campaign might work. >> d. agree that the opponents say this a third rail or do you think that's overstated? >> it's probably accurate. >> we have a twitter question asking the flipside of what we have been talking about. has driven a political ad or stairwell known political and not one of yours but one that is notorious in the profession. that tested well but plopped? >> probably lots. [laughter] i will say and i'm not going to name any names but i know of a campaign. i was not involved in this campaign. they put a bio spot featuring the candidate which was the only thing on the air and their negatives went up. [laughter] >> to that candidate win or lose?

>> they fired their media team. [laughter] >> ashley o'connor what other trend should people in this room be aware of this cycle that you have pioneered or picked up on? >> one of the things you and i talked about was reaching people in ways other than over-the-air tv. >> well i think is sort of touched on this earlier is seeing political ads in every different medium than how they are going to start to follow you around. that echo chamber and retargeting so they are constantly being exposed to the message in all these different mediums. i think that's new to this cycle. >> the different platforms. >> in a broadcast tv which is still the most effective way to

reach a whole lot of voters. cable. you can really target now the message for different voters. radio and on line into on line you will have banner and retargeting where the ads are now finding you in being delivered to you. cookie marketing and i think it has just, there are just many different ways now. i don't think one alone works. i think it's accommodation. >> the one piece that i would add to that and i agree with all of that, the digital side is still in a lot of ways the wild wild west and technology and the ability to target people in a lot of ways is outpacing the ability to measure it and so you have seen now it seems like every week there is a new story about whether it's bots that are jacking up the supposed number

of views that a video has or you are buying an on line network and you think that you are going to be placed in a certain place in a certain way and it turns out that what you bought was resold to somebody else then resold to somebody else and by the time you actually get placed if not at all what you thought you were getting. so they are making huge strides and the cycle cyclist better than it was last cycle but you know when we buy tv we have a really good sense of what it is that we are buying and how many people are seeing it. digital is still getting there. >> todd we are getting the hook here so rapid ram. one sentence. he told me another trend you are saying is earlier spending turning into many elections have come earlier. this is an important concept for people here.

tell us about real quick. >> two reasons why you are seeing more spending early on. >> first because it worked for obama. >> there so much betting at the end and there's so much clutter so being up earlier allows you to move numbers in a less competitive market so you can usually get lower rates and the second is we are seeing this more and more. there used to be a pretty even slope in terms of your spending or you would max out your television spending the last couple of weeks of the campaign. now with the advent of billions of dollars that is being spent by outside groups everyone has a pretty good sense of when these outside groups are going to pull in. for the fall they will be pulling in at the end of august or the end of september so it behooves you to be doing really really well when those outside

groups are taking a poll because that is when they are going to be deciding whether they are going to invest into your race or not. i know campaigns that are rolling the dice to get their numbers up early. >> i'm getting the hooks hook so the last question for mark putnam. you are a marathoner. what is one -. >> i'm a runner actually. it's a long race usually. you can't ever judge a race in a snapshot of time other than a horse race. we are dealing with the issues that really is a long campaign and todd is absolutely right. sometimes get the plane earlier game but still be there at the end. every race is different. >> i want to thank you for being here. i want to thank mark putnam ashley o'connor and mark harris for a fantastic conversation. i think all of you for your just

in the campaign and thanks for your great interest. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> i wish we were on the rooftop though. thanks to mike allen and thanks everyone for joining us. it's a great crowd. before we get started on stage a quick reminder to everyone here

and watching you can tweak your questions hashtag campaign probe. i have a great star-studded lineup panels here. we don't have visuals like you did at the last one because polls do not make for good visuals. you are just going to have to listen to his talk. i hope that's okay. two of my colleagues here star star reporters alex burns and maggie haberman political reporters for politico. john della volpe director of polling at the harvard institute of politics and dr. larry sabato director of the university of virginia center for politics and editor-in-chief of sabato's crystal ball and a columnist for politico magazine. before we get started, how many of you are addicted to politico?

how many for you is that your first read in the morning? raise your hand. be honest here. this isn't like -- and how many is it your last read at night? and how many of you are politico pro readers? that's great, and you are happy with it. yeah. good, good, good. i can't tell you how thrilled we have been with the response and the interest at starting something from nothing to something that has really become a must-read for a lot of people. thank you for your support. now, today is an important day for all of us here because today is the day of the release of our second political pull that we did with john's firm and its gotten huge pickup around the

country and i'm really excited about that. i wanted john to open up and talk about first what is different about this poll and why we hope it stands out from others? >> thanks rick and thanks for having me. there are couple of things that are different. i guess the first thing is is a complete collaboration frankly of everybody am a staff between larry's list and crystal ball in terms of where the competitive districts and states are. that's where we start. we also work very closely with your team maggie and alex and others at politico to feed us what they are hearing from the trail but what makes it the most unique is most polls in the country do a fine job of measuring public opinion in what all adults think are all registered voters are even likely voters in midterm elections. four out of four likely likely

voters are measured in one form or another. what this poll does is no offense to three out of four people who aren't going to participate in the competitive districts for a house race. what we are doing is focusing on the people who are most likely to vote in competitive districts only. a third of all voters across the country their votes really matter in terms of shaping the short term of the country knows what we are focused on. >> alex we all sat down in advance and did a journalistic exercise where we said what could the headline possibilities before this poll even before we went into a -- can you talk about that process? the headline and that being political pull stay out of ukraine. we didn't really know that would be the headline but talk about the process. >> we didn't know but we have a hunch and we started talking about doing this poll it wasn't clear that things were out of hand in iraq and out of hand in syria.

things were not as out of hand as they are today but you know the trend lines were not great even a month ago. it was clear that this is emerging as an area of vulnerability for the president. a real discomfort for congressional democrats, a real division within the republican party but we really didn't know what voters thought about all this. we knew the president's approval rating in form policy was dropping. we didn't know what people would like to see him doing that he was nardi doing so we decided to go in addition to a couple of big questions we asked in a previous pull without presidential approval and a horse race ballot for the congressional races approval of the present health care law. read this battery of detailed policy questions about foreign-policy and national security. not just do you like what the president is doing generally speaking the shoe would be more involved in iraq or less evolved than we are now and the global hotspots some of which have

gotten hotter as to which the field. i think you might've guessed that the public is not overwhelmingly sue -- enthusiastic. i don't know if i would have guessed that they were at this enthusiastic about foreign military engagement to the fact that you have big majorities of republicans saying they support the plan to get everybody out of afghanistan and big majorities across age groups and races geographically consistent just saying we will deal the problems. >> how might this be relative in the midterms because foreign-policy those nice play. all politics is local or whatever. [laughter] >> it's an interesting tension this poll. we asked people how important is foreign-policy and his foreign-policy important in determining your vote. you had nearly nine in 10 respondents saying it was either

important or very important many of those people are what we call to use a technical term liars. [laughter] they say either somewhat or very important but then when you ask him what's the most important issue to you or what is the issue that comes to mind is important to you, you can go down the list of jobs economic growth taxes deficits immigration before you get to foreign-policy describe his foreign-policy like to present. if you add foreign-policy and national security defense spending terrorism you get to 11%. the gap between nine and 10 people saying it's somewhat or very important and 11% of people saying somewhere in that set of issues there something that might be a top priority. that's a huge gap so you look to a couple of states and congressional districts in particular were maybe there are military bases are population of active duty servicemembers or

veterans states like alaska or virginia both which have big military populations and mississippi the primary there became a huge issue with the maricopa and party. the state despite being conservative is a huge beneficiary of federal defense contracts pending. i think you look to those places and in addition to moving individual votes you do look to these issues as setting a larger atmosphere for the elections and people are feeling like things are really out of print -- control. >> speaking of foreign policymaking elite of -. >> it's in a way you don't normally see in the polling that was done so far and typically is up or down. do you approve or disapprove. this did excellent fair good import categories. so if you combined the two different sets that most people tend to do in a net for good and

excellent with 43 i believe and the net for fair or poor was 53 is a lesson that majority. that's a big difference than most of the public polling we have seen over the course of the last year and a half since we got the state department. some of it isn't being asked as a straight up or down question. but do you approve question tends to be a little easier. what category do you put in if you disagree and what tends to make you refine your few? i think you can attribute it to a couple of things. one -- number one as alex has said and he is right the world is a very messy place at the moment in the trend has been heading that way for the last several months with feelings welling up in the last couple of weeks. hillary clinton has been, i reject the idea that she is separating herself from president obama and she certainly has foreign-policy and

very surgical ways but i think what john's numbers suggest is that's not necessarily going to matter when things are very messy because she has been out there having to answer questions about a foreign-policy she is no longer involved in and having to defend the russian reset which doesn't look so great right now might of current events. i was struck by that number two that the poor number was 32%. as much as there has been a discussion on twitter and blogs today about whether we are emphasizing the negative too much we don't have a single category that is that high. there's a certain definition and it's hard to take it away. as much as i do not think benghazi will be the reason people do are not -- do or do not vote for her i think there's a case to be made that it tends to be what a lot of people have heard over the last 18 months, either poorly or positively.

