representatives. please join me in welcoming being in. [applause] -- david wasserman is the house editor for "the cook political report," probably a dream job for a lot of us here in the room. he is responsible for handicapping and analyzing u.s. house races. he also serves as an associate editor of the "national journal," as a contributor to an almanac of american politics 2014. in april of 2011, he authored the public -- "the cook

political report" competence of 2012 redistricting outlook. please join me in welcoming dan wasserman of. [applause] >> arthur penn was is jeff liszt. he's a democratic pollster and strategist. jeff is a partner and ashley recognize bowling for but they do polling on political candidates and very selected officials including senate members, mbs of cars, governors and dozens of other statewide official. jeff is a veteran campaign operative whose experience include working with the dccc and the docc of the democratic governors association. in 2008, jeff was part of the campaign team that helped elect president obama. please join me in welcoming jeff. [applause] >> and with that i will turn it over to you, chris. >> thank you. thank you all for coming. i know in virginia this but it was a little bit icy so i appreciate you all making it.

i'm going to talk very briefly, let these guys to all of it of the spiel and then i'll ask them a few questions and i think we'll probably most interested, i most interested if you guys have questions. we will do that. i just is going through some numbers last night knowing i was going to do this. and it is remarkable the number of-but we would identify as moderate either liberal to moderate republicans or moderate to conservative democrats, however you want to do that, class congress either willingly or unwillingly in the last few years. this week we saw mike mcintyre represent north go on record as go on record for most statistics in the country, he won by the closest margin of any democratic incumbent in the country. in 20 oh retiring the jim matheson in utah who represents a district that he should

absolutely not. represent if there's anyone else there, and remarkably republican district, also jim gerlach a republican in the suburbs of philadelphia. also retiring. i don't think that's by accident. i think congress is a less than pleasant place to be at the moment. there are some members of congress here who could dispute my theory, but i think it's not the most pleasant place to be right now. one number i was struck by, so the blue dog democrats, other members of the blue dog democrats in the 111th congress, there were 54 members of the blue dog coalition. there are currently 15. mcintyre and matheson are both members and are retiring. this is one my favorite kind of fascinating sets, of the seven most conservative house democrats according to "national

journal"'s vote rating come of the seven most, all of them are no longer in the house. to seven most conservatives in 20 oh. dan boren, mike ross, to lost primaries. and to our -- joe donnelly is the other one redistricted out of his seat indiana. thank you, richard murdoch, elected to the u.s. senate. i don't think it takes a rocket scientist to conclude that most people who, whether through their own dent or the politics of the district, are inclined to cooperate with the other side, that is our list of those people the likelihood of small bore, big bore, increasingly unlikely. i think we've seen that play out over the last few years. my guess, not to sound too cynical, my guess is 2014, you

may or may not be aware this but it is an election year, surprisingly enough, and that seems to make it very unlikely that the deals happen. typically that's not the way we work in this town, as everyone tends to look toward their reelection races as opposed to spending a lot of time on what would likely be a very controversial or at least a difficult reach across the aisle to get something done. deal, whether that is done this goal, immigration, energy. i think the safe bet typically now in washington is small bore or nothing. i think we all hold the possibility of that w we're surprised but we are often not surprised. the one other thing i will say is as it relates to the senate and then i will stop, i think you have a combination of moderates heading for the exits but then i think you also have massive turnover, particularly

in the senate, a place where there is not typically been all that much turnover. these numbers are amazing to me. since 2008, there are 40 new senders. since 2008. 20 democrats, 20 republicans. six years ago, not that long ago, six years ago 44 senators had served at least three terms. today that number is 32. the 113th congress, more than half the senators had served one full term or less. more than half the senders have served one full term our list. you get my point. it's very much in play. i think the power of outside groups, particularly on the republican side has made it that many senators are more loyal are at least more aware of some of these outside groups than mib of john cornyn or mitch mcconnell, leadership is less to these people. people just knew. that's not any institutional wisdom that exist.

you can argue that the good thing or a bad thing. you take the combination of huge turnover with the departure of moderates, and these are in some ways where we are today. i'm going to stop there because i'm interested in what these guys had to sit and i'll just questioned them as i see fit. but let's just go my right to my left. david. >> thanks, chris. you hit on a lot of important points. 2014 is going to be another polarizing election in this country. if you look at the house, "the cook political report," my organization currently rates -- that includes 24 democratic held seats and 21 republican held seats. democrats need 17 seats to take control of the house but they really need to pick up 19 republican held seats because there's no realistic chance they can hold either north carolina's second district or utah for. jim matheson's district.

if you look at that map and add it all up, democrats will need to win 43 of those 45 races we currently see us competitive in order to take back the house. that's something we've never seen before. in fact, the likelihood i think is republicans will make a small net gain in the house in 2014 for three reasons. first of all, simply the history of the six-year itch election, the pattern where in post-world war ii era we've had the party in the presidency lose an average of 29 house seats and six senate seats in the second term, midterm election. second of all, the terrain. and just the fact that the house is very well sorted out right now. there are only 17 republicans left in districts that president obama carried in 2012. there are only nine democrats remain in districts that mitt romney carried in 2012, two of whom are in this room today. congressman murphy and congressman barrow.

the third factor is really the midterm turnout dynamic. this is something that flies under the radar a lot an immediate but will be destiny and the 2014 midterm election. who votes and midterms? tends to be older voters, wider voters, wealthier voters. that never really used to matter back in the 1990s or 1980s because in terms of the generation gap, democrats and republicans were doing just about as well with voters between the ages of 18-29 in 60 and older. what happens in this day and were yet president obama's approval rating 15 points better usually among voters in that younger age group than the older age group? cinch of the midterm election you have an electric that is basically premade for republicans success that gets two to three points for republicans in a midterm election compared to what you typically have in a presidential year without any opinions haven't changed. so we're looking at probably a republican gain in the house in the single digits somewhere if

