of friendship and romance that would make woody allen weep. his texan charm, candor, courage, and common sense earned him the respect of countless leaders both abroad and here at home. he was as comfortable going jaw to jaw with counterparts in the negotiation room as he was going cheek to cheek with sharks on his many scuba dives off the coast of the sinai. he was a man who didn't just know where he and the country he loved needed to go. he knew how to get there, how to lead, and how to get things done. sam once called the peace treaty between egypt and israelan historic achievement in which he played an indispensable part, a mountain peak in a sea of sand. the same could be said about sam's own extraordinary career. generations of american diplomats have tried to learn from his example, follow in his footsteps, and scale the diplomatic peaks he conquered so skillfully over the years. none of us have been terribly successful.

but all of us learned a great deal along the way about our profession, about the middle east, and about the promise of american leadership. through sam's remarkable journey and my own checkered thirty-three year career in the foreign service, i have learned that the middle east is a place where pessimists seldom lack for either company or validation, where skeptics hardly ever seem wrong. it is a place where american policymakers often learn humility the hard way, a place where you can most easily see the wisdom in winston churchill's famous comment that what he liked most about americans was that they usually did the right thing in the end. they just liked to exhaust all the alternatives first. i've learned that stability is not a static phenomenon, and that regimes which do not offer their citizens a sense of political dignity and economic possibility ultimately become brittle and break. i've learned that change in the middle east is rarely neat or linear, but often messy and cruel, and deeply unpredictable in its second and third order

consequences. i've learned not to underestimate the depth of mistrust of american motives that animates so many people in the region, and i've learned that we often get far more credit than we deserve for complicated conspiracies. i've learned that, with all its stubborn dysfunction, the middle east is a place where people and leaders are capable of great things, and that american diplomacy, with all of its own occasional dysfunction, can make a real and enduring difference. during this incredible moment of testing in the region, we miss sam's judgment and good counsel more than ever. if sam were with us, i suspect he would be the first to say that we cannot afford to neglect what's at stake. and he would urge us not to neglect our responsibility to help shape, within the limits of our influence, the great generational struggle between moderation and extremism that is unfolding across the middle east today. a changing middle east nothing embodies that struggle in starker terms than the threat posed by isil.

isil is obviously not the only source of disorder in the middle east today. but it is one of the most immediate, and most poisonous. and it is the most dramatic symptom of the layers of change unleashed by the second arab awakening within, among, and beyond arab states. within a number of states, we've seen the collapse of a half-century old political order. societies that for far too long had known far too little freedom, far too little opportunity, and far too little dignity began to erupt. but what also spilled out, in addition to the thirst of individual citizens for dignity, were all the demons of sectarian and communal tension that authoritarian rulers had fueled and forcefully suppressed. that dynamic in turn helped set off new uncertainties and frictions among states in the region, as political rivalries, sectarian troubles and old sunni-shia passions spilled across borders still not firmly rooted nearly a century after their post-world

war one formation. meanwhile, beyond arab states, violent extremist groups were quick to try to fill emerging vacuums and take advantage of post-revolutionary chaos. isil took advantage of all these developments state collapse, proliferation of weapons, regional rivalries, and sectarian polarization to prosper and grow. but more broadly, what all of these layers of change add up to is the most significant transition in the arab world since the revolutions of the 1950's. and what they have laid bare is the long-term question of whether an arab center, as my friend and former jordanian foreign minister marwan muasher has described it, can eventually replace the old order, gradually establishing democratic institutions to manage sectarian differences and provide an outlet for political pluralism and individual dignity, or whether hardliners and extremists of one stripe or another will prove more resilient. the united states has a powerful stake in that very complex

competition, and in shaping a careful strategy for enhancing the long-term chances for a new, moderate order which best protects our interests and reflects our values. as all of you know very well, there is no shortage of obstacles to a moderate order in the middle east today. an arc of instability, complicated transitions, and stagnating economies runs nearly uninterrupted from the maghreb to the levant and the gulf. iran's nuclear program continues to loom large as we near the november 24 deadline for a comprehensive deal. and if we needed any reminder, this summer's tragic conflict in gaza underscored just how unsustainable and combustible the status quo between palestinians and israelis remains. we are seized with all of these challenges. i know dennis and i will have the opportunity to touch on a number of them in our conversation. but let me just make a couple of points up front about what i'm sure is on everyone's mind this afternoon. the challenge posed by isil and our strategy to degrade and ultimately defeat it.

first, it's important to keep perspective. isil is not ten feet tall. it has no state partner and its most impressive achievement to date has been to unite the entire region and the world against it. but it poses a serious challenge that demands a serious response. if left unchecked, isil would control more territory, amass more resources, attract more foreign fighters, further destabilize an already deeply unstable region, and over time, pose a growing threat. second, as president obama and secretary kerry have made clear, this is not america's fight alone. a successful strategy to counter isil and indeed to strengthen the forces of moderation in the region cannot be about us. it has to be about the people and governments in the region and the choices they make. this is why president obama made the formation of a united and inclusive iraqi government an essential prerequisite to going on the offensive against isil. it's why he has insisted that we

help our partners on the ground secure their own country's future. and it's why he has placed so much focus on building and leading a broad-based coalition of states who have a stake in this fight and the means to provide practical support. my third point is about the coalition and the comprehensive strategy it is pursuing. beginning this month with the nato summit in wales and following meetings in baghdad, jeddah, cairo, paris, and last week at the u.n. general assembly in new york, we've worked hard to build a coalition unified around shared goals, objectives, and actions. president obama appointed john allen, a retired four-star general and one of our nation's finest public servants to oversee this effort. and already, more than 50 countries from all corners of the globe have joined the coalition and we expect others to join in the weeks and months ahead. together, we will deny isil a

safe-haven by continuing to conduct carefully targeted airstrikes against its leadership, and logistical and operational capabilities, and we will impede its ability to plan, prepare, and execute attacks. we've already conducted more than 200 such airstrikes in iraq, and last week, saudi arabia, the united arab emirates, jordan, bahrain, and qatar joined in strikes against isil targets in syria. while we target isil from the air, we will strengthen the capacity of our partners to push back against isil on the ground. president obama sent an additional 475 military advisors to iraq this month to support iraqi and kurdish forces with training, intelligence, and equipment, and to help the government of iraq stand up national guard units to help sunni communities push back against isil. we will also continue and step-up our support to the moderate syrian opposition, including through the train and equip program recently authorized by bipartisan majorities in both chambers of congress. but this is far more than just a military effort. we also need to cut off the flow

of foreign terrorist fighters into and out of the region. isil has recruited thousands of foreign fighters to iraq and syria from nearly 80 countries, including over 100 americans. these fighters pose an immediate threat to the region and a real and growing terrorism threat more broadly. last week, the u.n. security council unanimously passed a binding resolution requiring countries to prevent and suppress funding, financing, recruiting, organizing, transporting, and equipping of foreign fighters. this resolution received the second most co-sponsors in the history of the united nations. alongside this historic resolution, the coalition will press hard to accelerate global efforts to dry up isil's funding, including by reducing isil's revenue from oil and other plundered assets, extortion of local populations, kidnapping for ransom, and external donors. we will also continue to provide urgent humanitarian assistance to states and societies carrying the heaviest burden from this

conflict. even before isil's advance this spring, the scale and scope of the human tragedy in syria was staggering, the displacement in over three decades. isil's campaign of terror has only exacerbated this tragedy, displacing over a million iraqis and even more syrians from their homes. the united states has been the single-largest contributor of humanitarian assistance to the syrian people and the nations most directly affected by the refugee crisis, with nearly $3 billion in contributions since the start of the conflict. and we've led the way in preventing mass atrocities in iraq. together with our coalition partners, we will continue to assist populations in need, including vulnerable religious and ethnic minorities. and we will continue to coordinate efforts to expose isil's true nature and undercut its ideological appeal. muslim leaders from al-azhar to mecca have denounced isil and its false claim to be acting in

the name of a great religion. we will work to amplify their efforts and to demonstrate, as president obama said last week, that the future belongs to those who build, not to those who destroy. all these steps are critical to success. but they will not have any sustainable effect on their own. there is no shortcut to getting at the roots of this moment of turbulence the political paralysis that has failed to answer the region's rising aspirations for dignity, political participation, and economic opportunity. prime minister abadi and the new iraqi government have outlined a and ambitious national program that has received broad cross-section in support. and it deserves international support as well. we will continue to engage diplomatically to find resolution to longstanding sunni and kurdish aspirations and to increase the stake of iraq's neighbors in its sovereignty and success. and we will continue to pursue a political transition in syria to end this crisis once and for all. if this sounds like a tall

order, it is. but it is not impossible. isil's advance can be blunted, and it can be rolled back with people and leaderships in the region fully committed to working with us and our other international partners. sam lewis knew as well as anyone how unforgiving the middle east can be for american policymakers and diplomats. but he also knew that we can't afford to pull back and retrench. there's too much at issue right now. together, we can degrade and defeat isil. together, we can increase the odds that moderates across the region can succeed in the years ahead, that they can succeed in the great generational struggle to help open up space for pluralism and economic opportunity. sam would be the first to understand that we will not get every judgment right. but he also understood profoundly that we are far better off working persistently to help shape events, rather than wait for them to be shaped for us. sam lewis led a life of