her folks were arguing strongly that the negative is not sticking but i think the numbers do suggest there is at least some sense among voters of something out there. >> you broke the story on the benghazi chapter in her book. how skillfully do you think they have handled or anticipated the attacks on her position? >> i'm sorry, and talking into my lapel. i think the benghazi issue and a lot of the foreign-policy pieces for the most part were handled well. it has been totally swamped by the discussion of her gaffes about wealth. but i think her critics have actually not played a huge globe on the book itself. they would tell you because there's not that much going on in the book. generally speaking in terms of benghazi she gives a pretty thorough from her view telling that at least gives her that roadmap for democrats who are

hearing about this in a 2014 elections. >> larry courier sure crystal ball? >> i left it in charlottesville. i didn't want to take a chance on the media. >> can you help us without that's? >> i can try. >> can you talk a little bit about your sense of foreign policy and how that might be playing in november? >> oviedo will play at all. look, i believe analyzing presidential and midterm elections from 30000 feet. after their last week i don't think that's a safe place to be but essentially the higher you are looking down on the landscape of an election but more likely you are to detect a general movement in one direction or another. the most interesting i thought in john's poll, the most revealing as usual was the generic balance. i believe it was plus two

republican. it was plus seven in your prior poll and i think that's about right. i think other surveys have been showing that too. the generic balance is important for midterm elections because it tells you basically where the electorate is. not necessarily where all be but where does. this is mid-july so we have to be careful but the long and short of it i will tell you a couple of observations that are important that these midterms. it's surprising he has little to do with most domestic policies. this election is someone i thought it would be. at this time last year or for that matter january. i didn't think it was going to be anything like 2010 because the republicans have scooped up what they were going to get. they lost a few of them in 2012 but it's not what i thought it was going to be. if the sense was a six-year election since president obama

was in the low 40s, 30s depending on the season and some other factors that this would be a predominately, maybe a very good republican year. well, you know i think it's a mildly republican year at least in mid-july. waves can be late. you can have them develop in late september and october. sometimes they develop in august as they did in 2010. we were the first to call the house republicans we said by a wide margin, at least 40 seats in august. the generic ballot was moving so strongly in a republican direction. that's not happening. that's not happening. when you look at the house as everybody knows they will pick up the seats and stay republican. who cares?

governors, think it's going to be basically a wash or maybe zero change. they will have some incumbents defeated that will be the headline. it will think the western civilization collapsed and in fact the vast majority will be reelected. it's a senate that's revealing and this is the best map for republicans since 1980. they should run up a big margin based on the conditions that out to be present in a six-year election. it ain't happening so far. this is not happening. i can't see them gaining fewer than four so that will be for them and mildly good year. i can see them gaining five. i can see them gaining six and if you stretch i can see seven but they are not going to run up a margin big enough potentially to sustain a majority in 2016 at the presidential election is as democratic as it has been in the last couple of elections.

so that is my view. this is not as interesting and midterm election as i expected. it's not nearly as interesting as 2010 and not nearly as interesting as 2006 and i'm sorry to say i know i said the wrong thing but that's my view of it. >> how does larry's view from above track with your view from a little closer? >> to a point that to give you back story in the poll we got the numbers back last week. we were little concerned about the sample that we ended up getting because you select a set of voters randomly in a battleground states and then you see the response to your pull. you can wait the population going in but afterwards you are not necessarily going to take it and well we would like to see more women in the sample so we will multiply it by and bolts kind of stuff. in our poll back in may the

sample got back was five pounds more republican than it was democratic likely voters. this poll was two points more democratic than it was republican again in terms of likely voters. that means gemeasky double will you vote in this election if they say may be, we stopped talking to them. if they are a maybe then they are probably not. there are big debates in the poll about this but this is the methodology we use. we got back the swing in the sample and i at least in the ninth -- i john ezell concerned are we going to end up showing motion that isn't really a motion but just a different sample wheat drew? we are not just going to junk this poll because it doesn't feel at tennessee -- identical. in 2012 republicans got a lot of polls. we saw over and over again is public polls showing more

democrats participating than republicans though a lot of us in the media thought should be participating and it was the whole and skewed polling phenomena were for poll came back showing more democrats were more black voters and young people that felt right the temptation was let's exclude this and go for what we think is going on. it turns out a lot more young people and african-americans and other minorities and democrats participated that we thought we were going to participate. sometimes get up with a different sample than the one you're expecting. that's because it's going to be a different electorate then you're expecting. we all put our poll because of a margin of error. you interpret the movement on the ballot but basically i think the question is poll raises and it's the one that larry is sketching out his maybe this is going to be the kind of election where democrats stay home because they are discouraged and republicans come out with overwhelming enthusiasm. maybe it's more of a 50/50 test

of wills. i agree with larry that this is not shaping up to be an epic midterm election the way we had in 2006, 2008 in 2010 but what's interesting when you see race to raise weise on the mississippi primary last month and we have seen in the georgia primary tonight and a couple of gubernatorial governors races in his tactics and end up mattering more when you don't have a worm -- environmental factors deciding the campaign campaign. there were number campaigns where we could say the senate candidate ran a much better campaign than their republican opponent that they were never going to win. i think it's less likely to happen is your quest aboard. >> john can you give a take away from the pole for november? >> one thing i wanted to touch upon is one of the reasons we all agree at this stage 7% of republicans think barack obama is doing a good job as president

but only 53% for think republicans in congress are doing a good job. unlike 2010 we have seen disapproval of republicans and democrats had a far greater extent than we saw in 2010. in fact there were two times more disapproval in our numbers when we looked at the pew numbers, too much -- two times as much among democrats that three times among were cut republicans. we don't know yet who will participate. we also say again this is all taken through the lens of one out of four or one out of three voters in america so not surprising that as an example secretary clinton would be viewed harshly through this land and california and massachusetts etc.. i guess what i would say is democrats need to begin to reconnect over the economy. this is something that is very

clear throughout the pole and republicans have a hard time. republicans talk about foreign policy but when you ask republicans what the policy should be specifically in russia and iraq and syria they don't know. we have slightly more republicans thinking we should be less involved and more ball prior to s.b. can we see the numbers for iraq as well as syria. the question is still very volatile wreck. i do think foreign policy will play a more significant role. not necessarily because of the specific issue but the overall context in terms of due voters share the overall worldview in terms of should we be engaged or shall we not being gazed? not necessary the policy but independence. >> maggie can we talk about the intersection of 2016 in the midterms? one of the results also talked about the hierarchy of

surrogates of candidates that people want out there. >> if i could also ask john if he would tell me if i'm reading your numbers right but president obama still remains the democrats most devoted surrogate which i found interesting given that his approval rates are not great. bill clinton and hillary clinton are the next two. there's a steep drop off for joe biden. i think it was 52% of democrats wanted him to campaign for them and then very interesting in light of current headlines elizabeth warren had a much lower number in the 30s. >> 22% of democrats. >> that's right and i was very struck by that. one in five democrats and 22% of the overall sample had never heard of the woman some name i.d. is a big factor in she is

relatively new even among democrats. among republicans it's still a former nominee. mitt romney was the most popular among republicans and then rand paul. rand paul not far behind is striking to me given that he remains pretty much the most interesting person to watch on the republican side for 2016 in terms of the movie is making. the other number that i was struck by independents across-the-board said every single one of them would make it less likely to vote for them and more likely approach despite the fact the share of independents has dwindled over recurring elections. that was a member that jumped out at me. >> that to me speaks of the mood in terms of fewer politicians but better right now. >> but if you have to have one

rand paul or clinton or obama. >> who is the most active out there the presidential candidates? >> not hillary clinton. among the possible presidential is sort of depends. they'll have different priorities in terms of where the intersection is. you had chris christie go to iowa last week to campaign for terry branstad. that is as much about the intersection between where chris christie needs in terms of rehab and what branstad is trying to do with the republican party. .. most of you have been reading -- has been very active. joe biden has been very active. martin o'malley has been very active. you know, where people go -- going to iowa is easy and going to new hampshire is easy, but it's sort of the more surgical targets that i find more worth watching. >> could you talk a little about

as the foremost hillary clinton watcher on reporters, you were on her book tour, you've covered her for years, she's about to go on vacation for three weeks. are we going to hear from her at that point? are there planned -- >> one of the things, so one of the things that's been striking, there's a couple of things that she's -- she's been adding like crazy interviews which is not -- she has done this rollout sort of backwards in terms of the book tour, i would argue, for how you would handle it in 2014. i forgot what year it was, it's not 2016 yet. she just did jon stewart last week, right? i could make an argument that you probably would have wanted to start with jon stewart. so they're adding these events because the book is not, you know, lighting on fire. it's selling fine, but it's not selling the way living history did, and that's not surprising given that it's about a very narrow context as opposed -- >> and why is that important? i mean, book sales are nice, but