the election were held today. democrats would need to sustain that momentum from the 16th a government shutdown into 2014 in order to have a chance of picking up seats. we'll see if they can kind move the needle back over the course of the next 10 months. but i think we've gone from a place talking about how moderates are a dying breed in congress, to moving on to the debate about, well, does that turn around? are there factors that are within the control of voices in the center? i think the first step for voices in the center in congress to realize is that there are societal forces at work here that are much larger than simply one election. i would argue there are three trends that utterly transformed the landscape and there are reforms that those in the middle can consider to kind of move away from this polarization that we've seen. i look forward to discussing

those trends today, whether it's self sorting in the electorate, whether it's a decline a straight ticket voting or split ticket voting rather, across the country. and also simply the prevalence of primaries and that force in the election moving members of congress to the polls. >> that was like a movie trailer. i have one very important thing to tell you but it will not be until the end of the trailer. go ahead. >> i think i would actually ago the point, as a historian i always caution people who say that whenever anybody says this is the most decisive election in history, of course it is because it's the one you are involved in. you look at the trend that's probably been going on, at least those of us on the panel, our career in politics, there's been a clear trend headed to where we are and where we're going as far as polarization, parties hitting a new level of equality in

polling and respect on a national level. when i started in this business it was inconceivable. i was a house republican guy back when we thought they would never be a republican majority in the house of representatives ever, in my lifetime. it was inconceivable and we all labored under the absolute belief. obviously, that thankfully is far gone. so we are in this big trend where a lot is shifting and so at the moment the numbers of the senate retirements and the moderates, this just happens. we have to go through this process. if you look at the seats that a large number of these new members have come they will probably be centers and they will get to the third term in many places. not so many other ones were up this year, we will be able to see the number of democrats this year because of the political environment. that's the of the cycle that we're in right now is this cycle back and forth of polarization combined with going to the

organization,% of electric. it's very fractured and not monolithic in its views except for what? it feels totally disconnected and it feels like washington and the power elites everywhere in this country, whether business or big labor or politics, state or local or federal, does not give a rats you know what about that. they've been abandoned and that is i think the challenge going forward. one of the tremendous things that obama brought as a candidate. in '08, suddenly there was going to be this different approach to things. and then he and named rahm emanuel and nancy pelosi as prime minister's and what is the we went right back into a highly polarized world. we will continue in the world. that's where we're going to go into we get the next president. that's sort of the facts of where we are and politically, unfortunately for the country, obama to is just a train wreck at the minimum from public

opinion points of view, creating a great opportunity for republicans. going to be a good year for all the demographic reasons that you just heard for republicans. now the political tide that is clear with republicans, looking at big games. the democrats will try everything they do to change that. i'm sure we will talk about that. the one point i would caution both my party and the democrats is, history is not the person that's trying to force you to do something different. it's usually going to be some outside factor that's going to pull people's attention away from obamacare. who knows what that will end up being. the old phrase is a lifetime in politics in the next 10 months. and it certainly is but it's going to be a fascinating year. >> jeff. >> well, obviously my beliefs about 2014 are a little bit a different. i think if you look at some of the recent elections that we've had, that concrete settled relatively early. that was certainly the case in

the 2006 we've year. i think was also largely the case in 2010. but it don't really believe that the concrete has yet settled on the 2014 election. i think that certainly republican numbers have rebounded since the government shutdown, which led to a sizable democratic advantage on the generic ballot. there was a cnn poll in december should republicans we taking an advantage on the generic ballot. people's generic preference. in congress, i think that there's still a great chance not only for an event driven change in the generic ballot, like a problem stemming from another budget fight, but also from the primaries and with republican primaries delivered issue. if you look back at recent elections, the store is owned in part republican gains in the house, but a think in a larger

sense, the philly of republicans to take back the senate. and until i see an example of republican primaries delivering centrist candidates who can win general elections, i'm still going to be pretty optimistic about the 2014 election. one of the things that's going to come into play is how macroeconomics intersect with party messaging. one of the things that's happening in america right now is that while productivity for workers continues to rise and profits continue to rise, wages remain flat. if you're in a job and you're trying to support her family, your perception is that you are working hard and that you are not being rewarded in particular for working hard. you are not necessarily making more money. it's harder to send your kids to college. you are struggling in spite of how hard you're working. and i think that that is the feeling among the electorate

that cuts across party lines. if you look at the anger that animated voters in 2010 and 11 a lot of republican gain, it's not all of that different from the anger that deliver democratic gains in 2006 and 2008. it's a feeling that we're in a society where others are getting taken care of and others are doing well, in 2006 and 2008 democrats made the argument that it was the wealthy and big corporations. and 2010 i think republicans pretty compellingly made the case that obamacare it was going to provide insurance for people who didn't have it, which is not the people who are showing up to vote. vast majority of the voters already have insurance, so the perception was that the government was delivering for people who were not them. and also i think we should not neglect with which in 2010 republicans ran to the left of democrats. david talked about seniors, and

seniors doing better for republicans. republicans ran left of democrats on medicare in 2010. in fact the democrats were cutting medicare. so if you look at, i think there's a tendency to think that the 2010 electorate was really animated by different forces and that it was in some way a real repudiation of what happened in washington, but i'm not all that convinced that the anger was and the and the left, and the right has been all that different. i think there is a center that is ultimately less polarized and which is in washington and the congress that represents it. i think that as we look forward to 2014, we're going to keep an eye out for some the dynamics that we saw in 2010, one of which is seniors and which way they break. right after the 2010 election you saw the special election in the in which kathy hochul was elected, was a race decide on

medicare but in a very different way than the races in 2010 had been decided on medicare. i think that we are going to look also at the people who haven't really done all that well in this economic recovery, this bush -- is reported people without college degrees. i think we'll look and see especially when without college degrees, which would they break. because 2010 was an important year in which they broke against democrats. democrats lost the edge they have had with those voters in terms of who's on your site. i think we're going to look also at a lot of suburban areas, areas that are think after 2008 democrats felt like they locked up, areas like the area outside of richmond or outside charlotte which really swung back and were important in republican victories in 2009 and 2010 in those states. but i remain optimistic. not only optimistic for