extraordinary significance in the service of our country, and all of us have been hugely honored to follow in his remarkable footsteps. thank you very much. [applause] >> so, bill and i are going to have a chance for a conversation for the next few minutes, before he has to go off to his other responsibilities. look, bill, that was a comprehensive overview of what is a region characterized in your words as turmoil and upheaval. let me start with one question just someone then you said in your comments. he talked about what has been our long-term objective of a political transition in syria. as you look at that as an objective, what are the steps

you see as necessary to be able to move us along that transition? >> well, i think, obviously it's crucial to do everything we can to step up support for the moderate syrian opposition, both as a political entity and as a military one. because even if the immediate challenge, as i said in my remarks and as the president has emphasized, is isil and the threat that it poses to order, not just in theory but in iraq and potentially across the region, i think it's up to essential to build up a moderate force in syria, particularly a force that these unique unity can rally around, that can help in the conflict against isil in the first instance. because i don't think there's any chance of rolling back isil's advance and iraq and less we strike at its base of support in syria. but also that can provide a counterweight to the assad regime. as the president and secretary have made clear, all of the seek

a transition to new leadership in syria that's brought about by political means. but there's no chance that you're going to build have that kind of negotiation which would be hard enough if you could even enter into it unless we build some leverage against the assad regime first. and the critical element in building that leverage is a strengthen the moderate opposition. so i think that's the logic at least at this point. >> jessica, which was speaking earlier today, raised an interesting issue that i'm not going to put words in mouth but i'm going to paraphrase, that this might be a moment of some potential opportunity, with both the assad regime and much of the syrian opposition being threatened by isil, was there and is very possibly of some kind of mutual cease-fires, given that common threat, but is that something you think is just

not in the cards speak with i'm a little bit skeptical to be honest with you and local cease-fires have come up at different points during kofi annan's tenure as u.n. negotiate as well as the locked our brahimi's. bsi regime proved stubbornly -- the assad regime proved stubbornly resistant. i'm skeptical that that kind of space is going to open up, and i'm similarly skeptical at the stage the assad regime's typos is going to change unless you begin to see this kind of counterweight and leverage built up in syria, which again, as i said is a tall order. i'm not naïve about how complicated this is to do, but if you think that's the essential ingredient in setting the stage for any potential negotiated transitional leadership. >> i want to cover a number of the different hotspots, are potential hotspots, in the region. let me ask the question about

iran. you were certainly involved in helping to establish a channel to the iranians in the negotiations. there's been plenty of speculation about whether it's good to be integrated or not an agreement, and i'd say people have been able to restrain their optimism about the potential for an agreement. how would you define the iranian approach to the negotiations at this point? >> first, just in terms of interaction with negotiators, every negotiated with and working with for almost a year and a half, in what were first secret bilateral negotiations and later wrapped into the p5+1 negotiations, have been tough and professional, not surprisingly. i think they proved able to negotiate a first agreement which provided a six-month period, later extended, and some

space for negotiation of a comprehensive agreement. they proved able along with their leadership to actual estimate that agreement and follow through on the commitments they made. at the comprehensive negotiations a much more complex and much more difficult. it's no secret that the gaps that remain in the negotiations are quite significant right now. it shouldn't be impossible to reach a comprehensive agreement, in the sense that the iranian leadership insists that it's not pursuing and has no intention of pursuing a nuclear weapon. the international community, embodied in the p5+1 countries and our international partners, has made clear that we understand that iran can pursue a peaceful nuclear program. what's at issue is reaching an agreement which creates a mutually agree to limitations on that program over a substantial period of time, with some quite significant monitoring and

verification measures to give all the rest of us in the international committee confidence that this isn't exclusively peaceful program. and given a history of this program for more than two decades of unresolved questions, to put it diplomatically, it's essential to have a substantial period of time within which you can do that. as i said the are some quite significansignificant caps -- ge on issues that are going to be critical to overcoming those problems. >> you were ambassador to russia. this is obviously, i'll use it medic term, a complex i'm in a relationship with the russians. i guess one question that occurs to me is, given what is going on with ukraine, have you been surprised that the russians to this point have basically held to the consensus point --

position in the p5+1, and are there any circumstances under which you would be worried that that might change the? i think it's a very fair question. the russian leadership tends to be pretty unsentimental about pursuing its interests in the middle east, and i think that leadership has made clear that doesn't have an interest in a nuclear-armed iran. i think it values its role as a member of this p5+1 group and leading the negotiations. and so far i think there's been a fair amount of cohesion in that group, including from the russians, and some creativity on their side and sort of thinking through how you bridge some of these negotiating challenges. and there have been other areas as well. i mean, in the middle east through the work of the quartet, and at least a portion of the serious issue, on the destruction of tv in in weapons, roche has played i think a recently constructive role. at the same time they remain

profound differences over the wider issue of city. we have our differences over other issues in the middle east and the russian leadership, from my perspective at least, still tends to pursued a kind of zero-sum view of our relationship in the middle east. but as russia looks at the challenge posed by isil, it's got to be worried about and conscious of its own sort of potential, extremist challenges in the north caucasus. and so i think objectively there's a shared interest in dealing with that threat. that doesn't mean we're going to have need cooperation on every issue, but if you look at questions like the flow of foreign fighters, the financing of isil or other violent extremist groups, objectively, the russians have an interest in trying to take on those kinds of challenges. >> would you be looking at that as one of the indicators that would suggest, if they were to be more, shall we say,

constructive in terms of producing a political transition in syria, which he viewed that as a broad indication of where russia might be going, or would you do see it again as a kind of were isolated reflection of what they see as the immediate interest? >> it would be a welcome step. if russia were prepared to put its leverage behind a serious effort to produce a transition, a political transition in syria which ultimately produced a new and inclusive leadership. because it's hard to see how udp isil in syria unless you crave that kind of environment in the same sense that iraq is essential to have the abadi government emerge and take at least the first steps towards a more inclusive approach to the different sects and ethnic groups in iraq. but certain to russia is prepared to play that kind of role would begin shooting to a solution that i think would serve its interests as well. but as i said, going back to the

geneva process and that there's failed efforts, reaching the kind of settlement over the last two or three years, i think that's a tall order. >> i know you're going to go in a minute. let me ask you one more question. listen, i've known you a long time. you did a dissertation on egypt, followed egypt close to for a long period of time. we clearly have kind of a common interest when it comes to fighting terror. how would you view the developments in egypt now? now? adhesive used egyptian relationship at this point? where are things headed, and what are sort of the opportunities of the potential problems still there? >> i'm still waiting for the tv movie version of my dissertation i think i will be waiting for a long time. [laughter] the truth is we've been, a tiny government has been engaged in a very complicated balancing act i think with egypt.

egyptian society and egyptian leadership since the revolution. i would be the first submit, like in most balancing act you don't always get the balance exactly right in every instance. balancing on the one hand some obvious and compelling strategic interests and partnership with egypt, whose significance has only been underscored by the emergence of isil, by terrorist threats in the sinai, for example, underscored by the role that egypt played in helping to produce the cease-fire in the most recent crisis in gaza, underscored for a lot of very obvious strategic and security reasons. and, obviously, because also of egypt's continuing political weight in the arab world and innovation that matters a lot to the united states. now, having said that, we've also made no secret and others have made no secret of our concerns about some aspects of the transition in egypt since the revolution.

have made no secret of the importance that we attach to respect for pluralism and respect for freedom of speech and egypt. not as a favor to the united states or any other outside, very much in the self-interest of egypt as it tries to build that kind of stability that would be essential for economic modernization, attracting foreign investment, and attracting domestic capital back into the country, not to mention attracting tourist back to egypt. we haven't always seen eye to eye on all those issues with the egyptian leadership i think is very important that the president had a chance to talk directly to president seizing about this. there's a subsidy, given the significance of our partnership -- presidenpreside presidenprest sisi. and the president was very clear about the public and in private about both the significance we attach to the strategic partnership but also our candid concerns about some aspects of whether its detention of

journalists or instances of human rights violations in egypt as well. we will not be shy about expressing those concerns in the future. but i think it's very important for us to engage directly with the egyptian leadership, to take stock of its significance across the whole range of issues that he mentioned, and see if over time we can't build a healthier relationship and realize the full potential of that partnership. and i think the presence of meeting with sisi in new york a couple of days ago was a good step in that direction. >> bill, thank you. i don't want us to overstate you're welcome, our welcome, and really appreciate you coming. i know given the nature of a schedule that under other circumstances he probably would not give in except one thing. it really is attributed to sam lewis and what he represented for all of us.

i think when you look at bill, when you look at me, you are looking at two people have spent a lot of time in effect studying, in the best sense of the word, under the tutelage of sam lewis. and even have to is no longer in government he was still a guide for both of us. so thank you, bill. and thank you for coming today. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up today, the defense department holds a briefing on afghanistan operations. wielder from u.s. forces, afghanistan commander general john campbell. pentagon press secretary kirby. that is live at noon eastern on

c-span. and at 3 p.m. eastern, a council on the ebola outbreak. they will discuss the first case diagnosed in the u.s. live coverage also on c-span. >> here are just a few of the comments we've recent received from our viewers. >> i just watched this c-span q&a interview with sally quinn. i enjoyed her interview and her comments. she was so authentic and inspiring. her comments about spirituality. i would really like to see another interview with her. >> i'd like to confident c-span on their coverage of the representative the terrace from texas. that was a wonderful segment. you guys have probably do him again. i thoroughly enjoyed it.