why -- >> her people have been very preoccupied with the book sale issue for much of the last six months heading into the writing of it and then the rollout of it. they were afraid that if it didn't sell, that it would be viewed as and certainly described as a reflection of her popularity. that isn't what it is, but that is what they're worried about. and there is, as it happens, a pretty big chasm between what her last memoir sold in its first month which was a million copies and this one which has sold about 300,000 copies. so she has been adding these, she's got a facebook chat later, she's doing a twitter interview, she's been adding these events sort of on the fly. she is supposed to on saturday be the understudy for george w. bush at a paid speech for a financial conference, and then she goes on vacation for three weeks, and i don't think we'll be hearing that much from her. she has some paid speeches at the end of august. in kentucky one local official

said that he expects her to be campaigning this fall for allison grimes. i don't think that's a surprise given their relationship with her father. but so far they have yet to announce exactly what her targets are going to be, and i think they're going to be more limited than sweeping. >> larry, can you tell us about some surprises, upsets that may be in the offing for the fall that may not be on our radar? >> oh, i think most of them are on our radar. obviously, people are looking at iowa. we're getting ready to move that to toss-up. we were waiting for this partnership to begin. i think it's been obvious that it's become a toss-up. and colorado is close to a toss-up. i suppose that might be an upset. in some people's minds if it happens. you know, the key races in the senate have been well known for some time now. look, you never know when somebody's going to be indicted. you never know -- [laughter] when, you know, someone's tongue

is disconnected from the brain and they say something incredibly stupid and it ends up throwing away a senate or a house seat. so, you know, those are probably the upsets we don't see coming because the event that will precipitate them hasn't happened yet. but, you know, again, we're focusing -- we've been focused for a long time on the maps. if there are so few competitive house races, it's pretty easy the gauge what's going to happen in the house. you're not going to get the numbers exactly right, but who cares? you can run the majority of the house on three like the republicans did in 2001-2002. so it doesn't matter. governorships matter a lot, but you've got a ton of incumbents, i think 29, running out of the ones elected in 2010, and they have a natural edge in the vast majority of cases. corbett's an exception, couple of other exceptions. but, you know, the senate's really what we're -- where it matters, where an upset really

matters. and, you know, it's obvious where both parties and the interest groups are going to pour their money, those southern states plus alaska. democrats are going to try kentucky and georgia. good luck, you know, with both of them because i think it'll be tough. in both cases. but they're going to try those two. other than that, there's really nothing the democrats can pick up. they'll be lucky to pick up one of those two. the republicans have all the opportunities. we already know, really, which ones they are. so it's a question of where the electorate moves, you know? does that generic ballot number move up or down between now and the time that things start solidifying in september and october? >> speaking of money, alex, what's different this time with the midterms and the big donors? >> well, i think what's, what we're going to see change over just the next three and a half months is that the balance of spending in this campaign is going to start shifting away from the outside groups and

towards the actual campaigns and candidates. the folks you heard from on the priest panel, you're going to -- previous panel, you're going to start seeing a lot more of their work and a lot less, or relatively speaking, less of the work of the very fine consultants not that far from here who are sort of cranking out these ads with unlimited money. a lot of people are talking about this news from cnn yesterday that sheldon edelson may spend tens of millions of dollars. i think we always knew the money was going to be saturated. what matters most is how is it going to get spent, and if the difference was going to be unlimited, outside money, we always knew that money was going to be in play. you do have among incumbents in particular in the senate and incumbent republican governors just unbelievable hard dollar fundraising. so you have these senators. i remember, i'm old enough to remember when it was a big deal to raise a million and a half dollars in a quarter of two

million or two and a half. this quarter you had people like mark udall and jeanne shaheen and allison grimes raising three, three and a half, four million dollars in a three month span. that's crazy. that's just a crazy apt of money. so you -- amount of money. so you do start to see more of that hand-to-hand combat between candidates mattering more than it did three months ogg, six months ago or a year ago. what mitch mcconnell does today and what allison grimes does today matters more. it's part of why iowa is more of a toss-up race, that joni ernst has been very, very clever about how she's run her campaigns, and bruce braley's been a lot more passive, and colorado, at least from the people i talk to, is not probably in the same category because mark udall, the very well funded democratic incumbent, has just been murderously brutal on his challenger when it comes to these social issues that have

been so devisive in colorado. and corey gardener who was correctly thought to be quite a strong republican recruit has taken time responding. >> thank you. maagty, i'm going to put you on the spot a little bit. you talked about how hillary clinton is doing all these events. how accessible is she to you, and how does that compare to the accessibility of another politician you cover a lot, that's chris christie? >> i mean, it's night and day. and for, to some extent for specific reasons, and some of it's stylistic reasons. but what has been really striking about hillary clinton's book tour is she has not taken a single question -- that i know of at least from the events i've been to -- from reporters who were attending. which is not to say that her aides have been difficult and/or unkind which certainly has been the hallmark of other campaigns, both hers and other people's she is giving very controlled interviews, these are very controlled settings.

there is very little that is sort of up in the air and unexpected about them. christie in iowa last week -- to be fair, it's not like he was holding a conference every day after bridge gait be, i mean, he -- bridgegate, i mean, he really shut down. he has started coming out of it more. but when you are traveling with him in another state, you can get right up close with him. you just can't have that with clinton, and i remain really amazed at the that that lance traveling with her. it's not understandable, but it does not headache you feel -- >> like how many, like, can you give a sense of the scale? >> she was on stage at a gw event recently for a q&a with someone, and at the end she stayed and was shaking hands with the audience, and there were four what looked like service people or security people but standing next to her. it was -- on the one hand, it makes her look like an incumbent which she is often seen as running like, but on the other

hand, it does not create the feeling of being able to reach out and connect. >> let me ask you all just a very few quick questions. john, let's talk about polling right now. we're overwhelmed by polls every day. some reliable, some not. all kinds of methodologies. how do you personally know who to trust? >> i think we're certainly in a transition. two or three things i look to. national polling, i look to see, obviously, are cell phones included? so cell phone versus land line telephone is an important thing for me. also i also look at language. hispanics play an incredibly important role in our nation and about half of hispanic voters we talk to prefer to take their interview in spanish, so i look at bilingual polling as well. and like everybody else, i look at consistency over time as well. and why some of these barometers are of particular use if you don't have one poll you can count on. >> do you think the state of polling in america is getting better or worse? >> i think it's better than it was, but it's still in a

transition. it obviously depends who you ask. i guess one note, on most of the national polling that i do and certainly the polling we do together is done via the internet, so actually dialing the clock back to the days of george gallup when we went from door to door. that's how we're actually selecting the samples based on not what kind of phone you have, but where you live. they can take the poll whenever they want. they want to take it add midnight rather than during their time, that's the prerogative, and i think it's a more natural act. so is, but not everybody's able to do that yet. >> larry, i'm curious, how much do you personally get lobbied by candidates or or campaigns for saying why did you rate me this way? [laughter] >> that's why i have great people like kyle condit, tim robinson, they take all those calls. [laughter] i'm always out of town when they come in. >> what if it's a really big name? >> i'm still out of town. [laughter]

especially when it's a big name. >> but they try. >> well, of course people complain and whine, and they should, you know? their livelihoods are on the line. i don't blame them for that one bit. i mean, you got lots of calls, right, in your other role prior to this, and i'm sure maggie and alex get lots of calls. the key is to ignore them. [laughter] you know, unless they have interesting information. and just let me add one thing on this polling. i am amazed that reporters still write stories based on partisan polls produced by campaigns or parties. they are garbage. it's a joke. and why anybody pays attention to them, i don't know. they have ulterior motives. >> do you all agree with that? yeah, yeah. >> thank you. >> alec, i have a question for you that's a twitter question. what are the chances for romney to enter the 2016 race, and is

santorum next in line given that the gop convention history? >> well, i'll take the second question first, and the answer is, no. [laughter] you know, i think you can say that i think just this notion that republicans always nominate the next guy in line like, yes, that's true technically, but it's really more complicated than that. if it's true that the runner-up always got the nomination, then in 2012 which would have been mike huckabee -- which he'll tell you himself if you ask -- his delegate count was higher than mitt romney's. i think santorum has a constituency. is he the default candidate? certainly not. the odds that romney runs, i was talking to a republican recently who said they were convinced romney was going to run because he kept saying he wouldn't in the 2012 campaign, and that persuaded him you can't trust a word the man says. [laughter] now that's not my personal view of 2016, but, look, i think this notion that if you go to a conference hosted by mitt romney and ask a bunch of people who