democratic politicians and democrats like kay hagan in north carolina who are centrist, one of the most moderate members of congress, but also for the country as a whole. i do believe we are ultimately less polarized. i want to just go around one more time and then we can take questions. this is the things i was contacted. gallup had the pullout this week, which party do identify with. independent, 42% the highest it's ever been. and yet the effort to find -- 42% of the country thinks they're independent. i think we all would agree democratic, republican, would agree people don't like the two parties. if you say the only thing better at the moment in the democratic -- were spent democratic branch is republican french. true but people in congress you ask them, 33% of people approve. everybody hates everybody. why then we have this large

number of independent, people calling independents to have these efforts like in 2012, they tried to recruit an independent candidate, had money, having him in convention and the person they picked was ron paul. who, by the way, wasn't even actively trying to get the nomination. so what is the disconnect between the number of people who i think we all agree said the two party system is broken, democrats and republicans don't represent me. the number of that people identifying as a dependent is going upriver. and the fact that attempts to either be in the center ideologically in a democratic or republican party, or to actually form a center that is apart from the democratic and republican party, doesn't work. jeff, i let you go first. >> first, i think the 42% independent number is inflated a little bit because when you ask people whether not be leaned towards democrats or republicans, the independent

number strength a lot. we found that if yo if you say e independently choose a link towards one party, your behavior tends to be very similar to the people who flat-out identify as being from that party. one of the other findings in that gallup poll was that republican identification is at an all time low. that doesn't mean that there are that many for people out there who are voting republican but it means a lot of them are self identifying as independent. a lot of those are tea party voters. one of the challenges as a pollster when you're figuring out who to define as independent as whether not you throw in the people who say that they're not with any party, because that also these days tends to be your other tea party universe. in 2010 and a lot of research other third party candidates on ballots it was a tea party candidate. how optimistic you as a democrat depended on how much was expected that third party candidate to once again, and in the end of most of those voters went home to the republican party, republicans ended up doing well.

so as a pollster these days i'm looking more at people self identify as moderate and less us people who self-identify as independent. >> i would say i think one of the critical things you're looking at exit polling in 2012 or 2013, people think that independent and moderate are synonymous, and the data would suggest that they are, in fact, not at all. i would like people, ken cuccinelli one independents over terry mcauliffe. people id as -- he did not win the race. cuccinelli lost badly among moderates. mitt romney won the so-called critical independent vote in 2012 while losing the general election to barack obama. we tend to -- independent, moderate, they are not, in fact, the same thing. >> we can also add the label when someone calls people swing voters, these terms are fiction.

jeff says independents are more republicans. moderates are more democrats. we differ on the degree. with the, now that 42% is, in this era of polarization it's like they are polarized against the beltway. they are polarized against everybody in this room. because we live in the washington area. they are against us. because they've been trained through repetitive, painful experience that their interactions with government cause them pain and discomfort. i think jeff's arm your comment about talk about the inequality issue, i think there's a lot the idea that the democrats, a group of people are very disconnected. the problem the democrats have is with that message and to the audience is those people no longer trust democrats. obamacare has been a virus that

has convinced a large portion of the people that there's no solution but cares about them. they are just trading one party -- all the stigmas people can do, there's no difference between a party when there are massive differences between the parties. >> people don't feel that, right? >> the difference is someone looking out for me, there's 42% of americans is a the parties are the same. they don't care about me. that's creating a big dynamic out there. that's where we will be fighting over this next election. >> which brings me to go the same question which is, that environment, you would think, would be right for candidates to i'm not saying why isn't there a third party right now, but it would be right for candidates theoretically who said exactly what -- these people are not listening to you. i will. and yet that kind of candidate

does not seem to be -- there are certainly candidates like that, but that candidate doesn't seem to be emerging as often as you would think looking purely from a political darwinist perspective that it would be good to have a message like that. >> chris, i think there are two things going on with independents. why our independents more republican leaning group when you exit polls them as moderate? i can watch part because the word republican has become similarly a dirty word as the word liberal became decades ago. the army self-identified conservatives in the electorate who have lost faith in the republican party establishment in washington for spending too much over the last decade the don't call themselves republicans when they are asked by gallup anymore. i think there's a slightly different conservative -- another thing going on, particularly among younger voters. this is what i suspect that 42%

figure to only go up over the course of the next several years. because younger voters have grown up in an era where they've lost faith in both parties ability to come together and get things done which is what the plurality if not the majority of the american electorate really wants to see happen in washington. the question that i really have is what is the overlap between that 42% of independents and those who already deciding who comes here in primaries? how many of those previously in primaries? and in the case of many elections we seek him and congressional primaries, participation rates of about what, 20%, which means many districts, 10% or fewer of those are actually selecting the member who comes to washington and votes on their behalf. how do those voices who are being underrepresented in washington, either enhance and expand participation in primary elections, or open of the primary process altogether

through reforms likes dates like california undertaken? >> i think it's a false choice for primary voters but a lot of the most polarizing people of come out of primaries in the last few years have been people of being angry at washington and have been talking about how washington is broken. >> i want to ask one more question and then i'll open it up. which is, polarization, political polarization may be bad for getting things done in washington, but as several groups, mostly on the right at this point because i think having the white house makes it harder, but have proven that it may be bad for governance but it's quite good for business in that many groups have made their living, and have cropped up, made their living by endorsing a ted cruz is of the world, the people -- chris mchenry running against thad cochran in mississippi. is that, is the rise of ted

cruz, mike lee, rand paul, i put them in a group though i know there are quite clear differences between the three of them, is that a good, bad, or indifferent thing for getting things done in washington? and i would enter your point is always we're not really in an anonymous time. we just think we ought. >> i'm a conservative republican and then i'm in madisonian, and i look at the federalist papers and it's like, our government is not designed to move fast. they feared a government of passions of the moment making big, radical decisions like changing one-sixth of our economy on partyline votes. >> i don't know what you're referring to. >> that's not what the founders wanted. i like the idea that a system has publications and problems and slows things down. and madison said, faction must be made to combat action.