>> i just want us to watch the segment you guys had, and your host said that the lie is a frequent guest. please widen your scope rather than eli lake. i think he was very limited in his knowledge and are far more, more serious experts to have on your program. >> yes, i would like to tally how much i enjoyed and how much informative this kevin behrens i was. it was really interesting and i think he's very knowledgeable. got to have him on again. i wonder when this is going to repeat. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us, e-mail us, or send us a tweet. join this c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter.

>> the c-span cities tour takes booktv and american history to be on the road. traveling to your cities to learn about their history and literary life. as we can we partner with comcast or a visit to boulder, colorado. spent my book is called the peace in the garden, because it's a book about a large animal that in ancient times or in the american history we would have called the beast, the mountain lion. ..

they could eat dogs and cats. that is food for them. and the lions were learning and they have learned that this is where they will find food. yes, there is certainly food up there too but there is lots to eat in town. >> this a retreat, generally in a beautiful place, for, enrichment and enlightenment and entertainment and coming together. the people who were intended to be the audience of the chataqua were middle class. most of them were similar. combination of speakers of the day. also variety of what we might consider highbrow and lowbrow entertainment. opera, classical music and probably what would be

considered the viewedville of that day. -- vaudeville. >> watch all of our events from boulder on booktv and american history tv at 2:00 on c-span3. live now as the "national journal" is hosting an election preview with data from the latest races. this is getting underway. >> director of government communications for united technologies. marti supports utc government relations programs throughout the world. he leads utc government relations, advertising and marketing, communication efforts. marti, please join us. [applause] >> thank you, tim. pleasure to be here this morning with you and your staff here at the "national journal." we appreciate this wonderful partnership we've had with you for several years now and with charlie. obvious lit foremost political prognosticator in the country. united technologies is very

innovative company. tim mentioned some of our brand of the we not only innovated with great products but we created industries. ie, sikorsky helicopter created helicopter industry and founder and developer of the first helicopters. willis carrier introduced air-conditioning we know and love. one of our favorite congressman from texas came to visit, there are only two important things in texas and that is football and air-conditioning. so, otis with the first safety elevator. i bring that up because united technologies and its sikorsky affiliate is rolling out new technology that is sleekest and coolest looking helicopter you have ever seen. it has counter rotating propellers. greg ward, senior vp of global government relations usually does the introduction but today he is at rollout. that will happen later this morning. the quick note, the x-2 for runner to the raider was, is the

fastest helicopter on earth. it broke the unofficially broke the world record for speed about 260 knots and will go higher. so it is twice as fast as any helicopter on marketplace today. we they this is game changing technology like many of our technologies that come before. we're really proud and looking forward to later this morning when those reports come out. without that again it is our last one this year but we look forward to continuing this partnership in the years ahead. i want to welcome charlie and thank you again for all you do to support us. [applause] >> thank you, marty, and united technologies for sons soring these. i'm still waiting for my free helicopter. although in montgomery county, maryland you could land one anywhere. peoples republic of montgomery county. thank you all for coming out. we have a great, great crowd and i'm really looking forward to

this because, you know, i'm tired of listening to myself and chance to listen to neil new house and stan greenberg, two things i really looking forward to. they are two the brightest, brightest, most talented people in town and people i've known, i guess between the two of them for close to 70 years because neil and i go back 30 odd years and stan about 30 years. these are folks that i have enjoyed being with and love watching their work and they're just two great pros and two great people. so i'm really looking forward to that. let me sort of do, a very, very nutshell where i am. then i want to get neil and stan up and talk about what they're seeing out there. i, you know, if you go back to the early, early part of last year, you know there were two competing scenarios, two sort of

theories what the 2014 midterm elections could be about and one theory was some of the challenges, problems, facing the republican party in 2012 would just flow on into 2014 and the other was that this would be, you know, a classic midterm election, referendum on the incumbent president and with all that that entails. so 2:00 competing directions and it could have gone really either way. in terms of challenges facing the republican party, some were with key voting groups and some was sort of their own, on of the things they were doing. you know, just sort of nutshell. challenge of minority voters is, we know that you know, governor romney got 59% of the white vote and gosh nobody, has ever gotten 59% of the white vote and lost presidential election before. quite simply what was happening the country is changing so much it is getting hard, the vote for

congress was almost identical, if you're losing the african-american vote by 87 points and the latino vote by a 44-point margin and asian-american vote by 47, they don't generate enough white voters, how well can you do in order to win if given the changing demographics of the country? this wasn't romney campaign thing because the vote for congress was virtually identical, democrat, republican vote for congress. you look at that and say it is a big, big demographic challenge the republican party will have to face. you look at young voters and, you know, losing 18 to 29-year-olds by 23-point march begin of the. that's a challenge, best group, 65 and older you're winning 12 points, this is a trend that is got to be sort of ominous for republicans down the way. i mean, i tend to look, i just turned 60 last year. i look at voters under 45, under

40. you know, they're the future. and i look in the mirror and look at those of us roughly our age and jeff peterson, wherever he went, we're like the pre-dead and for republicans they're doing really well with the pre-dead and not so well with the future. that has got to be ominous trend and women voters, you can slice and dice. there were very specific challenges very problematic for republicans in 2012 and could have been in 2014. and then there was one other thing that plagued republicans in 2010 and 2012. of. and that was simply a pattern that they developed in those two elections of nominating exotic and potentially problematic people, for the u.s. senate who had the unique ability to seize defeat from the jaws of victory. and you know, not to names or anything but indiana, missouri,

delaware, colorado. where am i missing? nevada. yeah, i mean just some interesting people. and was that going to continue? were republicans going to nominate again some of these people that would have the chance to seize defeat from the jaws of victory. was that going to happen? these were real challenges facing the republican party and ones they had to worry about going into 2012. and then, you know, the on the other hand, what are midterm elections about, particularly second midterm elections? it is referendum on incumbent president. they're not always that way. occasionally a exception to the rule, 1998 bill clinton's second term midterm election turned out to be a backlash against impeachment. 2000 two was 14 months after 9/11. so sort of reverberations from 9/11 were still occurring. other than that as my trend stu

rothenberg points out, the party in the white house lost seats since all elections since the sill war. that is kind of not a random pattern. i will not go through any poll numbers because we have two of the best pollsters in the business coming up but to me, my view is that what we're see something the problems, the challenges that face the republican party and kept them from picking up the three seats they needed at the time to get a majority in the senate and to win the presidential race, those challenges in 2012, they were real and they really hurt and they may be real and really hurt them in 2016 but in the context of this election, they just seem somewhat smaller. they just don't seem to be the deal-breakers that they were in 2012 and possibly could be in 2016. while, if you went back to a year-and-a-half ago, and thought, what's the worst, if you're a democrat, what is the

worst-case scenario you could have? and that would be a president with really, really low approval numbers, generally in the low to mid 40s with disapprovals in the low to mid 50s. across the board lousy approval ratings on the economy, lousy approval ratings on handling foreign policy. i mean that you know, think of, nbc "wall street journal" poll that neil firm's firm is republican half of this firm, of that poll, overall was 40 approve, 54 disapprove. so you're minus 14 overall. handling economy was 43 approve, 53 disapprove, minus 10. but the real kicker was insuring a strong national defense. 32 approve? 62 disapprove? wow. that's, that's sort of kind of earth shattering. and so, you just look at that

say, wow, you know, i'm going to use a technical political science term here, this is a bummer environment for democrats and, so the props are just as big as they thought. now in terms of what happens, everybody in this room knows we have a room full of pros here, everybody knows not much is going to happen in the house. democratic losses could be as few as two or three or four seats and could be as many as nine, 10, 12, something like that. if republicans 13, they would be at highest point they have been since the end of world war ii. that is a bit above the range of most likely outcomes but real deal is the senate. and in 300 words toreor less the way i look at it, like a perfect storm of factors coming together. it is exposure, just the raw numbers. democrats have 21 seats up, republicans only have 15. that is the first factor and least important. the bigger one is the map, the geography of this election. it is awful for democrats.