are mitt romney's guests should he run for president and then they all say yes, that this is some kind of groundswell of support, the host, right? he's standing right there. of course you're going to express sort of interest in him as a candidate. the only scenario in which i can envision mitt romney running is like if every other mainstream candidate gets hit by a bus, right? and maybe not a bus, but it could happen that jeb doesn't run, scott walker loses re-election, marco rubio, for whatever reason, decides his family is not, you know, ready for the campaign, and then -- and right, christie, you know, continues to face the u.s. attorney investigation and then next thing you know you're looking at a lineup of candidates that looks a lot like 2012 minus mitt romney, right? and then if there's just sort of like you know in cartoons where wile e. kite owety will -- coyote will run through a wall, there could be a mitt romney-shaped role where there's

not mainstream, business business-oriented, inoffensive, conservative, you know, somewhat conservative man with terrific hair. [laughter] and then there's an opening, right? but the notion that, like, the wheels are moving or something like that just doesn't, doesn't scan -- i mean, correct me if i'm wrong, maggie, but that does not scan with what i'm hearing at all. >> no, no, no. i'd say everything you just said was absolutely on target. i mean, at a certain point be i think the moment you would start to see some of this run, many it, run stuff -- mitt, run, stuff, there are some owners who don't attend those conferences, but for those who are like, well, i could back him, i think the minute you would start to see that come to a halt would be when romney openly says i'm really considering this. so i agree with everything alex says. >> because really, i'm sorry, which is -- [laughter] mitt romney has a lot going for him as like a human being, as like a government administrator. there are a lot of republicans, and it's easy to romanticize the

2012 election sort of in retrospect, right? but when you think back at what an amazing opportunity that was for the gop -- >> totally. >> right? and the fact that he didn't just lose, but actually lost by a pretty big margin in terms of modern history. only the second time in 25 years that any presidential candidate has won an electoral heart. you know, the argument for, like, strike up the band again and let's do this a third time starts to get pretty limited. >> right. and not just lost, to continue on this theme, but not just lost with a huge opportunity, but a lot structurally had not changed within the party since 2012. if you look at that rnc autopsy or whatever growth opportunity report they put out afterwards six months or so, eight months after the election, very little of it has been addressed including their endorsement of immigration reform. so very hard for me to see where romney becomes the candidate of the future based on what we're looking at. that having been said, alex did say something i thought was very

important, and i wonder ored about looking at your numbers, especially talking about the younger voters who now feel more warmly toward hillary clinton. there is a tendency when i talk to supporters for them to say, well, a lot of people have buyer's remorse about obama. okay, but that doesn't mean we're redoing the 2008 election. while i do think this is not 2008 again and i don't see a candidate who can do what obama did, i think that the idea that we are doing a reprisal is really a mistake. and so for her supporters who think that, for the candidate's sake, one hopes that's not something her advisers actually think. >> larry, one final question for you that came in. do you anticipate, i mean, the primary season's almost over, but do you anticipate any more mississippis? tight challenges but also outside pending wise? >> oh, you know, i think -- i don't think lamar alexander's in trouble. pat roberts, i suppose there's a

possibility there. if he had had one of the republican congressmen running against him, i think he would have lost renomination. milton wolfe is not the strongest candidate in the world , but you never know who's going to show up in a low-turnout summer primary. there'll probably be a couple more surprises. again, looking at the big picture which reinforces the idea that less is more in this particular midterm, we're well below average in the number of incumbent primary defeats in both the senate and the house compared to the entire post-world war ii period. that doesn't suggest to me an election that redefines american politics. nothing, nothing close to it. that doesn't mean 2016 will be boring. there's almost no connection between a midterm and a presidential election even though we all strain to find, to find some connection there really isn't, you know? just give you an example.

the e-mail that i got over and over again in different forms after 2010 was each my dog could beat president obama. well, we found out, didn't we? we found out how misleading a midterm election can be, and a lot of them are that way. >> final quick question for alec, just came back -- alex who just came back from california where he wrote a much-talked-about piece. it's time for some gen-xers, right? tell us about the political dynamic there is. >> it's a state that is younger than the country as hold, it is twice as hispanic, three times as asian, half the population lives in the los angeles area, and the two senators, the governor are 70 years old and up and all from the bay area. they're all white, and if you look at lineup of statewide officials in california right now and then going back 20

years, overwhelmingly they have been from northern california. this is what you call, you know, it's what the folks out this at their fancy conferences call a moment prime for disruption, right? [laughter] this notion that you would have this state that is home to, you know, hollywood and silicon valley and sort of this, you know, allure of youth and innovation that they'd be represented entirely by this cast of characters literally from the '70s and '80s -- 1970 and '80s in addition to being in their 70s and 80s, that just doesn't line up. you're going to start to see this change. jerry brown will probably win this election this year, you're going to have a democratic bum's rush into that job, and in 2016 the question is will barbara boxer run again. you could have two successive psychs where the state attorney general, they all suddenly have to decide after playing this waiting game for, like, ten-plus years they suddenly have to

decide which of these available offices they're going to run for. and this is important because the next big democratic politician to get elected to a big, statewide job in california, you're looking at someone who will be ap immediate contender for the -- an immediate contender for the presidency. it's bizarre that it is by far the biggest state in the country. democrats get so much of their money from there. finish the only person that the democrats in california have produced who would ever for 15 seconds considered a presidential candidate was gray davis. and that, folks, doesn't add up. [laughter] >> final concluding question for maggie. and this isn't your personal opinion, or but if you -- i'd like to get your take. if you polled the press corps covering the presidential campaign in 2016, who would they want the two nominees to be from a ourly, purely journalistic point of view just for the fun

and the story? >> from the journalistic point of view or -- mac faction d. [inaudible conversations] >> i think for the fun point of view they would want an elizabeth warren versus a chris christie. >> no joe biden? >> sorry -- you know what? that's right. that would be a joe biden versus a chris christie and/or a ran paul, and probably the edge would go to rand because one of the things that people who cover him in the senate will often say is that he is very, very, very undies palined in terms of, like, what he says walking around the halls. and so i don't mean that that's something -- you know, he often talks to reporters, and i think his aides would rather he momentum, and he becomes hard to control. so for reporters that kind of thing would be a lot of fun. >> how about for crystal ball analysts in terms of who you'd like to see. i think marco rubio would be interesting to understand where

the future of the hispanic vote goes. so that would be of interest and a challenge for us. >> who i'd like? i don't pick candidates. that's up to the parties, so i'll work with whoever they pick. i'd prefer to think about the future of the country rather than the future of the two parties or what would make great journalism. god help us if that becomes the standard. >> larry's being modest, but in his heart of hearts, he would love to be able to say he called the scott walker nomination. [laughter] >> so true. >> thank you. by the way, the '70s were a great decade. [laughter] i need to tell you that. >> thanks, everyone. thanks for a great panel. we covered the water front here. appreciate it. [applause] thanks. thanks for coming and for watching. [inaudible conversations]

georgia's first congressional district since 1983 and david perdue, a former ceo of dollar general and reebok. and now let's meet our panelists bobbie battista is a broadcast journalist and a host of gp been nightly news program on the story. and roberts is a maker and executive producer for who be used in hidden in albany, georgia who. staff writer for the atlanta journal constitution. tonight the debate will consist of three rounds. if you would like an more information just visit atlanta press club the accord. in the first round each candid will be asked one question and

they will have 60 seconds answer lets guns started him. you have the first question and. >> good evening. president obama asked for $4,000,000,000.9 n for the influx of tennyson of millions of children. local nonprofits report hundreds and one more are here ninth. do you support the request for aid in principle if not specifics and if not how should the country and our state be addressing the issue? >> i do not edison -- aiden i support his request. we have to have a policy change, and it must be in the direction we have with canada and mexico. unaccompanied alien children hidden come to our borders and our return home. that is not the case with other countries in dan him.

we'll no-show should send the national guard to the border to secure the border and those from a security standpoint and also from the standpoint of helping the children in an n and making sure there safe and. this is a policy in that is a self-imposed disaster but president obama. it is pure chaos. we need to have common sense in on the border him. in. >> thank you, mr. kingston. dan roberts, the next question. >> one of your top priorities is certain to give the the letting national debt under control, which you can be say -- ♪ can be done by him bossing the budget and growing our economy. is it realistic to think it can be done without a tax increase

in? are there parts of the budget when that would be off-limits? when a. >> i think this is a seminal question. the debt that we have is the greatest threat when turn national-security. it took us a long time to get here. first of all, there are two precepts that we have to do. one, we have got to cut this insane spending set before hundred 80 and $19 billion in redundant agencies, and a casino congressman or senator going after that happened. senator cockburn has a book. the second thing is we have to get this economy going. there are three simple things that we can do and. we have to have tax reform. i am a fighter for the fair tax. second thing is we have to get these regulators pulled back in.