you have moveon.org of there. ya tea party movement which are far more fractured essence are probably the moveon.org is organizations are more fractured. than i realize. i think many is good. i think the challenge that we've got here is when you had what i do as a smart system that forces all these -- i think it's healthy all these are coming and. i oppose labor in a lot of situations. it's great there in the mix that they're trying to fight. the problem we have now in our large country of 300 million plus people is we have a political structure where it takes a massive amount of name identification and resources to run a campaign. for a congressional seat. you want reform, you want to change the system, all the talk about money and all that stuff is irrelevant, in my opinion, generally been. you want to onion get the system and healthily, take the house of

representatives up to like 1000 people, or 1200 people the next redistricting. it's a couple years off. who knows what that will cost us for a seat. but what it will mean is grassroots movements will be able to compete to the local election. so the math as you talked about is you'll be able to local candidates. you might see an emergence. there was a time in california when the green party one and the same receipt. a few other isolated places. you can't as a third entity hold these seats against the forces in our society. there's all these other factors out there that are communication structures and other things that go on. make the seats smaller, grassroots will matter more. isolated causes -- you will still have your large variety of colorful individuals in the house of representatives, but you have lots of opportunity. and if somebody is wrong to in the community and the community will be defined smaller, in a grassroots movement of whatever

interest, whether moderates or dynamic independent or whatever it is, will be able too seriously threaten that person which will then have a different effect on how legislation is in the house. >> to have a polling on adding more politicians to washington? >> let me just say as a political reporter, dave and i are very much in favor of expanding the house of representatives. >> exactly spent it's like a new hampshire, i remember when i first a political reporter i went up to new hampshire to cover the presidential and like every third person you went into his in the state legislature because it 400 plus people. it was massive. to dan's point, is there a single reform that could change who we centered? because i think the problem we have is we get them everyone gets your. why are they voting like that? their voting like that because that's what the people who

elected them to do want. data i'm sure has the number of the top of his head but the numbers -- 55% are under is a picnic compared to the actual number. 55%, i'm not even sure -- many of them one with 54.9. it seems to me we are on the wrong end of the problem. these people are doing what they were sent here to do. is there a reform to change it in your mind? then we will open up to questions. >> let me start by respond to attacks on obamacare which i promise is not at all off-topic. [laughter] i'm skeptical, but go ahead spent some who are members the history of medicare part d, prescription drug benefit battled in terms of the policy over passage but also in terms of the trajectory of the poll numbers. when he was first introduced there was a lot of confusion. seniors couldn't figure out how to sign-up in part because a lot of the mechanism of it were similar to the mechanisms of

obamacare. it wasn't a government created a program. you were signing up through a private provider. the poll numbers were disasters. democrats were not as exalted as republicans are now because democrats share the goal of providing prescription drug coverage to people. i year out from the election the assumption was that medicare part d would be politically disastrous for the republican. a year later the program is working very carefully, and it of being a net boom. you've got 10 million people who have insurance right now who didn't have insurance before obamacare. that includes 5 million kids who are on their parents insurance. people are going to have benefits that have accrued from obamacare by the time we get around to the next election, and i think it's wrong to judge a program that's covered 10 million people to this point after only a few months and that is guaranteed coverage for people have preexisting conditions based on the failure of a website. if you look at obamacare there's a big difference between our sections of obamacare and whether not people favor and

whether or not they favor or oppose the individual element of it when you test whether not they want abc and the contained within obamacare. part of the reason for that is that an additive number, a number a couple years older get over 500 billion bucks that have been spent through the 2010th election, not just on lobbying about obamacare but running ads attacking it. we live in the citizens united care, and air of unfettered contributions from dark money. you saw a recent article about $400 million coming from the koch brothers -- >> article in the "washington post." >> strong journalism. >> kay hagan has been the number one recipient of those dollars in terms of recipient of the attacks coming out of those dollars to our member at the end of the year asking myself whether or not we just live in a new era. it as people assume they understand the impact of citizens united because we saw in 2012. 2012 was a dry run.

i started asking myself at the end of last year when we're seeing the million dollar ad coming down against take and whether or not we live in a new regime with the ads are just starting to you before and they never go dark. they never come down. i think if you look at the branding of obamacare, very different from how people feel about the individual component because of the money that's been spent to fighting it negatively. if you look at the senate races and how much money has been spent this far out, i think if you want to avoid that kind of polarization that we've got right now, part of the solution and one of the reforms is overturning citizens united. >> so the hugo chavez on limiting free speech in the country is the solution. i mean, that's a nice history but for those of us who are maybe a little older and greater which i think -- >> you pulled that same line with my partner who is older

than i am. he said it to my grandfather. >> in 1995 and 1996 at we took the majority in the house of representatives for the first time, labor unleashed i think it was a $35 million campaign in the off year of robocall's and tv ads blitzing all the republican incumbents. and this is not soft dark money because it's good money because it comes from confiscated money held by labor union. that's my point of where i go back to let the factions fight it out to get everybody into the arena and politics is not pretty. put the funds in each other's eyes. argue over the issues. we can serving argue over obamacare, preexisting conditions and some of the children under 26, are powerful arguments for the democratic side. they been using recently and in the past. let's have that fight. let's have everybody out there arguing as loud as they can.

it's not pretty. it's unsettling to watch a family argument. how many of us have been at thanksgiving and the family erupts into a fight? it's unsettling that that's good for the republic. that's what we need, and so if you want to weaken that money, and the grassroots more power. >> can i take this and a bit of a different direction? polarization really begin before citizens united. i think there were three causes, at least that i see out there, that are worth addressing with reforms. the first israeli the notion of primaries. i think they ought to be more discussion of what can be done to open the primaries whether it's a california style primary system, to reduce the extent to which members of congress are simply playing to their primary base. because that's become very prevalent as result of the fact that we have such polarized districts. so what is pulverizing districts across the country?

first of all, i think this is something that's beyond the control within reforms. you can't tell people where to move. that in 1992, 38.6% of the american electorate lived in counties that were landslide counties added given either bush or clinton at least 60%. in 2012, that number was a majority for the first time. and independent of redistricting in the last election, 76% of democratic leaning congressional seats, this is the nerdy coming out in the, 76% of democratic leaning congressional seats come or democratic. 60% of republican leaning seats got even more republicans, independent of redistricting. i used to be a big believer that redistricting reform was the into. us to believe it's part of the answer. but i think a majority of the polarization comes from -- redistricting has compounded that affect by continuing to

eliminate seats were voices in the middle really can prevail or have an incentive to vote in a certain way in congress. third of all, i think we need to talk about the decline in split ticket voting that we are seeing across the country. because it used to be that is yet a member of congress or a candidate who had a background that was totally flawed, they would usually run underneath the top of their ticket to a pretty sizable exton. what did we see in 2012? well, there's a candidate in tennessee, and incumbent who has admitted basically to having relationships with patients while he was a doctor and trying to convince one to have an abortion. pro-life republican. under the old system, maybe 10, 20 years ago i think you probably wouldn't want 15, 20 points underneath his ticket.