when you have seven seats up, seven democratic seats up in states that romney carried and only one republican seat up in obama state and susan collins in maine. she couldn't lose re-election if she tried. you have that. six of the seven republican seats that are up this time are democratic seats up in romney states where he won by 14 points or more. romney won by 14 points or more. you show me a state where romney won by 14 points and i will show you a state that in 2014 i wouldn't want to be a democrat running for a federal office in that state. it just is what it is. third is turnout. and, quite simply, midterm election turnouts tend to be a lot better for republicans, when the turnout is smaller. presidential year the turnout is big, broad, diverse. looks like the country. midterm elections, the turnout is about what 70% of what a presidential turnout is. not only smaller but older, wider, more conservative, more

republican. sort of thumb on the scale. unless you have a situation like in 2006 where you had unpopular war in iraq and hurricane katrina, unless you have something like that going to tilt it back to the other direction, that turnout dynamic at least to certain extent favor republicans and the broader environment. you look at those four, you say wow, those are pretty big, sort of atmospheric conditions that for democrats. so, when i sort of do the math real quick, and then i want to get neil, maybe i should stall time just a little bit because we're waiting on stan to get here but on the other hand we could get neil, we'll see. when i do the math i'm putting it at about 60% chance of republicans getting the majority. and you know, i've been sort of there for three or four months. one point i was sort of higher than most people and now if you look at a lot of models i'm actually lower percentage than

most of the computer models out there, if you follow, those things. but, i would put it at 60%. the way i sort of do the math is this there are three gimme putts for republicans. democrat seats that will clearly go republican, montana, south dakota, west virginia. that is three. theoretically republicans are halfway to the six seats they need with gimme putts. you get to the three other democratic seats that are up where romney carried by 14 points or more. mark begich in alaska, mark pryor in arkansas, mary landrieu in louisiana. each of those, these are really, really, really challenging, difficult and i would say at least a little bit in each one uphill races for each one. could one of them survive? yeah, one of them could survive, sure. and, but the think about it is, if, this is the huge if, if

republicans don't lose one of their own seats, eg, kansas, if they don't lose one of their own seats, all republicans have to do, to win a majority, montana, south dakota, west virginia, louisiana, alaska, arkansas, that's it, game, set, match. but, if one of these three survive, begich, or landrieu or pryor, any one of them survives, that means that republicans have to pick up at least one purple swing state or light blue state that's up. or, conversely, if any of the republican vulnerable seats lose, and mitch mcconnell was in a dead-even race for a long time and now he is kind of picked up a little bit over alison grimes. i would absolutely not say pull away. he is not safe. you can see a little bit of daylight in between them. it looks to be stable. looks right now from my vantage point to be stable. and georgia, democrat michelle

nunn are ahead for a good while and it was close. david perdue, pull up, small but you can see daylight. seems, reasonably stable. where, i think you would have to give republicans the edge, the edge there. kansas is the one that, i'm almost stopped speculating about because this is like the race from oz. i mean it is just so damn weird. and, in my business, you look at your experience, i've been doing this 30 years, my newsletter for 30 years. you look at this say, okay, based on past experience when we have seen things kind of like this, what happened in the past? hell, nothing ever happened like this. sort of unique, democrat drops out, independent running, 3, 4, 5, points ahead of the incumbent. the incumbent is well-liked in the state but mailing it in for last couple years.

you know, won the primary went home to take a nap. and, home to alexander, virginia, and you say, this disaster could have been avoided here, you know? but so that if, and funny way kansas is. this actually neil's home state, there is only one thing, actually two things that we're really sure become. there will be a election on november 4, and that if pat roberts win he will sit with republicans. that's it for what we know. everything else, greg orman, does orman win? yes or no? if he wins, does he decide to sit with democrats and sort of deep down, you look at him, say, wow, this guy, looks, sound, walk, talks like a democrat mostly. i think that is probably where his heart is but on the other hand he said things that would suggest he would do what is in the best interests of the state, which i think is code for, if

republicans already in the majority he will sit with them. or if is is tiebreaker, i think his heart more democrat but then relatively young guy. might want to run for re-election, well, sit with republicans might be better idea. so, you know, all this is against a backdrop of a civil war taking place underneath within the republican, within the republican party that is causing, you know, sam brownback, the governor to be, five points behind in a state like, again net i cannily republican. anyway, one of the weirder things i have ever seen. let's for the sake of math, let's sort of say for fun, not fun, say that roberts loses, okay? so, if republicans, if begich, landrieu or pryor survives, republicans need a purple or light blue state. if roberts loses, republicans need a purple or green state. if each of those things happen,

democrats need to pick up two. five we're sort of looking at that are possibilities in this purple swing or light green or light blue. and two that i think are absolutely closest, mark udall in colorado, and bruce braley in iowa. i mean these races are effectively even. if you had to say, if one side or the other has momentum right now, just a little bit of momentum, who would you say? i'd have to say republicans in both those cases. that is not a prediction but those two look pretty decent for republicans. on the other hand, north carolina, with kay hagan, she has got, sort of used the phrase i used before, small but stable, seemingly stable lead over thom tillis. i think basically a legislature in particularly a state senate that is sort of went a bridge too far off to the right. it has hurt the guy. it hurt the speaker.

you know, might really cost hip the election, what would be otherwise i think a pretty winnable race. michigan, very, very close. here is stan. i've been, you know. michigan, very, very, very close. it would appear to me that gary peters, the democrat has a very, very, small but again, stable lead. you know, just a couple of points. it is not much. and i would say organized labor much more and more effectively in michigan. i would throw in wisconsin the governor's race than we've anywhere in a long, long time. i would put a finger on the scale for democrats in that michigan one. finally jeanne shaheen, there are some conflicting polls. most are showing shaheen ahead by half dozen points, we've seen some, cnn poll that had them tied. there may be closure there. i think shaheen has measurable advantage. i mean i kind of think she, so

if republicans need one it needs to be iowa or colorado. if they need two, it has to be both of those. but if, you know, it is sort of if they, if they just simply get republican states voting republican, they don't need to anyone any swing, swing states or, if they, if they lose both, then they need to win two out of the purple or green categories. you know, i put it at 60%. my good friend and competitor rothenburg, stu rothenburg, he is sticking with his prediction of seven seats. he doesn't do percentages. he is doing a number. most of the, one last thing and then we'll bring up, bring up neil and stan. you know, sometimes people have asked me, why the heck do we need to listen to charlie cook or his team and jeff duffy and

david and amy walter, why do we need to listen to them or stu rothenberg and his terrific colleague, nathan gonzalez, why should we listen to them and that's silver and "new york times" and other models out there? my analogy is sort of the "moneyball" analogy from the book and the movie. that there is not a team in major league baseball that does not employ a team of statisticians doing say per metrics. not one. they saw see it as important. not one team has not fired all their scouts either. look at the data, analyze the data, but also listen to the scouts. have them looking and sitting in the bleachers with a speed gun where we do and our team does and stu's team does interviewing candidates, watching races, you know, sitting in jennifer's office and sitting there watching ads, you know, hours on end. and just sort of, evaluating each of these from more of a

subjective, qualitative as opposed to quantitative. i think there is value in all of those things. if i were going to look at two models most, i would watch, i would watch nate silver. i have a lot of respect for nate. i think he is really smart. i think he has a neat statistical tool kit i can't do in a million years. i think he is intellectually honest. different approach than with what i take and different my approach and worth looking at. "new york times" did a pretty good job. they did after nate left to go to espn, but it is working at. i'm not a fan of what the post did it and i'm not sure were princeton biologists doing election models. that has gone from, anyway. we're not getting into that. so anyway, that is sort of where i am on it. and, what i would like to do

though is bring in two people that sus go through, just mountains and mountains of data and just have the experience and intuition with stan greenberg. he, the work that stan's firm does in particularly with the demock sy corps, do high quality and surveys of competitive districts unlike anything else that is out there and enormously invaluable and neil is one of the best around and his firm is half the nbc "wall street journal" poll which is my other favorite poll out there. their firms represent enormously high-quality work. they're really, really bright people and really perceptive and very nice people and good friend of the so i want to bring them up and, then i'm going to listen very carefully and hopefully we can glean some things from them. i'm not going to put either one of them on the spot to, you

know, throw any of their clients under a bus or tell shamelessly, but let them tell us what they think. you nice want to come on up? [applause] >> want me in the middle? >> neil, sit wherever you want. >> all righty. who wants to go first? want to catch your breath to let neil go? >> i'll let neil go. >> epup for a few minutes and let stan catch you. >> projections are at seven. go race by race, right? >> yeah, yeah. >> let me just kind of start with some of what charlie talked about which is kind of political environment and i think charlie is exactly right. political environment is set by president obama's job approval rating. sitting at 40, 41, 42%.

the way i look at it, he is getting and his job approval he is 10 to 12 points lower than he was when he beat mitt in 2012. you take that 10 or 12 points and apply it to the states, senate states that are red states, that are up for grabs right now and, if the president won that with 50% of the vote, then arguably he could be at 38% job approval in these states which is, incredibly difficult climb for the democratic candidate and charlie, your home state, louisiana, i know, democrats. i know. [laughter] marely landrieu is in deep trouble there. we have finished a poll there. what do you think obama's approval rating is among whites in? white voters in louisiana?

>> i'm not sure but i suspect there is a 2 in front of it. >> no. >> there is a one in front of it? >> 15%. 15 to 80. oh, i guys, i've been polling a long time. we're looking at numbers we've never even seen before. there is, you know, mood of the country. a lot of these kind of figures, job approval of congress? i saw one poll, job approval of congress was 6% and margin of error in the poll was five. [laughter]. you know, pretty soon we could be a net negative. i talk about congress in terms of its, friend and family program because only friends and family approve of the job congress is doing. just the environment itself, it is a strong anti-incumbent environment. voters, what you didn't get into your discussion is the sense that voters believe that washington has let them down and that, we can't fix this country

until we fix washington, d.c., our politics and our politicians. that is one reason we've seen turnover election and turnover election. there is frustration and anger, used to be voters, hated congress but love their congressman. now they hate congress and they don't trust their congressman. there is a sense that they, you know, that member of congress has to prove him or herself again every year. there is just, there is an anger with washington's inaction and dysfunction. so this is all creating that political environment that is extraordinarily negative. actually toward both parties, not just the party in power. but it is a negative and sour political environment. my second point is, don't kid yourself into believing this is national election. this is not a election. this is 10 state election. very similar to the 2012 election, to the presidential election, truthfully it was only

eight states were competitive in that election. this is the same model. this is what gives democrats a little bit of an advantage because they can focus resources on minimal number of states. and, give you an idea, the average voter in, since labor day, iowa has been the most advertised state in per capita in the country. there have been47 ads per capita in iowa -- 147. since labor day, that people have seen. on september 23rd, take one date, september 23rd, in des moines there were 325 political ads in the senate race on tv one day. . .