>> thank you. that concludes our first-round. in the second round each candid it will ask one question of his opponent and each candidate will have 30 seconds to ask his question copied and they will have 60 seconds to respond to mend the questionnaire and loan will have 30 seconds for rebuttal who. >> congressman, you were forced to return $80,000 in the illegal contributions. -a palestinian hamas and the government is actually a shrine to deport. why would they go to such extreme measures selected you want to help and when with deportation when? >> as you know, the investigation is about him hint

there. when it became apparent that there were questions, we ordered him a thorough internal review and have to make sure we complied with all of the walls. he is not a donor that. when there were questions in leave voluntarily returned money hidden. he think it is important to comply hand he. who are your donors? who is financing his your super pak? and in mine which is mine and no more than yours is yours, but they disclose some. we have no idea who is supporting your super back.

>> was that going to be your question? and don't worry. you'll get to that. >> that was not my question. >> all right. you have 30 seconds to rebut. >> thank you. actually, congressman, i'm confused because the story keeps changing. your own attorney admitted that you did know about this contribution, you did know this individual, and you did take the money and you did cover-up since. it looks to me that the need to come clean about this finally. it is pretty obvious. if you have money and want to buy a favor and or influence jack kingston is open for business. >> mr. kingston, your question for mr. perdue. >> let me, first of all, i would have expected a little bit more from you, but i know you have these out-of-town guys -- >> good to your question. >> here is my question hidden. the move to georgia in 2010, and

your cousin, the governor, give you a sweet part insider whose appointment to one of the most prestigious boards. u2 were doing business. in your capacity he made millions to of many decisions that have influence millions of dollars for the spending and did not sign a disclosure peter we to believe that you did that in your trucking company did not benefit from your select position? >> mr. perdue. >> congressman, is like all the other allegations that have been proven to be false foot in the last three months, refuted by outside fact checkers, there is absolutely nothing to this, but now that you bring it up, i would like to remind people that you have been trying for 17 years since to deepen this port 5 feet when will sign the bill one entire port and in the last five years. this is an economic engine.

in the real world you would have been fired into your wanting a promotion. folks, that is what is wrong with career politicians. >> thirty seconds to rebut. >> i am going to redo this disclaimer that you never signed as a member of the port board. i confirm that taking no official action as a public officer in the previous calendar year which said the material effect, you had a company that did business in and around the port can did not sign this disclosure saying he had no conflict of interest. less talk about deepening the port. the reason why is you were making money of your appointment rather than trying to help us get this port deepened. >> your time is up. think you very much. for those just joining us, this is the debate between the republican candidates for united states senate. we will now go to our third and

final round. in this round each of our panelists will ask a question to the candid of his or her choice until we run out of time a rebuttal is appropriate. eric sturges, you get the first question. go right dead. >> mr. perdue, you talked earlier about your efforts to try -- the importance of trying to get the economy to grow. first, i am wondering where you stand on an internet sales tax and i am wondering if you can clarify your position on federal tax revenues as the rabin questions about whether or not he would like to see taxes raised. >> thank you for asking that question. that has already been cleared up by several outside interests like the atlanta general constitution had and fact checked. all of these people refuted the fact that i ever said herman i want to tax. i said i want to put a fair tax and because it will level the playing field for the rest of the world from manufacturing and business interests which is one of the problems you have in washington when you only have a

lot and people in the united states senate you have any business experience. the unintended consequences of our policies have decimated entire industries, footwear, apparel, textiles, electronics and even furniture. after get back to the bases of letting our manufacturers compete with other manufacturers around the world. >> it is your turn to ask a question. >> neither of you when you just had a chance to ask your opponent a question brought up an issue that i think is important to georgia voters. you did not talk about jobs some or national security or any of the foreign policy crises that are going on in the world right now. you basically tried to attack each other with what may or may not been manufactured scandal. isn't that the kind of cynical campaigning that georgia voters are sick of? i'll assume that question is to both.

>> you will get the first drive of the swan -- plan. >> the six-point plan which i have talked to what everywhere for fourth, a strong national defense. fiscal responsibility, pushing back and the regulatory overflows such as repealing obamacare, dodd-frank, and some of the -- endorsed my candidacy. fighting to get tax simplification and because we know it will stimulate the economy and be good for georgia jobs. i have also been a great champion of the military in the state of georgia representing five out of our eight military installations. the economic impact of that is

21 billion. it is just jobs for georgia. i have been a solid advocate. >> thank you, mr. kingston. mr. perdue you also have 60 seconds. >> first of all, the congressman 6-. plan from 2014, every tenant is exactly the same as his 7-. plan in 2006. not one got accomplished. let me talk to you about economic growth. require several things. you must have an educated workforce. we have 2-year colleges that are underutilized. secondly, we have got to get an energy policy. we have waited for 40 years for an all-inclusive energy policy. we have a god-given boom that drives this economy forward. congress is not focused on the priorities right now. if you look at the regulatory arm, they led the epa -- the president did not dampen trade pass so he went around congressman told the epa to kill col. lastly, let's talk about tax.

we're the only country in the world that as a repatriate -- repatriation taxed at keeps $2 million or more outside this country. it is time we get serious about adding economic value to our country's economy. thank you. >> mr. kingston, he mentioned you at the very beginning of this question. here is what will happen. that will give you 30 seconds to rebut, but if i do and you want to take it then i will give mr. mr. perdue 30 seconds as well. it is up to you. >> let me say this, david, we have been fighting for the fair tax to. where were you? where have you been? now you are talking about a national energy tax. you want more government? isn't the problem washington mandating? you call for a national solution for the uninsured. and now you want the nanny state in washington to decide about our energy policy. don't you trust the private sector a little bit more?

>> mr. perdue, 30 seconds for you. >> harassment, in 2006i called you and your compatriots out because when you were in charge from 2000-2006 were was our landmark health care bill, landmark tax reform bill, landmark energy policy. right now we are in this fix because that congress left open the door for obamacare, dodd-frank command of the things that are decimating this economy we need are more people up there were more about the next generation and the next election. >> mr. perdue thank you. now it is time for our question from bobbie battista. >> this question is for the congressman and reflects what is going on here. there was an opinion piece recently in the "wall street journal" saying that he believes the u.s. government is all but broken and holds little promise of mint -- mending itself and people and businesses will turn to cities for, services, bold thinking, and hope. do you think that the mayor has a point and what do you think that you can do to turn around a congress that has an approval rating of 9%?

are we in crisis? >> bob is a member of congress -- bob, as a member of congress have never forgotten who sent me and what i was there to do. i, and -- i come home every weekend. stay close to the people. the return phone calls commercial for apartments and town meetings. i have stayed in touch with the people of georgia. in 96 percent rating with the american conservative union. 2011 net passed one of the fuel appropriation bills that got signed by the president initiated with the harry reid senate to do it and cut spending and over three and a half billion dollars. the savannah port project of which my opponent has not been involved even though he was on the board was all project. we started pushing that 352,000 jobs related to its, but when we started on it was just a little savannah, georgia project and that essentially we have every member of the delegation of the state legislature and everyone else behind it. it took a long time to get it done. where was my opponent?

>> mr. perdue, since the assets question you have 30 seconds to rebut. >> i was creating thousands of jobs in the real world. >> all right. thank you. next we have eric sturges who will have the next question. >> this question is for both candid it's combat would like to start with congressman jack kingston. highway trust fund is set to expire, and there has been little action to this point in congress on this. what if any plans to use support out there to keep this fund going, particularly since georgia has so many infrastructure roads and bridges needs. >> well, we need a permanent fix to the highway trust fund. two of the things that we need to do is push back and some of the superfluous environmental laws that are causing a 30% increase in the cost of building roads. we need to also pushed back on the regulatory over burden from washington such as david bacon's requirements and so many other things.

my opponent says he was creating jobs. perhaps he is referring to the 7500 plus people who were fired under his lead or maybe the 1700 to jobs have been out sourced. is that the kind of job creation we need? that kind of wheeling and dealing? i don't think so. roads and infrastructure will build jobs, and that is why i have been supportive of roads, the savannah port, general aviation in heart swell, jackson airport. >> mr. perdue, 60 seconds for you. >> i will take the first ten regret that. congressman, you know full well that company was already in bankruptcy before i got there. to address your question, this is the problem when you have a congress led by career politicians is first priority is to get reelected. this is a tragedy. they had 2010. here we are bankrupt again. this is to go back to the principle of 0-based budgeting. if it is a priority will get

budget. right now we are spending about one-third of all we should be as a country on all of our infrastructure, and because of that we are becoming less and less competitive around the world on this congressman's what we have lost our competitive edge against many parts of the world, and it is time to change that. >> once again we will get 30 seconds for each of you here for rebuttal. >> i have come home every single weekend. i have had an open mike town meetings and worked with people who disagree with me. david, your whole lifestyle is based in a different way. now, you have done well for yourself, but you live in a gated community inside the gated community and navigated your house. how are you going to work with john q. public when they come up to you and ask questions? at think part of being a public servant is being publican being a servant. knowing who you are working for an being accessible to them is extremely important. >> mr. perdue. >> congressman, i am proud that you are accessible, and look at

the results it has given us. if my mom and dad were schoolteachers. work my way through school at georgia tech, grew up working on a farm and had been busted my career and will not apologize for the success, but let me tell you why i am getting in this, to make a different sense of the mess that you and your courts have created over the last two years. >> gentlemen, thank you. time for one more question, and we will go to ben roberts for that. because of the time constraint we will ask that one question to both and it's if you don't mind. >> it seems like compromise has turned into a dirty words. can you tell us one important issue on which you agree with president obama and explain how you would work with democrats to get action to get something done on that issue. >> and we will start with mr. perdue on that since mr. kingston -- >> let me answer this way fifth.