he won eight-point below, he ran a point below mitt romney and still won election. i think the question for a lot of people here is, how do you get voters to pay attention to candidates background and positions and the phone with him on the race by race basis, rather than simply responding to their official attitudes towards national parties? part of that has to do with reviving local media and making sure that voters are attuned to what's happening in their own district rather than simple reacting to what's happening in washington. >> just to the local media question, i'm not terribly optimistic it's going to be revived because it's a business model which anyone who's in journalism is well aware of, but one thing i would say is the "bergen record" deserves a huge amount of credit. they have not cut nearly to the extent, a family-owned newspaper. they have not cut nearly to the extent of many local newspapers and they were the people who chris christie repeatedly credited oddly enough, i'm breaking the news about what i

like to call it originated, but many people call it bridgegate. call it what you will. the george washington bridge toll situation. >> the "bergen record" deserves a huge amount of credit. >> the "bergen record" for a variety of recent, part of which the density, and if you live in jersey, then you either have to care about what they decade of new york city wants to do in your soft drinks are you not to read the "bergen record" to find out what's going on in your community. >> it's uniquely situated. >> folks have questions? >> from day one i think the polls have been steadily -- have consistently shown that the majority of the public either supported the affordable care act or thought it wasn't liberal enough. to this day, consistently. it's never deviated from that, and yet you have the notion republicans are positive this is

a gift that keeps on giving, and the polls are quite different. i wonder if you can kind of explained that, if democrats haven't done a good job and so forth. the second question we saw the pew study last week that showed a fairly substantial majority of republicans do not believe in evolution, whereas democrats and independents were exactly the same spot in fact believing in evolution which kind of undercuts, you think tea party people would be the kind of people who don't believe in evolution yet would suggest they would somewhat deviate and get independent lined up with democrats. it's gotten worse since '09, few republicans believe in evolution. not a lot of new data since then. i'm just wondering if that kind of gives you any insight into the electorate that matters, that democrats can seize upon? >> let's talk about obamacare. because i do think every republican i talked to, then included, says this is it. ending spinning an incident

outside group haven't had a but if you haven't watched you should against jeanne shaheen. my guess, dan disagrees with me but i don't think he will, this is an ad you will see in thousands other small iterations across the country and did essentially had -- if you like your plan you can keep it. that's the lie of the year, according to a letter fact mckenna says, there's a picture jeanne shaheen and assess if you like or acidity, you can keep her. if you don't, you know what to do. let's talk about the data and why republicans are absolutely convinced, disagree with me to become overstating, but are convinced that obamacare is the issue that this election will both be decided on and will elicit significant republican games. then i'll go to jeff and let him maybe disagree. >> i think if you here -- your question was interesting calling it the affordable care act but i think there's a fascinating, like we prepped properly, we

could do a four-day examination of exactly your question. because there are pieces of the affordable care act, preexisting conditions, that are incredibly popular. people like the idea. all of us, myself included, we know people who this is a significant economic benefit to the family. but the larger picture of obamacare, the affordable care act has not upheld consistently popular. it's what you're looking at. absolutely right now, and i think jeff would agree, public perception at this moment, and even more so before the holidays, this moment, attitudes, negative attitudes on what they think aca is doing to our country is really affecting the senate of the electorate and telling them that washington has, whether they had it for the right reason for the wrong reasons, they botched this whole thing up and it's a train wreck.

now, just point, the democrats as we are going to get to a point where all the pain is behind us and the milk and honey is ahead of us. that's what they want in the election right now. right now it's really unpopular amongst big chunks of the electorate. because people are losing it. statistics come argued about this, details, i think jeff would agree, there are pieces people like. even the same moment what they're saying they dislike the whole thing, we saw with the medicare part d years ago. people didn't like the government spending but they liked the fact that the older parents were getting. there's a lot of details in here.

>>77% of those folks were strongly in favor. on the other side, i think 42% or so of democrats were strongly favorable to the law. so 77% versus 42, is there not a passion gap there that if this is, as midterm elections particularly are a base turnout battle, that is not a problem for you, and how do you solve

it, if you acknowledge it? >> well, i think that part of the answer was in that question. i think that the numbers on the affordable care act have always been deflated by the fact that there's some percentage of the voters who don't like it because it didn't go far enough. the act didn't end up kleined a public -- including a public option. as a student of history, you may recall most of the ideas in the affordable care act were originally proposed by the heritage foundation. they were the '93 alternative to hillarycare, and a lot of the way for paying for it was opposed by john mccain in 2008 which makes republican polarization seem less a matter of policy but no less real for all of that. but, again, i think that part of the lack of enthusiasm or the lower enthusiasm on the part of democrats is due to the fact that the law was a centrist law that was designed to elicit

republican votes, didn't because of polarization. we spent a year chasing olympia snowe's vote and then were accused of ramming the law down people's throats anyway. >> but does that change -- let's not dispute that, although i know dan would dispute that. does that change regardless of whether the democratic enthusiasm dipped because some people felt the law didn't go far enough, does it not -- how does that still change the basic dynamic which is republicans are going to go through freezing rain on election day or anything on election day to send a message against obamacare, and at least the data today, granted, would suggest even some liberal democrats who think it didn't go far enough are less passion mate? where right. >> because you guys are dealing in the reality of what we have now to persuade voters. >> you're not going to see lower