>> that's why i think anybody who's predicting that, oh, yeah, republicans are going to win or democrats are going to win, guess what? campaigns make mistakes. and over the last month or so we've seen it go from a republican advantage to democrats entering back to republicans winning back. these campaigns and candidates make mistakes. they run advertising that's ineffective. they focus on the wrong issues. and new information is introduced into these campaigns. so these campaigns do make a difference. so, you know, iowa and colorado and kentucky and, you know, michigan, north carolina, all these states, you know, what

happens over the next month is going to make a difference. the fourth point is, which charlie didn't really raise, is that terrific republican enthusiasm advantage. republican voters are significantly more enthusiastic, are pumped up for this election and are, you know, you're going to have to, like, hold them back from the polls on election day. so republicans have, you know, a significant advantage in intensity. well, you know what? i did the romney campaign two years ago. i've seen those numbers before. we had that same intensity advantage in 2012. i've learned a lot of valuable lessons in working the romney campaign; an unenthusiastic vote counts just as much as an enthusiastic vote. [laughter] and so when democrats are able, because of their ground operation, to turn out voters

who are low propensity, who are unlikely, who are low interest voters, their votes count just as much as my republican, you know, 45-year-old, you know, man in the suburbs who rushes the polls on election day. they count the same. so all this you hear about the republican intensity advantage, cautionary tale. and we don't have president romney now, unfortunately, so we have president obama. take that with grain of salt, because on the ground does matter in these campaigns. so my fifth point here is, guys, we have a long ways to go. in critical terms, we are -- well, we're five weeks out, four and a half weeks out from the election. that's several political lifetimes. a lot of stuff can happen, this race -- the senate is not yet decided. you know, i think it may change a couple of times between now and election day. and don't take, you know, don't take to heart all these,

everything saying, gee, republicans have that enthusiasm advantage. you know what? if the democrats' ground game works and works well and they have unlimited number of states to do it in, six or eight states, that enthusiasm advantage may be wiped away by the democrat turnout operation. so this is, it's a dead heat. it's a today up. i -- toss up. i agree with charlie's as accessment of the states. do we win colorado or iowa or both? can we? how close is north carolina going to be? all these states. it's a fascinating campaign, but we are a long ways from determining the winner of the senate. and as you know -- because this is a pretty smart audience -- election night isn't going to determine the winner of the senate any way, probably. so a final piece of advice to you if you have any extra capital, buying a tv station in new orleans -- [laughter] be a really, really good investment.

and, you know, if you want to watch a lot of political ads. just go visit new orleans between, you know, election day and the runoff election in december. every political operative will be in town, and every tv station will be full of tv ads because it could come down to that runoff election in louisiana. >> florida 2000. [laughter] >> one thing, i was in baton rouge and new orleans this weekend, and i was talking to the station manager of a cbs affiliate, and he said they're actually now seeing for november 4th getting scaled back because they're just, basically, saving money for the runoff. and, you know, i thought that was interesting. stan? >> charlie, you're the best. i appreciate this and really value all the collaboration i've had with neil and respect his judgment on almost every point that he's made today. i apologize for -- but you

should know that this is the future because my schedule said that charlie palmer, but my uber app sent my car there. so it was automatically programmed, and what i said when i walked in, i said maybe the rsvps were down and they've gone to a smaller room to try to create a sense of interest in this election. [laughter] >> sorry to -- i was at charlie palmer's yesterday morning. >> i kept asking for charlie cook. anyway -- [laughter] this is, obviously, i mean, all elections are fascinating, but i think this is genuinely is on the knife's edge. everything that neil has said about the conventional wisdom, particularly partisan conventional wisdom, one ought to step back from.

neil began talking, and i said, oh, my god, one more panel where they tell me, you know, how many white males don't vote for obama or how many independents, how well, you know, republicans are doing with independents, you know? romney won independents and won them well. it was kind of the spin it couldn't be possible that obama was going to win. we're in a different country, and neil is one of those people that recognize the change. i'm in, i'm in the 50/50, you yu know, probability. probably slightly down from the -- neil, actually, you sound like you're in the 50/50. you go from 60/40 either way -- >> don't let me get away with 50/50. i've got to shade in one direction or the other. >> pollsters are paid for it, you know? i know, you have to go the other way.

we are doing, you know, the heavy senate battleground polling right now for np rbi partisan poll which we release tomorrow which i'm not going to give the results of. we'll also release on monday a poll in four of the battleground states for wv, women's voices, women's vote. so we will have that. we're also, as you know, both involved in actual races and, actually, independent efforts in many of these states. and i'll try not to talk about the states involved -- >> go ahead, feel free. >> -- but i do spend probably, you know, just twice a day going through all our patrol polls looking for what's the trend, you know, what's emerging there. just stepping back from it, and i think it's a little hard to read what's happening from washington because the part you read from washington is the obama part. focuses on the president, he's in the news, and that -- he's,

clearly dynamic. and just noting on the obama piece, we had in the npr poll that -- i'm not going to give the number, but in the previous polls that we did for npr or the senate battleground, his approval was 37, 38%. so very low in these 12 states that we poll that constitute the battleground. romney won these states by eight. tough territory. we'll look at the results tomorrow. but if you look at, just take the last ten polls, public polls conducted and looking at obama's approval polling away from the monthly average, his approval's gone up from 42 to 44 in the public polls that are out there. it's been stuck at 42 for a long time. i think the dating, i think when we look back on this, you know, next week, we'll look at what happened with isis and syria and

iraq and might represent a point in which the president edged up, you know, nationally. and that effects republican motivation, etc. let's go to the the states. the other factor playing out here is the intense unpopularity of the republican party. this is not a both-party issue. there is nobody, we have our current polling in the battleground, there is no one more unpopular than mcconnell. mcconnell as well known as harry reid and is the most -- i don't want to make comparisons that will cause problems on who i work for on the house side who'll get attacked as targets in republican campaigns, but mcconnell -- >> i mention her name? [laughter] >> mcconnell has exceeded that in the senate battleground, which are republican battlegrounds. he represents washington and gridlock. and if you want to look what in regression model would drive the

vote, views of the house republicans are more important than views of the senators and the senate parties. the house republicans define the republican party. now, we move away from that when we say, well, we don't is have gridlock, we don't have a government shutdown. the way the republican brand problem plays out is in the advertising and the positioning of the candidates in the states. you don't see it because it's being played out, you know, state by state. and as a reason why you went from republican, these states being fairly republican to then moving democratic is because they began associating those candidates with their parties. including insensitivity to women and a range of things that have become important in these state elections. now, there's a third piece in this which i've come to recognize is increasingly important you want to understand kansas, understand north carolina.

the republican governors and republican model of governing coming out of the 2010 election is intensely unpopular. if you want to look who has lower job approval ratings in louisiana, look at governor jindal who's lower than the president. so look at tilles, look at the republican program in north carolina and what's happened with that sort of association. so states that have been brought into play are in play because there's another part to the -- there's a state story and local story to the republican agenda and brand which is making these races more competitive on the democratic side. we also found in the, which neil is underscoring, in the battleground we have not found in the last poll we did, you know, with errors -- did the polling for a surging republican, that poll -- we've

found no difference on consolidation, likely to shifting your vote, and intention to vote amongst democratic and republican voters in the battleground states. they've been so bombarded with media that they are kind of in a different, you know, place. if you go back to the 2000 -- 2004 election and what happened in bush's re-election, the, there was a shift of around three points nationally. in the battleground where it was fought out, no change. not a point of change. not a decimal point of change from one election to the next where the advertising and the intense campaign centered. so in the battle ground, we'll look and see what the npr shows tomorrow, but alert to neil's point that the presumption of the advantage -- and watch the issues that have emerged. part of the republican brand problem is their problems of wick. these issues have been played, and they're a factor in how

people are voting -- women. and the last piece i'll add is on the affordable care act. where the presumption and the strategy for republicans has been to pound that issue. initially, i think, as a swing vote to get, to punish democrats. but i think increasingly as a motivator on, you know, as a reason for people to vote. you should watch for the npr poll tomorrow on this issue on the affordable care act. they're -- when we look back and we say, you know, how come there was one more election cycle in which republicans were certain to take control and didn't? you know, the single biggest ads that they have run, i think always have, have been on the affordable care act. it's down to about a quarter now. it's still a quarter. and on our testing it is the

weakest attack that they have, that her using. they are not -- that they are using. they are not using other things that are much stronger because i think there's an ideological intention to use the affordable care act, obamacare, as their issue. you'll see it's a much more complicated issue than that. the senate who are really against it because it's big government is not big enough to decide elections. and so the issue priorities, what they choose to run on -- and there's already lots of evidence that they're shifting, you know, in the states. but there's a lot unresolved, and 50/50 means i really don't know. i am looking at enough states that are very close to themselves 50/50. and, you know, i don't see a trend either way in terms of these things i just describe are things that go into the equation, and a lot of it's baked. [laughter] already. but it's, and i don't see any