what is needed is republican. we are the only country with the repatriation tax which means u.s. profits are trapped offshore. promise you we could get a few democrats to agree with the principal if we explain it to them in the back that they have business in their states that are being hammered by the central. promise you, we can get a consensus on that and get that changed. >> mr. pinkston. >> let me give you three examples in which i think there are commonality. number one, the port of savannah which i have championed and worked hard to get done while my opponent was absolutely absentee. even though he was on the board not a single letter was received by him. of a deepening of the savannah harbor, 352,000 jobs related. we have been the champion of that. 2011 high pass as chairman of the arab cultural appropriation bill one of the few appropriation bills that got signed by the

president and cuts spending over $3 billion. these are things that are very important. as recently as this week we passed the jobs bill that consolidated some of the duplications in the federal jobs program. forty-seven different federal jobs programs and have been pushing and pushing to consolidate to make it more efficient and more effective for the american workers who are looking to get back into the job market. >> once again, we have got time for each of you for 30 seconds for a bottle. mr. perdue, we will start with you. >> i think the topic on the table tonight is, how do we get people working again. you mentioned it earlier. that is the seminal question. i think we have to get that government policy out of the way. the problem is 36 united states senators who have been in elected office for over 30 years. it is time we finally have fresh stock and new perspective to the biggest body. >> mr. jack kingston, 30 seconds >> en i am the one endorsed by

the united states chamber of commerce, the number one job advocate in the country. a hundred percent rating with the national federation of independent businesses. i was in the private sector and of the importance of pushing back on the regulatory overreach where was my opponent when we were fighting things like this stimulus bill? he sat on the board there receive stimulus money. where was he when we were fighting obamacare? out telling people we need a national solution. a big difference between us. >> thank you, mr. jack kingston. and that is all the time we have for questions. not eat canned it will have 60 seconds for a closing statement, and we begin with mr. david purdue >> thank you. folks, the congressman has been in washington for 22 years. if he were going to make a difference wouldn't he have done it already? weekend egad of this crisis, but not by sending the same people back up there who created this mess in the first place. the decision in this race is very simple.

if you like what is going on in washington vote for my opponent. you know nothing will change. if you are as outraged as i am about the size and scope of this government, about the excuse is there giving us for not securing our borders, and about the size of debt they're piling up on the backs of our kids and grandkids, then stand up with me and help me take our country back. i am @booktv. and the true conservative in this race, the outsider. i'm asking for your vote. more importantly, i'm asking for your trust on july 22nd. god bless you. god bless georgia, and may god bless the united states of america. a key. >> thank you, mr. david purdue. mr. jack kingston, your closing statement. >> ladies and gentlemen, president of moran as an outsider. do you really know what you will get with david purdue? when i was fighting the stimulus bill he sat on the board received over 140 million in stimulus dollars. when i was fighting the wall street bailout he called it a

decent investment. when i was fighting amnesty he said he thought the senate amnesty bill, which was supported by barack obama, he said it was a step in the right direction. you know, the biggest margin i received in the primary was in coastal georgia from the people who know me the best because they know that i am a tested, consistent, a conservative who has not joined the club in washington d.c. i have stayed on the front line of the fight. that is why and endorsed by karen handel and newt gingrich and sean handed the and erik erikson and tea party leaders and surtax author john lender and flat tax author steve forbes. ladies and gentlemen, i am made to estimate consistent can't conservative who has never lost the fight , the battle fighting -- >> i apologize. we are right up on our time. thank you to both of you. that concludes our debate, and we would like to remind the voters that the primary runoff

elections will be head @booktv tuesday july 22nd. early voting is already under way. thanks to the candidates and our panel of journalists perry would also like to thank the atlanta press club for ranging tonight's debate. for more information about the atlanta press club and all of the debates, they are posting this election season just to visit atlanta press club that the board. this debate will be archived there. the debate will also be available on demand. don loudermilk-young series is made possible by a donation from our charles letter melt. please stay with gp before georgia outdoors. i am dennis l. hair. thanks for joining as for the atlanta press club loudermilk-young debate series. >> on the next washington journal associated press dept. correspondent matthew lee joins us to discuss the palestinian

conflict, the malaysian airline a shutdown of the ukraine and the iranian nuclear program. we will talk with a former customs and border protection official about unaccompanied minors crossing the u.s.-mexico border. also, please core director about how the priest -- peace corps is changing its volunteer recruitment process. washington journal is live with the day's headlines, your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets every morning on c-span at 7:00 eastern. >> president obama spoke about last week's downing of the malaysian airline flight over ukraine and the insurgent forces in that country. here is portion of the president's remarks from monday. >> unfortunately the russian-backed seperatists who control the area repeatedly blocked investigators from

getting full access to the wreckage. investigators approached in a fired weapons into the air the separatists are removing evidence from the crash site, all of which begs the question, what exactly are they trying to hide? moreover, these russian-backed separatists are removing bodies from the crash site. oftentimes without the care that we would normally expect from a tragedy like this. this is an insult to those who have lost loved ones. this is the kind of behavior that has no place in the community of nations. now, russia has extraordinary influence over the separatists. no one denies that. russia has urged them on, trained them. we know that russia has armed them with military equipment and weapons, including anti-aircraft weapons. key separatist leaders are russian citizens.

so given its direct influence over the separatists, russia and president putin in particular has direct responsibility to compel them to cooperate with the investigation. that is the least that they can do. president putin says that he supports a full and fair investigation, and i appreciate those words, but they have to be supported by actions. the burden now is on russia to insist that the separatists stop tampering with the evidence, grant investigators who are already on the ground immediate, full, and an indian access to the crash site. the separatists and the russian sponsors are responsible for the safety of the investigators doing their work. and along with our allies and partners, we will be working this issue that the united nations today. more broadly, as i said throughout this crisis and the crisis in ukraine generally

@booktv i have said this directly to president putin as well as publicly -- my preference continues to be finding a diplomatic resolution within ukraine. i believe that can still happen. that is my preference today, and it will continue to be my preference, but if russia continues to violate ukrainian sovereignty and back in the separatists and the separatists become more and more dangerous in our risks not simply to the people inside of ukraine but the broader international community then russia will only further isolate itself from the international community, and the cost for russia's behavior will only continue to increase. now is the time for president putin and russia to turn away from this strategy they have been taking and get serious about trying to resolve hostilities against ukraine in a way that respects ukraine's sovereignty and the right of the ukrainian people to make their own decisions about their own lives.

>> coming up on c-span2, a discussion on the escalating violence and death threat from the group isis. later from political a look at the 2014 and 2016 elections. >> this weekend on book tv. >> i thought it would be compelling to tell the story of a white family and a black family with the same names the come from the same case and follow them from slavery through the civil war, reconstruction, jim crow, the civil-rights movement up until today and compare and contrast. >> columnist and author chris tomlinson on his family's slave on in history in taxes and have a legacy of slavery still affects american society. he talked with the brother of former nfl running back about their families lineages former slaves from the hill.