democratic enthuse yam than you did in -- enthusiasm than you did in 2010. i think that you've also got continuing demographic changes that lead to an electorate where even if it looks more like 2010 than it does like 2012, still doesn't look as bad as 2010. in a state like florida, for example, the number of new hispanics in florida since 2006 is higher than the number of jewish voters in florida. i mean, the population growth among hispanics is explosive there. if you look at nevada in 2010 where harry reid got reelected, the percentage of hispanic voters was as high as it was in 2008. so even if you have an electorate that is more conservative and whiter than it was in 2012, i think there's not a lot of chance it's going to be as bad as it was in 2010. >> and i would say that we haven't touched all that much on it, but i think the 2012 election as dan would -- i'll

give you a chance to not acknowledge it -- but revealed the sort of problems for the republican party demographically. the electorate continued to get less white, the electorate continued to grow more hispanic, and, i mean, barack obama gets 71% of the vote among hispanic voters. so i always say to republicans who are optimistic about 2014, and i think as dave and dan pointed out probably rightly so for what we know now, the massive victory in 2010 did not predict a massive victory or a victory at all in 2012. i think the same lessons in 2014 may carry over to 2016. you had a point. >> well, yeah, and yet all of those demographic changes are less important in the short term, for 2014, than they are in the long term. by the way, i think it takes a new candidate who can actually connect and score well on the cares about you question in order to revive the republican party with those voters. but the other day i looked back

at the list of the 34 democrats who voted against the affordable care act when it passed in 2010 and kind of a where are they now. and 21 of them have since lost re-election, 19 in generals, two in primaries. seven have since retired. and of the remaining six, two are retiring in 2014 which leaves four, you know, one of whom, you know, john barrow, was here and has run very effectively in his own district and articulated his own position against the law. but a question in 2014 that i have is how well will both republicans and democrats in tough states and districts articulate a message of fixing the law? to really try and resonate with voters who are not black and white on obamacare, but recognize that there are big problems and want to see some action in congress to fix what's wrong with the legislation.

>> let me keep taking a few more questions. yes, ma'am. >> thanks. is this on? is. >> you're good. >> i have two questions, and we're still going to talk about aca or obamacare can, however you want to call it. so i think whether it's perceived or real, there are people that would say republicans are unfair to obama administration. there are democrats out will that would say it would be so much better if hillary would have won. and a lot of it, i think, is criticism the clinton's know how to deal -- clintons know how to deal with washington. they are inside the beltway, and they know how to deal with people inside the beltway. would it have been different in a clinton administration? would a clinton administration have had less polarization than what we have now? and then, obviously, when she winses in 2014, are we going to be less polarized in 2014 going

forward? and then secondly, you talked about the house exprg the senate, and if you could comment on the confirmation rules in the senate and how that makes it more like the house and potential repercussions of that and maybe crystal ball, do we get to a point where that goes to supreme court nominees, or do you think they'll stay where they are now? many. >> i'll just quickly do the second one, and then we'll go to these guys for the first one. i mean, it is my belief that if you think that the wiping away of the 60-vote barrier will only stay to that group of people forever, you have not watched politics for very long. it seems to me that the door is now open. and i would say harry reid -- who opposed these changes for a very long time for fear of not

being, as dan pointed out, that, you know, if republicans in the majority was a fanciful one, for fear that the pendulum would swing, i think he probably went to many of the liberals, jeff merkley, tom i ideal and said, look, we're not always going to be in the majority. in fact, we might even be in the majority after that session. i think they probably said it's worth it to us in the near term. he changed his mind. he was one of the reasons this hasn't happened, they had been pushing for years. i think it has huge implications. it's not an issue that moves anyone outside of the party basis, i'm not convinced it moves anyone within the party basis. my parents don't have any clue what cloture is. they just don't. and i don't think they're rare among the american public. so it's not a persuasion issue, but in terms of how washington works, it's a sea change.

okay, guys. jeff, let's start with you. because i answered that one, so i don't need to answer the first one. [laughter] would things be different if hillary was president? i know this isn't, i mean, if i was seven feet tall, i'd be in the nba. hypotheticals are hypotheticals, but would it be different, and is there the possibility -- and i want to broaden it out to not just hillary, but let's say rand paul or marco rubio or scott walker or chris christie. is it possible that there's a candidate out there on either side that breaks the current gridlock that we have? in, elected in 2016? >> right. well, first, i don't think there was anybody at the time that clinton was getting impeached who thought we would look back on that as an era of less polarization. [laughter] >> right. ah, the golden days. >> golden era of hand-holding in washington. and i think you did have a lot

of people with experience from the clinton white house the first term of the obama administration. i think that, also, you're always fighting the last war. when the clintons fried to pass health care reform -- tried to pass health care reform, the complaint was that they had handed it down from on lie, and they had ignored the prerogatives of congress. and so the approach this time was different. they had a framework which they thought was a centrist, bipartisan framework largely because it had been built on the exchanges that were an idea from the republican alternative to hillarycare, and they thought that if the details were worked out, they would be able to do something in a bipartisan way in a way they couldn't if it was a democratic president handing things down from on high. i think that they underestimated the degree of resolve on the part of the republicans. republicans came out scorched earth against the stimulus at a time when the economy was in freefall. i mean, this was the bill to prevent us from going into a depression. and not only was it the bill to

keep us from going into a depression, it was a bill that included part infrastructure spending -- which is what democrats wants -- but also more than a third tax cuts which is what republicans wanted. i look back on the bush era, i don't remember getting a third of what i wanted out of any major piece of legislation passed by george bush. and the republicans made a principled decision -- not a principled, but a political decision -- from day one they were going to go against scorched earth against everything obama wants irrespective or not whether the policy aligned what they had previously been for or were currently for. and so i think that it's, i think it's wrong to suggest that anybody else would have gotten a different result out of them. >> go ahead. >> just a couple points. the amusing part of the stimulus reinventing the history there is, you know, there were a lot of things put in that bill like solyndra that republicans were not at all for. but that was where when, you

were right, obama said we're not going to repeat the sins of clinton, we're going to let pelosi wage war on the republicans in the house and the people who tried -- and i have many clients who tried to run to do business with the obama administration -- were rebuffed by the house democrats. so it's a very different issue. but i think here's the big problem of your question. i think hillary, would it be better and are they smarter and all that, is it goes to what's occurred right now which is if, indealed, these are the policy -- indeed, these are policy ideas which came from republicans inside the beltway which is different from being popular around the country, unfortunately, otherwise we'd still be passing jack kemp's laws, the problem of saying -- and then you hear the democrats, oh, these are republican ideas. the democrats took them and messed them up, and they proved they were incompetent. and it proves the democrats are incompetent with the levers of government. and the massive spending that's gone on under this president and