evidence of it breaking one way or the other. >> let me ask, ask neil a question on affordable care, and then let's just sort of open it up. we had a top republican senate strategist suggest to us six months ago that they started telling their clients, you know, you need to move away from the affordable care act. we've, quote, we've milked that cow for all its got. and you can't be a one-trick pony, you can't be a one-issue, you know, start diversifying, start moving your messaging other places because they're not, there are no more points to be scored on the affordable care act. does that reflect what you think and what you seen in your -- what you've seen in your data? >> the approval rating of the affordable care act and you compare it in the same survey to an approval rating of obama,

they're identical. obama is obamacare, and obamacare is obama. they're one and the same. the obamacare issue is one that is, i think it's pretty much maked in, but it is as stan said -- you know, stan's trumping this -- it's a motivation issue. it remined -- reminds voters why they need to go out and vote. it's a stimulation issue. i think you'll see some campaigns go back to it late just to remind voters, hey, everything you didn't like about it, this other person voted -- just to put it pack in the mix a little bit because obamacare is shorthand for big government bureaucracy, government takeover of health care, and then you tie that to the sense that there are, you know, thousands of people who have lost their health insurance or lost the ability to go see their doctors, weren't able to keep their plans. you go back into that and kind

of remind people. so it'll come back up, but it's not -- no, no, it's not the only issue. and, in fact, late in campaigns i think you're going to find what we try to do in a lot of our campaigns is inject new information in the mix. you want to tell people something new that they didn't already know. because if you repeat the same stuff over and over again, they're immune to it. they need to hear new information. they want to -- they're still trying to figure out their decisions, and so i think you'll find some of these campaigns turning to some new issues over the last weeks of the campaign. >> stan said there were other issues that are more powerful that republicans could be using, and let's just for britains, what do you think -- for grins, what do you think -- >> no, to comment -- [laughter] >> no, what i was saying -- >> i'm not -- [inaudible conversations]

>> beating on my clients. so i'm just kind of curious -- >> no, i'm going to pass on that one, charlie. they always do well when they talk about spending and deficits. >> the there we go. okay. you were more forthcoming than i expected. [laughter] why don't we, i think there are some microphones womanedderring -- wandering around the room. yes, no? yes. there's one over here, there's one over here, so as my not- relative wave your hand in a nonthreatening fashion, and we'll come to you. there's one. >> charlie, you have arkansas, louisiana, alaska as toss-ups, and when you're discussing them, you seemed to indicate you thought republicans were likely to win two out of three. so if you take your ten toss-ups and district them 50/50, you get

a three-seat democrat advantage. are those seats really toss-ups? >> some of this is semantics and approach. and if you'll look, the new york times periodically is running sort of what even of the models were doing, what larry sabato, i should have mentioned earlier, they lay this all out. and you'll notice that we continue to carry more toss-ups than anybody else, and so it's a matter of definition. to me, a toss up is i don't have a really strong -- or we, our team, does not have a really strong feeling that we kind of know who's going to win. if it's a lean, we think we know who's going to win. if it's a toss, there is a sufficient element of doubt that we're not going to be putting our reputations on the line. so our -- it's sort of like an umpire. our strike zone's a little wider than some of the other folks. and i'm not saying better or

worse, i'm just saying our definition. >> okay, so charlie, rank those three states. >> i would say if democrats only lost one -- which i think is highly unlikely -- it could be arkansas. i think if they only lost two, i'd throw in probably hah. louisiana. >> okay. >> and if one survived, i think it might be more likely to be alaska, but i think more likely -- i think it's more likely that all three go down, well, far and away than only one, and probably more three than two. i but, you know, sort of in my calculation, though, i'm kind of assuming that pat roberts comes up short, and we may all be surprised. but i kind of think so in my mind republicans need seven, not six. they need a close seven to net six. but my hunch is going to to be

iowa -- i mean, if i could note two races, i'd rather know iowa and colorado. >> yep, me too. can i just answer that question? i would recommend that you bring a regional, cull churl and -- cultural and historical trends lens, you know, to it because -- and this cup's not only gridlocked in washington, we are polarized. and it's not just polarization, we have some regions of the country that are moving more and more, more observant, more republican, more -- [inaudible] of others that are moving in the opposite direction, and they're very different trends. so when i look at these races, i look at the south, and without doing specific races, you know, the trends of the south are dramatic. and if you look at these states, they always come out a little worse than -- i will say that, you know, that mary landrieu

always manages somehow to work out something in some kind of magic, and there's some non-southern parts of louisiana. but the south always -- [inaudible] north carolina is much more, you know, we know presidentially it's much more part of the new, growing coalition that includes postgraduates and others a that make it, and a diverse immigrant population is making it part of -- so the trend there is important. i think of alaska as not, you know, each though it's -- even though it's rank order, it's much more in the libertarian montana/alaska mode which does quirky things. and whether begich wins or not is a function of how we think that kind of, you know, candidate wins. >> you know, as most everybody knows, there are a lot more men in alaska, you know, working --

[inaudible] and there was a reality show that had the -- it was taking some alaskan women and taking them to florida that were single. [laughter] kind of an interesting premise. sphwhrl where's this leading? >> i know. [laughter] >> the tagline was, you know, for women in alaska the odds are good, but the goods are odd. [laughter] i always kind of loved that. but i kind of say that -- go ahead. will[laughter] >> jeez, charlie, i don't know how i follow up that comment. [laughter] dan, when you look at those states, i mean, i think it's likely all three may go our way. but i just want to make this point, kind of reiterate how charlie opened up this whole session and talked about, you know, kind of historical perspective. if republicans fail to win majority -- and i think it's going to be very tight, you

know? obviously, you know where i stand on that. but i think you go back to look at previous, look at delaware, look at indiana, look at nevada, missouri, it's not necessarily a failure of republicans this year to win it, because winning six or accept seats, that's a hell -- beating an incumbent is tough. it's damn tough. and i think you look at what, you know, our failure in previous elections that failed to set us up so that we could win, you know, with five seats or four seats this time instead of having to win six or seven. so i think we fixed some of those problems in terms of we don't have those, some of these wild and crazy nominees we've had in the past, and i think we've -- >> exotic. >> exotic, yes. [laughter] and i think we're in pretty good shape. but it's still tight. >> nearly fixed the problem with the elites. you haven't fixed the problem.

tillis represents the core of the republican party. he was the preferred candidate. the problems you're having are with the people that represent the core of the party. that's a serious problem. >> the quality is always an issue. shall we talk bruce braley? [laughter] you know, it's always an issue. you know, campaigns and candidates matter. that's why i don't think, you know, if you ask me today how one outcome would take place but it's 33 days from now, whatever it is. you got the -- that's a long ways to go. campaigns make a lot of mistakes in 30 days. >> to amplify neil's earlier point, and i'm going to put my colleague jennifer duffy on the spot to do a fact check for me. in the last ten years, five elections, democrats have unseated 11 republican senate -- 12? 12. you're saying 12, yes?

12 republican senate incumbents, and republicans have unseated three. yes, three democratic senate incumbents. for some reason there has been some resistance or inability for republicans to knock off incumbents. so, yes, they do have to overcome that to get the majority. okay, where is the next question? we'll let the -- who's got the mic, and are you next to someone with a question? >> charlie, there's one over here. >> yeah, okay. >> i guess a tactical question. a lot of money is sunk into television advertising, and my impression would be that is going to the near dead rather than the living because most -- my children really don't watch television commercials, yet we finish it's almost like heading

into world war ii with a strong cavalry. what are your thoughts on the effectiveness of television advertising, and who is it hitting, which voters is it reaching, and what is it a achieving? is it motivational or is it actually trying to swing -- >> i mean, your point is exactly, i mean, we've seen in our data. we did a national survey with turner and -- [inaudible] and a democratic partner as egg well in which we found fewer than half of americans, half of american voters now say that they get their news from live tv every day. that they watch live tv every day. and among 18-44-year-olds just one-third say they watch live tv every day. you've got to be kidding me. and so it is, it's extraordinarily difficult. things have changed dramatically two-thirds of americans now with smartphones, and that includes

these, you know, blackberries which i don't consider a smartphone. [laughter] >> but it's got a better keyboard. >> exactly. >> if you would have gotten here on time, you would have looked at your schedule -- >> but i think how you communicate with voters is extraordinarily difficult, and right now there's a ton of money spent on tv advertising that, you know, that's hitting people who have already decided. and that's why some of these digital companies, you know, all of our campaigns are spending much more money on digital and trying to reach out and doing targeted communications, personal communications with voters so what you're seeing is everybody knows we've still got to do the tv, but what you're not seeing in the campaigns is the amount of money that's going to digital, individual contact and even mail through these campaigns and personal contact. so under the service you're not seeing a lot of how that money's spent, but that doesn't mean you leave tv uncovered. >> to illustrate your point though, i like to use an

example. our daughter who, in 2012 was 26 living in cleveland, ohio, she did not -- their tv set was not wired to cable, it didn't have rabbit ears, and she watched something called apple tv which i don't i don't even know what that is. and she'd generally listen to either her ipod or iphone music or to npr on the way to and from work. and so, you know, reaching her, you know, she wasn't a swing voter, but reaching her would have been a challenge for a campaign. and that's what it says, exactly what neil's saying. >> the, let me speak both sides of this. and, but we still have -- >> want to be a political analyst, on the one hand, on the other hand -- >> we still have campaigns this cycle where advertising and shift of the race in major ways. look at pennsylvania and the