saturday night at 10:00 eastern on c-span2. >> now a conversation on the ongoing violence in iraq and that threat and influence of the group known as isis or the islamic state of iraq and syria. we will hear from the iraqi ambassador to the u.s. and a former state department adviser on syria and the obama administration. the atlantic council hosted this 90-minute event. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everyone. welcome to the atlantic council. i am vice-president and director of the scowcroft center here. i am really delighted to welcome you to the council for what i am certain will be a dynamic and thought-provoking conversation

on the state of play in syria, in iraq, in the broader region, and whether the threat of isis or whenever i should call it today could forge a coalition of states in certain ways that rarely see eye to eye. and we really want to push this to mention of the overall question. i am particularly pleased to welcome to the atlantic council his excellency ambassador. thank you for coming. one of the most effective ambassadors i have ever seen. by the way, iraq is really at a breaking point. as many as you know, there are daily headlines illustrating the ongoing conflict and battle. syria continues in its conflict, and isis certainly appears to be making significant gains in various ways. and despite efforts for a more inclusive government, which many see as the key to helping to stabilize the country, it does not look like his head in that direction. it looks increasingly like a

more intensive sectarian more isis continues to challenge iraqi forces and have been successful in taking key territory including oil fields, including the city of mosul, as many of you know. and there is an ongoing battle for parts of another city almost as we speak. so the iraqi government no longer controls all of its territory, and the conflict is certainly taking on new dimensions with the kurdish government in the north announcing a referendum to pursue independence and deployment of its own forces to secure it to large oil fields. the startling entrances of isis across iraq have prompted many regional and global players to reassess their policies in the middle east. so this is a big time of flux among the outside players as well, and that is why we wanted to have this very important

discussion. certainly the united states, iran and syria share certain collective interests in defeating isis in the overall stability of iraq, but it is quite clear that this commonality will have very significant limits and we will see if it can even enable selective collaboration on very discrete tasks associated with this great challenge. .. associated with this great challenge. we heard u.s. and iranian officials recently signaling a guarded willingness to cooperate to avoid an intensification and expansion of this conflict in iraq, and we have seen, even within the past to show weeks, the deputy foreign minister of iran beginning a tour of the gulf to discuss possible solutions for the crisis. is in iraq. but here in particular, we look a more as indicative of endemic challenge, and that is

the continuing rise in power of a broad range of nonstate actors in key regions across the world. we are seeing the headlines this morning in eastern ukraine as yet another example of this trend. so the trend really bears out this factor of individual empowerment that the national intelligence council global trade report highlighted a couple of years ago some of which is certainly a central focus of my center's own strategic foresight initiative. the fact that a group in a remote part of the world is able to deny sovereignty to two nation estates and claim part of each as its own with no immediate challenge is that one very, very concerning development, but there will be a range of others that will surprise all of us, i think, equally over the next several years. back to the specific issue of the coalition among the countries i have talked about, it obviously presents enormous political, economic, diplomatic,

and other challenges, so we are here today to discuss the viability of potential partnerships and what these partnerships might mean for for regional, security, and for geopolitics. this event builds on a lot of work underway at the hariri center and the scope cross center here at the atlantic council, and we are trying to understand the rise of nonstate actors, the associated challenges and threats, and some cases the opportunities, but in all cases, the impact on the original order, as well as the global order. i would like to stop talking now and introduce ambassador faily. first, please note that this is on the record -- we are tweeting heavily already. #aciraq. the key account here that is theting is acscowcroft,

twitteroft center account. he was iraq's of a sitter to japan. before that, he was investor of the iraqi ministry of foreign extensiveth experience in the information technology sector, and even in our small meeting, i got a lot of hints from him about managing my e-mail inbox and a number of other things that make me want to hire him as a consultant. he has vast experience in that sector, which will obviously prove helpful in a number of ways for his duties here. he previously held senior management positions in major american companies and a broad range of other accomplishments. i think with that, i will thank him once again for coming, and i look forward to your remarks.

i will let you guess my age now. [laughter] >> first of all, good morning, everybody. your excellency, thank you for the opportunity and -- being on the other side, so it's interesting to see the work the center have done and thank you very much for giving me the opportunity today. i also like to thank you for focusing on this important issue. today i use isil as my preferred name for it. before i go any further, want to thank the american people for the great sacrifices that you have made to help the iraqi people to free ourself from the

brutal saddam and have democracy. our democratic path has been rocky but we have persevered. the iraqi nation is now at the difficult and dangerous point as we confront terrorism that is transnational in nature. i cannot understate the gravity of the current situation. iraq faces a threat. the likes of which we and our neighbors in the region have not seen before. we are grateful that united states did not abandon the iraqi people during the darker stage of the war, and we are hopeful that you will not abandon us now. as we struggled against a very same forces of violent extremists that now have so much with so ambitious goals, and the

side on which they extend beyond the middle east and on to the rest of the world. as we meet this morning, the iraqi people are under direct attack by an unholy alliance of al qaeda inspired gee jihadists and saddam loyalists. some would have you believe this i not a sunni rebellion against a shia government. this is an ally -- this is an all-out insurgent led by isil extremists, who are committed to creating a terrorist safe haven in the heart of the middle east that stretches from the mediterranean sea to iraq. this much is clear. isil targets everybody and anybody. whether muslims or christians,

imams or moderate shia, who do not swear allegiance to their back world views. with the recent establishment of self-proclaimed halifa in syria, iraq has in effect declare its objective is to fight people everywhere religiously, regionally, globally, and regionally. strategy would include military action and political, economical, humanitarian, and diplomatic effort by all parties concerned. isil is a common enemy of the iraqi people, our neighbors, the united states and certainly the united states' allies, and we must make a common effort to defeat them. this is a dangerous new development in the middle east that requires a new doctrine to

combat terrorism. on the military front, with its indiscriminate destructive not, isil is sowing its own eventual defeat. however, until then, ethnic cleansing and systemic destruction of unique cultures and heritage will suffer inevitably. in occupied muslim, isil has destroyed mosques, shines, and christian a cathedrals. last week they issued an ultimatum to christian residents, ordering them to convert to isil or pay the jihad tax. if they do not comply the ultimatum declares they would literally face the sword. along with iraqi christian minorities, thousands of other minorities, communes, have been

forced to flee their homes, often leaving all their belongings behind. a recent report by human rights workers say isil has systematically killed and tortured christians, shia, and add, labeling them as crusaders, heretics, or devil worshipers. not withstanding major setbacks on the military front, iraqi security forces have been reenergized in part by the leader, the ayatollah sis tan any, who issued fatwah, urging iraqis to join the security forces and defend the home lean. thousands upon thousands of iraqis, young and old, shia and sunni, are answering the call to identifying back against isil. such a fatwah has not been made by any grand ayatollah since the

early 1920s. sistani rarely speaks out about government issues, and when he does, he is a force of national unity. for democracy, and for rule of law. after the attack on the mosque back in 2006, he spoke about -- he spoke out for unit month shia and sunni. how he is working with other religious leaders to quell the sectarian tension, and -- the division between shia and sunni communities everywhere in iraq during this critical time. this is truly the time to remind all iraqis that our enemy is not those who worship in different ways. our enemy is those who are attacking us all. because isil is -- the believe

their culture and their physical existence, whether they are sunni, shia, kurds, or any of our diverse nations or any of our unique cultures and groups, who are seeking to unite all iraqis against these extremists and fanatics. even in times of crisis the democratic processes does not proceed as rapidly as tyrants or terrorists, but ultimately the representative government and the rule of law do offer the greatest opportunities for ensuring that everyone has a voice, and no one feels excluded. following the elections in which approximately 60% of the people of iraq participated, the process of forming a new government is moving forward. this process is underway in line with constitutional framework and must not be undermined. the election of the speaker of

parliament and his two deputies last week was a significant breakthrough. and shows that iraqi political leaders can put their differences behind them. and come together for the sake of our country unity during this critical time. on wednesday, 23, july 23, the iraqi council of representatives is expected to elect a new president. who is likely to be a kurd. this is every -- this is every possibility that the new government will be formed within the stipulated constitutional timeline. just to remind you, all in recent history this process took nine months, and six months. this time we are talking about only six weeks. the terrible violence has created not only a security and political crisis, but also a

humanitarian crisis. the iraqi people are trying to ease the suffering of those who are found themselves in the terrorist lines of fire. since last month, crisis alone, some 650,000 people have been forced to flee their homes in mosul. in total, there are an estimated 1.2 million displaced iraqis across the country. 1.2. on the economic front, the extremists understand that what they are doing, using violence to vandalize what had been 2009 world's fastest growing economies, the terrorists understand that economical opportunities denies them support. and that increasing joblessesness and hopelessness

off them a pool of potential recruits. if isil succeeds in sending the current conflict to southern provinces, the impact on international markets will be disastrous. before the current conflict, our own production has increase -- our oil production has increased by 50%. we were expected to emerge as the world's second largest energy exporter by 2030. this has been a critical factor in keeping global economy markets stable. despite increased tensions on iran. this is one more reason why there was community has a stake in defeating isil and in securing stable and prosperous iraq. make no mistake, the current conflict in iraq is not only a threat to iraq alone. isil and the violent

international terrorism that is represents, threatens the entire region, indeed, the entire world. here the united states also has a stake in turning the tide against the transnational terrorists. we welcome president obama's decision to send u.s. counterterrorism advisers to iraq and to support our armed forces. however, speaking as a friend and as an admirer of the united states, there seems to be -- to me to be an additional option you should consider at this difficult but urgent moment. first, the current u.s.-iraqi counterterror jim coordination should be expanded to include air strikes that would serve to sp3zsecond,r support targeting terroristond,r inps and supply convoys

remote areas. us to in order to enable effectively conduct counterterrorism operations in urban areas that have been occupied by isil terrorists am a we need a precision u.s. airstrike. the effort i just outlined is not new military concepts for the united states or for iraq. working together before him a we implemented a similar strategy that defeated al qaeda back in 2005 -- onward. during these difficult days, iraq as trojan the united states as its preferred strategic partner -- iraq has chosen the united states as its preferred strategic partner. our relationship is one we do not have with any other country. our government has purchased more than $10 billion worth we are planning to buy billions more and we are doing this with our own funds.