the failure to competently execute stuff. and while the country isn't keen on paying attention to what's going on overseas, there's a lot of nervousness that this administration is, while it's getting us out of the conflicts we were in which i think the public is rewarding obama for, they still don't view this as a competent administration. and we have -- so all the talk of hillary will be smart, she'll be the good one, she'll be the smart, organized one just undercuts all the efforts by the democrats right now, here and now to say trust us for two more years. >> well, let me frame it this way because i heard a friend of mine say that the last two presidents have more of less the presence of half the country. they've doubled down in terms of who they are on their party's basis. george w. bush was from texas, barack obama's from illinois. inherently, they're distrusted by the other side. who were the presidents before them? bill clinton, ronald reagan from

california and hollywood. so the question i have for 2016 is can either party nominate someone who is not kind of inherently or culturally from their own corner of the country. and on the republican side, i think what's so dangerous for democrats is that there are republicans from blue states in the mix whether it's a scott walker or a chris christie who are legitimate contenders for the nomination whereas i think hillary clinton for better or worse is now perceived as a new yorker more than someone from arkansas. and democrats don't really have a bench of red state -- >> [inaudible] >> -- who are kind of in the mix right now. >> right. >> although, you know, i think that's a challenge, is to keep alive that farm team in states where democrats don't typically win senate or at the presidential level these days so that they do have a bench of people who can reach across the rest of the country. >> why don't you take one more. yes, sir. >> while there's so much

polarization in the national legislature, state legislatures -- [inaudible] would like the panel to speak to that and particularly the 2014 election. >> i'll say one thing on it, and then i'll let these guys say it. i think one of the undertold stories of the 2010 election -- we all know 63 seats in the house and, you know, huge, historic, was the number of republican -- the number of takeovers of state legislatures by republicans. that matters no matter what in terms of policy. it matters much more in the year before redistricting. so i think that was a huge moment there, and i'll let these guys -- let's just go in order, and we'll end up. >> yeah. i think if democrats had had their wave election in 2006, in 2010 the year before redistricting they'd be in majority in the house, i think they'd be in the majority in a lot more state legislatures than they are. it's pretty much luck of the draw. i think the good news for middle of the road democrats is the

next election before a redistricting cycle in 2020 won't be a midterm electionment it could be an election where democrats actually do fairly well, and the redistricting map across the country can't get any worse than it was during this decade when you saw an evisceration of moderate democrats across the country. one of the first panels i did when i was in this job was at the democratic leadership council in chicago, i think 2007 or 2008, and the hundreds of office holders who were centrist democrats from across the country and the room, i would venture to guess that less than a fifth of them are in office today. >> i would caution anyone to say never say it can get any worse. [laughter] i remember my colleagues after the 2006 elections, well, we're glad we have that behind us, we can look forward to 2008. [laughter] be one of the -- all the social media, the cable culture, our politics at the national level, that is pushing the poe hardization down -- polarization down ballot, and you can see it, you know, the wisconsin

legislature wasn't necessarily a legislature a year ago of warm friends across the aisle. so that's going to a lot of places. even if you go to states where we have single-party domination, i come back, you know, california's a great example where a state senator represents more people than a congressman. i mean, you know, those seats are functionally just driven by whoever nominates the next person in an open, when it's an open seat. and you have california's term limits, so there's a lot more open seats. but, you know, that's where we need to actually go back and create smaller districts and bring more people into the process. chris has joked at the beginning about every third person in new hampshire -- [laughter] you know, has been a member of the state legislature. they give you a driver's license, and here's your membership in the legislature. [laughter] but that's healthy in the long run not just for a small new england state, but as you get more and more people involved in the process and when there's an

issue whether it's a garbage dump or it's some local issue or it's a big, national issue, there's people who can lead community movements. and that's, as our communities are disintegrating and we're all becoming these social facebook electronic communities, we need to rebuild that. so that's -- i think that's where the challenges are in our society. >> and, jeff, just to end on this, we spend a lot of time about house and senate because we're in this town, and there's the majority debate always which is intriguing. would it be unwise for democrats to not at least think about nominating a governor given the past record of success for governors? it seems as though everyone has on the democratic side has said, well, if hillary wants it, she's going to have it. is that healthy for the future of the party, and as you look back and forward, are governors not a better bet? >> uh-huh. well, this is not a slight

against brian schweitzer -- [laughter] but -- >> you don't want to get on the wrong side of that guy. >> but i do think that hillary clinton would be the strongest nominee for the democrats. and i think that it would be a powerful election to have a woman leading the presidential ticket. i don't think that you can discount the inspirational factor that hillary brings to the table in addition to policy gravitas and worldwide presence from her time as secretary of state. so although i think that there are some strong democratic governors out there, i do think that hillary is the strongest nominee. what's going to be interesting to me is to look at what happens in the next round of gubernatorial elections, because you're going to see a lot of governors, a lot of republican governors who made budget decisions to cut education early in their terms, but who may be running for re-election with a rising economy behind them in their statements, and you're

going to see a lot of these congressional races and even u.s. senate races in these statements possibly being affected by the state political dynamic and what's been going on in the state legislature and the statehouse which may either reinforce or cut against the -- >> and we saw that a little bit in virginia with what the virginia legislature had done and how the republican party got branded, one other thing and we'll close on it, huge, important states with big, competitive governor's races; pennsylvania, florida, michigan, ohio. these are, i mean, it is not insignificant who wins those races as well. both the senate races, house races, but also the presidential. i'll stop there. go ahead, sure. >> well, what a great discussion. thank you to the panel and maybe a round of applause. [applause] and on behalf of the board members of center forward, thank you for coming, and we hope you will attend our next event.