governor's race and what happened there. i mean, somebody's watching tv. [laughter] so there's, races are still impacted, you know, by the tv. now, i remember, you know, after super pacs became legalesed by the court -- legalized by the court, i remember in the last cycle us worrying, and not just worrying, watching surprise million dollar buys coming from outside and really impacting the races. that seems to be much less of an issue. people know it's coming. they, i think i the media, therefore, the fundraising has attempted to balance it so you know it's coming, and the planning balances it out. and i also think you now reach not so much penetration of market, saturation into the market in which they just -- people roll their eyes. the getting hurt on negative ads right now, you know, in these elections, i just don't think any of these are going to be

shifted by a killer, you know, sudden buy or ad that, you know, i think it's locked in, and people are taking a lot of advertising. >> who's got a moab? who's got a question with a microphone? >> hi, bill signer. over the last month there have been significant shifts in iowa and colorado. can you discuss why there have been shifts there and, obviously, candidates do matter, and is that what's happening in those two states? thank you. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i can't, i can't. >> iowa first. i think, obviously, a very competitive race. joanie ernst came out of the primary, and the democrats did a nice job of beginning to define her, as did the braley campaign. but i think what happened there

is that braley failed to define himself. he failed to give voters a reason to kind of vote for him. it was all about joni ernst. we did some focus groups on walmart moms which is really a fascinating group, and we did one of these groups in des moines, and they knew a lot about joni ernst, positive and negative. they knew nothing about bruce braley. and so what bruce braley failed to do, he failed to define himself at all. and once republican money caught up with democratic money, we began to kind of focus on his record. it caught up to him. and so i think, and i think voters excepted joni for who she was, and they're now focused on who bruce is. i think those numbers have changed a little bit. that's one. that's just iowa, but it's still a tight race. colorado, i think the attacks against corey gardener as being

an extreme republican tea party candidate have fallen a little short and just not really rung all that true. and as combined with the overwhelming focus by the udall campaign on the issue of birth control and abortion. and i think from our work out there, there's a sense that, you know what? that udall's kind of running a single-issue campaign, a single-issue focus campaign and focusing on these issues instead of jobs, oh things that are -- other things that are going on. and i think they went, i would guess they went too far. and there was a bit of a backlash not just among women voters, but among men. and we were seeing that in our colorado suburbs, denver suburbs. so i think you're seeing some shifts there. colorado is still a tough state. we had great hopes for colorado and iowa in the presidential, and they both fell flat.

i think -- iowa we saw in the presidential campaign, we saw iowa as a state that had the greatest sense of kind of, you know, voter remorse after the 2008 election between 2008 and 2012. these are voters in iowa who believed they put obama into office. and there was more disappointment, there was more of a sense of -- betrayal is way too strong a word, but more of a sense that he wasn't what they expected. and i think that's one reason why the obama campaign spent so much time in iowa in september of 2012, to try to rectify that. they ended up beating us pretty well there. but i still think you have that kind of sense in that state, and i think that's part of what may be giving a little bit more energy behind joanie's campaign too -- joni's campaign too. >> who else do we have?

okay. there's somebody over here. do you have a mic? there's a hand here. let's go ahead and get mics to hands. there's one hand there and one hand there and a hand here and a hand here. >> good morning. i have two questions. the first one is about georgia, about their 12th district, and i was just wondering from your perspective how do you think, what do you think is the -- sorry, how is the race looking for the incumbent, john barrow? and my second question is, there are a lot of candidates that go out actively seeking for women's votes, but what about the male vote and particularly younger votes? like what's your point on that? >> any of you have a unique feeling on bare row? >> nope. >> i wish david wattsman, our house editor, was here, but i'll just sort of jump in. barrow seems to, he's got an edge, a decent edge in a district that's just absolutely ugly, i mean, for a democrat.

really, really, really ugly. you just sort of, sometimes you see people that are survivors, but you know that when that person steps aside, boom, that seat's gone. i mean, just gone, gone, gone. but at the same time, and everybody up here has seen candidates that were able to survive and in really tough races, and then there was just a really ugly year and, boom, the trap door opens and they're gone. i think barrow's going to survive this. like mike mcintyre in north carolina, this year he just decided to pull the plug, you know? it'd be better to go out and not lose. i think barrow, as i remember the districts got we call it a partisan voting index. as i remember, it's either seven or eight. i think eight points more republican than the rest of the country. but barrow's got a bond, he's got a connection. and so far this year et looks like finish it looks like he's

working so that if you told me democrats were going to lose ten seats nationwide, i don't think barrow's would begin there. the difference between the house and the senate, there's sort of technical reasons why the house isn't going to shift much and technical reasons why the senate's going to be, gosh, the absolute best case for democrats no matter what would be losing four seats. you know, five, six, seven's more likely, and eight is less likely. that's kind of the bell curve. but in the house there just aren't that many vulnerable democratic seats left. i mean, when you lose 63 seats in one election and you only get eight back in the next one, you're already, you know, the low, mid-hanging fruit for republicans already picked. so it's just sort of a mop-up operation after that. i think barrow's going to be okay. if you saw early on -- and

georgia's not one of the first states, but relatively early -- if you saw barrow going down, you'd be saying, okay, democrats may be having ap even worse night than we had thought. my depress is he will survive -- my guess is he will survive, and i say that despite the fact the environment's pretty tough this year. >> okay, charlie. what about west virginia 3? >> i wouldn't necessarily say that. i think ray -- you know, stan alluded to this earlier sort of -- don't worry, i'm not going to avoid your question. [laughter] if you were going to do a profile of where in the last ten years have democratic party, has the democratic party struggled so is, so much, i'd say south, border south, small town, rural, lots of, disproportional number

of older white voters, and just for britains i'd say a state -- grins i'd say a state with a heavy fossil fuel. [laughter] >> not to name anybody but, yeah, okay. >> so west virginia, kentucky, that's just sort of where it all comes together. and, you know, i think he's got a good campaign but, you know, if ray hal can survive this thing, it'd be pretty surprising. it's got all the risk factors for a heart attack. i shouldn't use that metaphor, but anyway -- [laughter] that one's a lot, a lot tougher. >> yeah, okay. just one more, the response to your question about men, there's a lot of focus on the gender gap and the flipside of that, you know, is obvious.

you know what? democrats have a huge problem among men voters too, and the gender gap cuts both ways. you see that in all of our states right now where republicans are doing much better among men and not as well among women. is ask and you know what? you're seeing anytime the approval ratings of the president, seeing it across the board. we've seen that gender gap since the ronald reagan election in 1980, and it it expands and contracts, but it's still a significant gap and, you know, we need to do better among women voters, no question, but the democrats also have significant challenges among males. >> not to disagree at all with neil, but there's one sort of partially mitigating factor, and i think this is one of the great inequities on our planet. women live longer than men do, so 53% of the electorate is fell and 47 -- female and 47's male, so that's where --

>> it comes out of balance a little bit. >> yeah, yeah. everything neil said was absolutely right. >> i just want to, again, the lens or the filter for this ought to be what's happening in the republican conservative heartland in all the places that you talked about, the deep south border states, more rural evangelical. those are all trending heavily on every one of the issues in problem areas for democrats. but if you look at white noncollege men outside that heartland, there have been no trend against democrat, no shift against democrats outside of the republican -- >> while we're on sort of the gender thing and i'm not going to put either of you on the spot even though i suspect you both have done some work in louisiana this cycle, but there was a cnn poll out a couple of weeks ago that showed in the mary landrieu/bill cassidy race that

showed effectively no gender gap whatsoever. now, i have not seen crosstabs in any other surveys in the state, so i don't know whether that just an anomaly in that poll or whether there was a pattern and some reason why, unique reason why she wasn't doing a whole lot better among women than men. >> no, that's an anomaly. >> okay, okay. >> but it's a good warning. take every poll you look at with a grain of salt. and when you start looking at, when you start looking in terms of independent voters of women or white women or african-americans or hispanics, you know what? the subsamples, the margin of error can vary dramatically. how that's dope can vary. -- done vary. if something doesn't seem right, it's probably not right. [laughter] >> tell whether the banners come back, and you say a -- >> yeah. >> that can't be true. >> i don't, i've done, i've redone, i think, a handful of

polls this last few weeks because i didn't believe the data. it's like, you know, and i can't -- if i can't explain it to the client, i've got to do, you know, if there's not a rational explanation, i've got to redo it. i've got to figure out what's happening here. so if numbers change for no apparent reason, it's probably not right. >> i hope be there are any cable show bookers watching this that when there's a poll that shows something different from every other poll, rather than considering it hot news -- [laughter] >> thousand it away. >> the odds are it's probably just wrong. >> doesn't matter. >> and so putting a huge spotlight on it, you're probably doing your viewers a disservice. >> that's right. we should note there's a difference between campaign polls and almost all the polls that are done publicly and for the newspapers.