still, there are some confusion about american intentions. there are some in iraq who are skeptical about administration's response to the crisis in iraq. the administration wants to us believe that they are providing limited support to help now. -- to us now. and are using the prospect of u.s. air support and other military assistance to encourage political reforms in baghdad. however, i have to tell you that not everyone in baghdad believes this. we have skeptics who argue that this is really a conscious u.s. strategy for doing very little. that washington intention is to create preconditions that we probably cannot satisfy. and then move the goalposts, if necessary to ensure that we do not satisfy them. such suspicions are highly cor

crosssive to american relations between iraq and its people. if iraqis do not believe that meaningful u.s. assistance is forthcome, then they will have no -- then they will not have incentives to adopt and stand by the political reforms the united states is urging us. the u.s. administration needs to refute these suspicious by making clear that the united states will in fact give the democratically elected government of iraq air support, and other essential military assistance. what i might call a game-changer. that can turn at the tide against isil. if iraq political leaders make significant headway in formation of the new government. in a nutshell, clarity is crucial. now more than ever the united states needs to be careful not to send mixed signals about its intentions.

these mixed signals will create a vacuum that will be filled by others. the situation on the ground is developing rapidly. it threatens the territorial integrity of iraq with potential reasonable implications. much has been said about the regional effect of the spillover of the violence from syria, but a spillover from iraq to its neighbors in jordan, saudi arabia and elsewhere, would have consequences. that do not bears thinking about. let us all deal with the isil, even now, before no amount of catchup by the u.s. and its allies can address the isil trail of devastation and chaos. time is not on our side. not on our neighbor's or united states' side. further delay benefits only the terrorists. but decisive action against

common threats will serve our common interests in a stable and secure iraq. striving to build an inclusive democracy after decades of despotism and divisiveness. the united states and iraq are forever tied together before -- because of our lost lives and treasures by both of our countries over the last decades, in our common fight against terrorism and extremism. now that the iraqi political process is progressing towards a solution, we hope our american allies will move forward with a robust security assistance package during our time of need. together, we can defeat the terrorist -- non terrorism who are our common enemy, and build a secure and stable iraq which is our common goal. thank you, america, for everything that you have done

together, and everything that we will do together. if we act decisively at this crucial moment, then years from now our children and grandchildren will read about tyranny and terrorism in their history books and peace and prosperity in the daily newspapers. this is our goal and i know it is yours as well. let me thank the atlantic council again for giving me the opportunity to speak here today. thank you again. [applause] >> thank you, mr. ambassador, for some really -- not just stark but also sort of heart-felt remarks. they are very much appreciated and raise a lot of important issues which we will be

addressing right away. let me briefly introduce my other three panelists. you have their biographies so i won't spend a lot of time on them but introduce them in the order in which they will be speaking, first to the ambassador's immediate left, michael singh, currently the managing director of the washington institute for near east policy. was a white house official from 2005 to 2008, where he spent a lot of his time and responsibilities coordinating u.s. pollty toward the region from morocco to iran, with emphasis on iran's nuclear and regional activities, the israeli-fizzan conflict, security in the middle east and other minor duties such as those. that is clear lay joke in light of what is going on today to his left way have senior fellow at the center here, fred huff. he was appointed to be special

adviser for transition in syria by president obama on march 28th, 2012. he previously was the special coordinator for regional affairs in the u.s. department of state, office of the special envoy for middle east peace and has decades of experience in the region, and if you don't follow fred, you're not really following syria, in i my opinion. and then end of the panel, but not the least important at all, is the senior fellow in the brent scowcroft center here. he covers a range of issues regarding the middle east, with a particular focus on defense policy, posture, and industrial base issues in the arabian gulf. he has more than 12 years of presearch analysis and management experience in middle east affairs. fuller bios are available in the handouts. with that i'd like to turn to michael singh for his views on

the issues we have been broaching. >> great. thank you. first, let me say that it is a real honor to be here at the atlantic council. i have tremendouses a mr. racing for what fred and damon and barry have built here, and i consider myself a friend of the atlantic council, also an authorize be on the panel with the ambassador and fred and bilal who are among the most respected analysts on these issues in washington, and i have my phone here. i'm not live tweeting my open comments. i just have my notes on my phone, so excuse me. i'm just going to try to speak very briefly about the u.s. and iran in iraq, and prospects for cooperation, because it's ban hot topic as this crisis is unfolding. and one thing that you will hear a lot about the u.s. and iran and iraq is that we have the same interests, we have overlapping interests in iraq. i don't think this is correct. i'm going to explain why. first and form for most, there's

confusion over what is an interest. what's the difference between an interest and a position. i think that we in and iran, the united states and iran, have had similar positions on isis, it's easier for know say. we have had similar positions wind chill we are both opposed to isis, but does that flow from a commonality of interest? i would say, no. i want to first use an example to illustrate how i see the difference between positions and interests. i'm going to -- nothing to do with the middle east. it's about nafta. those who have taken negotiation 101 will probably recognize this example. nafta was opposed. its the north american free trade agreement -- was opposed by both labor unions and environmental groups. why they -- they had the same position, against it. why was each guinness certainly not for the same reason. the environmentalists obviously for environmental concerns, labor unions because of their

concerns. this is the differs between an interest and a position, and i think we can see a similar dichotomy between the u.s. and iran and iraq. we talk about the supposed overlapping interests that the u.s. and iran have in iraq. people will say, well, iran is opposed to sunni extremist groups. i'm not sure this is really right, this is really an interest of iran's per se. why? because we have seen plenty of support from robb -- iran to sunni extremist groups, including from time to time in iraq itself. but the most sort of telling example would by iranian support of hamas. the conflict in gaza is made possible by the fact that iran ships weapons to hamas as well as to palestinian islamist jihad, sunni extremist groups. we have also seen irany support for sunni extremist groups in

places like lebanon, syria, as well as even for in a more limited way for al qaeda and the taliban, which you think would be enemies of iran, and are enemies of iran in a sense. but iran has found it in its interests to provide limited amounts of support to those groups from time to time. when it comes to this issue for the united states, for the united states opposing isis is about many things, but one thing is about counterterrorism. our general opposition to terrorism as a tool, as a tactic, and to those groups who use that tool. and there's obviously a lot of ropes for that. i don't see that same interest flowing out of iran. one other reason that the united states opposes isis is because we support the sovereignty and stability of iraq. this is the other off-sided common interest between the u.s. and iran and iraq. the stability of iraq. well, again, ask yourself, is stability iran's top interest in

iraq? remember, the countries have hire, a kentucky of interest. i -- hierarchy's of interest. we haven't seen iran act in a way the stability of iraq is one of its top interests. certainly when the united states was involved in iraq and trying to help iraqis to build a stable, sovereign democracy, iran was completely unhelpful to that task. iran was in fact the chief agent for promoting instability? iraq in an effort, i think to drive u.s. forces out of iraq, which was an interest of iran's which trumped, i would say, any concerns about the stability of iraq. even when it became clear that the united states was withdrawing its forces from iraq, after president obama was elected, what did we see from iran? not a diminution of their support for extremists and militants but an increase. as u.s. troops were leaving we saw an increase in iranian support for those extremist

groups. for what reason? you have to ask the iranians but perhaps to ensure the u.s. forces would in fact leave. and certainly there have been other times in the iran-iraq history where the stability of iraq was certainly not iran's foremost concern. i think what we have seen instead from tehran is that what they most want to see in iraq is a government which is friendly or sort of disposed towards iran. whatever that happens to mean. i don't think they have any particular interests certainly in democracy or in pluralism or all the things we talk about and the ambassador talk about wanting to see in iraq. the american approach is very different. we have, i think, genuine interest in seeing democracy in iraq in seeing pluralism, in seeing not the domination of one sect or group over another but to see the groups come together in a multiparty democracy. again issue don't think that end state is necessarily what iran

has in mind. to just sort of continue on this point a bit but not to delve too much into this topic because my co-panelists will do that. some might raise the question, what about gulf interests in iraq and how do they sort of play into this? bilal will talk at greater length about this itch don't see a perfect alignment between american and gulf interests in iraq. the united states has been frustrated be the refusal of gulf states to embrace iraq or over the past decade or more as a fellow arab democracy or help iran on the path. i think we see a fundamentally different approach from gulf governments than from iran. the gulf goes have been willing to support the overall regional security architecture, which the united states has undergirded. because they have, i think, believed that