to learn more about center forward, i'd direct you to our web site, centerforward.com. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> we'll take you live now to the new america foundation in washington, d.c. for a discussion about the use of military force by the u.s. since 9/11 when congress granted the president power to use military force against those who planned, aided or authorized the attacks. and the panel here being introduced will talk about how the president has used those expanded powers in pakistan, libya, somalia and yemen as well as the use of drones and surveillance by the u.s. >> followed by benjamin wittes who is well known as the editor-in-chief of the -- [inaudible] blog. he works at brookings. he's the author of a number of books that examine the legal issues that come out of the sort of post-9/11 world. and finally and not least, micah who has had a distinguished

career, worked at kennedy school for many years, who worked at brookings, he worked in the state department's office of policy and planning. he's now at the council on foreign relations. he's arguably, in fact probably is, the nation's leading expert on drones which, obvious, are part of this story. so we'll start with heather. >> thanks, peter. and i want to start by thanking democracy journal and albert ventura who's here representing for having believed me when i told them this arcane subject would be interesting and important. and also just to recognize the amount of work new america has done on what it is that's being done in our name under the aumf. and really, peter, without the work you and your colleaguings have done, it would be much, much harder to have any conversation about this subject at all.

so why would you all come here, and why would we have a conversation today talking about this obscure, acronymed law? after all, this week the president is going to make a much-anticipated statement about surveillance reform which has been the hot topic in counterterrorism and associated activities. we haven't talked so much about this issue. and, indeed, the three of us were just thinking we can't remember a panel on this subject having been held in at least six months. so why are you here, why does this matter, why is this a set of acronyms that we have to know something about? the answer i want to give to that and the answer that the rest of our panel really incarnates is that both from a legal perspective and from a policy perspective the fact that we are at war and whatever the heck is the, wherever the heck it is we're at war defines the parameters, the shape of so much of what's happening in our national security policy and, indeed, in our national life,

even the nsa surveillance controversy, the legitimation of that actually has been traced by the previous administration and not, i believe, repudiated by this administration back to the aumf. which makes particularly interesting the recent new america report saying that peter and his colleagues were unable to find concrete evidence that the nsa surveillance of metadata had resulted in an appreciable impact on foiling terrorist plots. so we have this set of legal implications which if you care about little things like the constitution or the balance of power is an enormous deal, but you also have this question of is war, is war footing, are the activities associated with war the right way to counterterrorism? and are they the most effective way? and the fascinating thing about

this, to me as a policy geek and a government geek, is that the effectiveness conversation is the one we're not having. be that you have, you have a report coming out saying, actually, perhaps surveillance doesn't help. perhaps that kind of metadata is not, indeed, as key a factor in preventing terrorism. you have someone like denny blair, the admiral and former senior intelligence official say, you know, all the effort we put into coordinating military and intelligence activities with pakistan is getting in the way of the longer term activities which are actually much more important to solve our terrorism problem in pakistan. you have a commanding general in afghanistan after commanding general in afghanistan say we cannot drone our way to victory. you have the president of the united states say this war, like all wars, must end. yet this war shows no sign of ending. we face this fascinating turning point this year.

so the first question you would want to ask is, actually, what is this war we're fighting under the 2001 authorization for use of military force passed seven days after the attacks on 9/11? obviously, there's ground conflict in afghanistan. combat operations there will end in he's. the president has -- in december. the president has said. so what do we know about what else is happening? well, from official government sources we really hardly know anything. we have of never seen an official government accounting of how many targeted killingses or drone strike -- killings or drone strikes there are, where they've been carried out, who the targets were, how many targets killed, how many civilian casualties, what the intentions were, what thefects were. we, those of us out here in the unclassified universe don't know any of this. many, many of our elected representatives don't know any of it either. a few of our elected representatives, the so-called

gang of eight leadership and senior intel members, know quite a bit of it, but we don't know what they know because they can't tell the us. so we as a society and even our elected representatives are simply unable to sit up here and say to the you this is working, it's not working, this is the right approach, this is the wrong approach. what we think we know, thanks to the work of new america and a number of other organizations that have worked very hard to gather up this data, is that you had an aggressive expansion of a targeted killing program aimed at both top alleged terrorists and lower level folks but which seems to have peaked in 2010 and started to decline again. similarly, you seem of to have had over that period a dramatic decline in the numbers and proportion of civilian casualties or collateral damage in such rates. and particularly in the last year, you seem to have a turning

away from targeted killing towards more interest in the kind of capture that you saw with al-libi as peter referenced in the operation last fall and that may have been a part of the aborted raid in somalia carried out at the same time although there again all we know is there was an aborted raid in somalia. so it's very difficult to say -- and most reputable counterterrorism analysts will not blanket say this works, it's a great program, this doesn't work, it's a terrible program. because you can't reckon the cost one way or other. from the point of view of the legal institutionalist argument, if the constitution says -- and it does pretty clearly -- that it's congress' job to declare war, how does congress think about whether this is a war that it wants to be in or not? how does congress make up its mind? how do those members of congress who aren't getting the intel information make up their minds?

how do we as citizens make up our minds about whether this is an effective way to keep us safe and whether the trade-offs that it poses between how we define our values and constitutional norms as americans and how that is part of our global power and what keeps us safe against the convenience of getting rid of someone -- not just convenience, but safety today or tomorrow -- who might be threatening us today or tomorrow. so the first step here and the interesting thing, as we'll see, is this is both broadly agreed and has very little prospect of happening. that there needs to be a much greater understanding of what it is that the government is doing and what it believes the justifications for doing it are. last year we learned because of the leak of a pell mow from the jus -- memo from the justice department that, in fact -- and then we subsequently heard in public speeches as well -- the administration has three

different justifications for undertaking targeted killing or other acts involving the use of force overseas. and one is to invoke the 2001 authorization for use of military force against al-qaeda, against groups or individuals or states that planned, carried out or harbored those who planned or carried out the 9/11 attacks or associated forces. and here we start to get into some iffy definitional questions, and having worked in the clinton white house, i always have to to promise not to make what it depends the meaning jokes. [laughter] you get into justification number two, the u.s. constitution says that the president may use force without asking congress first to defend against imminent threats. so it depends what your definition of imminent is. and there's a fabulous section in this leaked memo which talks about imminent not really meaning imminent as i understand it, which is