all of our polls are where we are sampling people that we know voted in either 2010 or 2006. we are dealing with likely voters. and that's true of every campaign in these states, and that means, again, campaigns are dealing with polls that are much more real and not as subject -- >> let me throw one thing out, and if either of you guys want to respond, but you can't say it yourself because it would sound so self-serving. but one of the things you hear in a lot of these poll aggregators and averaging and models is that independent polls are more reliable than polls by partisan organizations. and the idea is that the partisan-sponsored polls are somehow really, really biased as if a poll, a campaign would spend a whole lot of money on

getting numbers that were wrong would be a good idea. and, you know, i think what a lot of people miss out is that, you know, if stan does a poll with really lousy numbers for a democrat, the odds that you're ever going to hear those numbers are almost nonexistence. and the same thing finish -- >> no, if we had good numbers for democrat, we would release -- [laughter] >> yeah. and so the thing about it they're getting, this assessment is getting made, and the thing is, you know, a typical, a free-standing poll in a state that you would do, not a benchmark but something that you would have done, pick one in the last week or two, what would it, what would it cost? >> i'll let you price it. [laughter] 28,000. >> a little more. [laughter] >> okay.

i submit to you that there are no newspapers in america, no radio station and none of the -- that are releasing numbers from a survey with a fair market value of $28,000. it would be probably closer to $3,000. and so this is sort of a mythology that's built up that, you know, the academics kind of dwell on -- >> right, we ought to take it to a fact in modeling. with democracy corps which is the most accurate of the national polls -- [laughter] i should mention, we release every poll, and we announce in advance we're releasing it, and so we don't have the option of devoting a result we don't like. we do that on purpose. so -- >> but why don't you do that as blanket policy for all your clients. >> but i would just speak about

the harstead poll. i think he's right about the race being very close. they're not going to release the polls -- there's random variations. some of the ore states probably -- other states probably had a poll where the democrat wasn't doing very well. they didn't want to release that one. i think you have to be careful saying there is a house effect or bias. >> we've done 1400 polls this year. 1400. we've released, what, 20 maybe? in the individual -- you know, when -- >> and your party's having a good year. >> you know, so, i mean, we're doing a ton of surveys. we don't want to release this stuff, and yet we're -- stan, you're from an -- we got c+z, and it's based on 20 polls. it's like, you're kidding me? it's ridiculous.

but take it with grain of salt. the grimes campaign released the day, 1800 survey done over i i think eight days in the field starting on friday night and ending on saturday. my takeaway of that is they did tracking, 1800 in nine days, and they cherry picked those days because those were the very days that showed grimes up by two points. if they'd done it day earlier -- but they cherry picked, uni? take it with a grain of salt. >> i've seen specifically mel than -- not saying specifically mehlman necessarily. >> no. but, yeah, take that with a grain of salt. when you look at some of these polls that showed when they -- [inaudible] likely voter samples and then

their numbers get really crazy it's because they're not doing it right. it's flawed. it's just flawed. so take it with a grain of salt. >> okay. where are the mics? >> [inaudible] >> yeah. and get one after this get one over to jeff. he gave me a plug with my newsletter 30 years ago that was -- [laughter] you know, i'm not biased at all. >> you never have been. michael lubell, and just one comment and then a question. the comment is about georgia. i mean, i think neil said that the election might not be settled until december can. isn't it possible it could go into january? >> yeah. i mean, i keep saying louisiana in december, but there is the runoff provision in georgia -- >> georgia, same thing. >> pushes it to january 5th? >> 6th. >> 6th. >> it's november 4, december 6th for louisiana, january 6 for georgia. >> and it's absolutely certain that louisiana will go runoff. it's entirely possible it could

be georgia as well. so what does that do to, if orrman gets elected in kansas? he's in limbo until -- he doesn't know which way to go. >> and until he decides, he can't get any committee assignments. [laughter] >> but that was not my question. >> sorry. i thought it was interesting. [laughter] >> if you look, if i listen to everything that's been said, this is not going to be a wave election. the races are very, very close. and if we look forward to 2016, what's the takeaway right now in terms of the strategizing since it's not a wave? where do the parties go in the next two years given the fact the presidential's going to start shortly after this election ends? >> good question. let me, yeah, it's not a wave election for congress and senate, but one thing i would like you to take a look at,

state legislatures. republicans are going to make senate gains. if you -- significant gains. if you think it's going to be lower level campaigns, not on the federal level. what does it mean for 2016? number one, i think it means we haven't, as republicans, we haven't addressed the issues that cost us the election in 2012. and i think we still, you know, just like -- the great success we had in 2010 didn't mean squat for 2012. we didn't take that and run with it in the 2012 election, and it was -- that was a challenge for us, and i don't think we as republicans have addressed that challenge going forward, 2016. we face still significant objects cls going into the '16 presidential election regardless of running against hillary, elizabeth warren or anybody else. >> let me jump in. on the senate a lot of the factors that are working against

democrats that i talked about this time flip over and work against republicans. there are 24 republican seats up in 2016. there are only ten democratic seats up. seven -- i've been saying six and went back and counted, it was actually seven -- seven of the republican seats are up in obama states, and there are no democratic seats up in romney states. second, because as neil alluded, it's a presidential election so instead of a midterm like we have now where there's a turnout thumb on the scale for republicans, that thumb's a not on the scale for republicans. so there's a real, you know, republicans really, really, really need to not only win a majority this time, but if they could put an extra seat or two on the scoreboard, they might find that real handy if they have as ugly a year in '16 in the senate a as is entirely possible. but to me, the sort of nightmare

scenario for republicans is this, that their party was so, so pumped up and optimistic about '12 both in terms of the presidential race and in terms of winning a majority of the senate. so they were bitterly, bitterly disappointed. and they came out of it wondering, you know, did we get lied to or was our money not well spent? i'm talking macro, the whole thing top to bottom, you know? and as a result there hasn't been nearly as much money going into republican committees, super pacs,e things as last time or one might expect because the donor community so down on the republican side. and we had a strategy -- i think i may have mentioned this earlier, you know, a republican who said, you know, if it weren't for the koch brothers, we'd be getting blown away financially right now. their keeping republicans -- they're keeping republicans in the game.

so the thing is let's say if republicans only picked up four seats or five this year, so they're sitting at 49/50, they've had with all these amazing factors working in republicans' favor, if they don't get a majority, a, their donors are going to be absolutely in a state of enormous depression, it's going to make it harder to raise money in 2016, and if they're going into 2016 with only 49 or 50 states in an election where they could lose umpteen seats themselves, that's how you get to see democrats up -- they're not going to be at 59, 60 where they were in 2009-'10, but 53, 54. i mean, that would be the worst case scenario for republicans. and so '16, you know, it's just really huge which is why all of you, as soon as the election's over, take a vacation, relax a

bit. this next one, you know, stay tuned. anyway, we have -- >> looks like -- [inaudible] >> the implications for the presidential. as neil indicated, republicans have a base strategy. they believe if they win this, it'll be because their base has turned out in bigger numbers, they've been excited about other issues. but they have taken irretrievable positions on immigration going into this off-year election, they have moved for repealing the executive order for the dreamers. every one of the presidential candidates now is lined up against the idea of legalization of the dreamers. they come out of this election with that being a defining issue if you're a republican, where you stand on immigration, for the hispanic, growing hispanic population. the dreamers is the most important, powerful symbol of whether you understand us.

i've, you know, polled it for l.a. times, a bipartisan poll for l.a. times, there's nothing more porn than dream -- more important than dreamers for the hispanic party. there's a lot of states that are going to be out of play with that. >> okay. last question let's go to jeff, right here. they're giving us the five minute warning. >> charlie, thanks. i was glad to endorse your newsletter back in the '80s. i i'll give you my new address, because the commission check got lost in the mail somewhere. [laughter] we're giving up our landlines and moving to cell phones. i know it's something that's always been discussed, but can you talk about exactly how you figure out to make sure you get a good demographic cut? i think the landline people are older and white males, things like that. >> that would be the predead. >> yeah, the predead. how do you get to that cell phone group? >> money.

i'm serious about this. the democracy corps, you know, does 50% cell phones and rising. but the cost after -- cost of a national poll with cell phones, $10,000 more just dealing with the cell phone portion. now, in a bigger sense it has safed -- there's a cost, but it's actually saved polling. i thought we'd be gone by now. i thought we -- we were so badly, you know, had polls that were so underrepresentative of the country that -- but what's happened is increasingly you can get cell phones. they do cost less. people are increasingly able to be gotten via cell phones. young people and minority voters who are particularly high with cell phones. i thought people would not do

long surveys on cell phones, and i was wrong. the dropoff rate on our polls on cell phones is no greater than on landlines. and so i think the it's saved polling. i think we're still here pontificating because that transition has happened. >> remember eight to ten years ago, nobody gave out their cell phone number. are you kidding me? no. no way. and now it's just automatic. of course you give out your cell phone. i mean, that's where you can be reached. i mean, i can't remember the last time the phone rang at home with a personal phone call, you know? it doesn't happen. so it's what stan said. ten years ago we never would have dreamed we would make a living by calling people with crepes. we do, but, boy, that increases costs. at least 30% of every survey we do is you need to make sure we have another younger voters. you set quotas so that we make sure we have younger voters in our samples. it is much more expensive, more

difficult, more time consuming. i mean, when i first started this business we did volunteer survey research at the republican national committee in the late 1970s. i ran these phone banks, and for every interview we wanted to complete, we polled five telephone numbers. it's probably up to 150 numbers for every interview you want to complete. it's extraordinary. that's why, you know, it costs so much. that's why these media outlets are unwilling to kind of spend the kind of money that they should be spending on this to do it right. there's also, you can do polling by internet, but you know what? in the stuff that stan and i do, we're testing messages. we're testing tough messages pro and against candidates. that allows people -- if we test that over the internet, people take screen shots of that. you don't want your message on front page of the louisville ur