vote in the united states senate. here are 18,000 people that are out of control. if you want to control state government start with the epa and the damage they are doing. specifically let's look at what they're doing to our farmers and ranchers. they are the biggest land grab and south dakota's history. they want to start controlling the water quality of our farm ponds and in our backyards that farmers use on a regular basis. this is crazy and at the same time throughout this whole program we are discussing whether or not big government is good or not? these are failed obama policies that larry you are one of the guys who said he supported obamacare. i'm opposing obamacare and if we are going to step away to do it intelligently. we have to repeal it and replace it on a step-by-step basis and are reasonable fashion. they couldn't keep their insurance. this is not the way we should be doing business at the federal level.

>> moderator: mr. sub i will have plenty of time to talk about it that we need to move the discussion on. another big race has been self dakotas views of the eb-5 investor program. we will get to that coming up next. >> moderator: welcome back to our senate debate. south dakota voters have heard a lot about the state administration of the eb-5 immigrant investor program during this campaign. >> moderator: chuck grassley has been working to root out corruption sewer question to the candidates is will you work with grassley to improve the program or should the program be eliminated? let's start with you mr. howie. howie: they somewhat we have seen in south dakota i'm hard-pressed to say i would support the program. we have seen all of the things

that folks are really wary of everything from missing millions to fbi investigations and we don't know yet if governor rounds is a partner of those investigations. certainly it seems like the 1.6 million that his company took from the eb-5 committee would be worth looking at. i believe it transcends honesty and integrity. the eb-5 program itself picks winners and losers and in south dakota south dakota taxpayers were the losers in the winter seems to be friends and cronies of former governor rounds. i think it's time that we do something different in washington d.c. and that's something different is not spend more of the same career politicians that send someone who has got the record of standing up to powerbrokers and even parks officials when they are wrong and frequently they are.

>> moderator: let's go to mr. pressler in question. pressler: i would favor new immigration bill and i would vote to repeal it. the issue is corruption at the state level and that is why we haven't -- it hasn't been examined and looked at. based on my experience and one's first year in united states senate if there is a problem governor rounds and the people of south dakota might find themselves of find themselves with a weakened senator for five or six years. that is why it's important we should've had an should still have a complete statement of fact from governor rounds on this matter. there's a great deal of corruption in this program. i recently brought the head of the fbi the leading corruption founder in the united states agent goode to south dakota who endorsed me and he said we need to elect honest people with

honest reputations to the united states senate. he felt so strongly about the issues in the south dakota senate race that he came out here as a volunteer and endorsed me based on the issue of honesty and he said in this race we have to be very careful because there are so many unanswered questions. i would point out that governor rounds of his first in the senate will be -- and it could be harmful to the people of south dakota. >> moderator: governor rounds let's go to you. would you repeal this program or improve this program? rounds: i appreciate senator grassley support. senator grassley is a friend of mine in his campaign for me. he has been very gracious with his time and i've appreciated that. i've met with him several times. senator grassley will look at all federal programs. this is one in which he has been around since 1990. every federal program out there

should be reviewed. there's nothing different between this one and the rest. make sure -- that's something we have i done in south dakota. in south dakota we have taken the facts and on the bus to review them. this one can be reviewed as well and i would support that. in fact as a shared with other people there lots of federal programs out there that need to be reviewed. take a look at the failed federal policies that are there now. take a look at obamacare. that has got to be repealed and replaced. take a look at the failure to allow us to build pipelines including the keystone xl. look at what's going on right now in western south dakota and eastern south dakota because of a federal program to build the pipeline. if we could go we would have farmers and ranchers who do get there bring to market. that's an economic boon to south dakota that's not going to happen. record crowds in south dakota we can't get it to market. we can get paid because of the

federal program that they are not taking care of. this president should've had that policy overturned a long time ago and it won't happen when harry reid is in charge of united states senate. this president's policies are on the agenda. they are on the ballot in a vote for anyone up here is a vote for the continuation of president obama's failed policy in south dakota. >> moderator: we will give mr. weiland a chance in a shaking his head. weiland: i have said from the get-go that this is a bad program for the country and it's turned out to be a bad program for south dakota. i would vote to repeal it. one of the first things i would do. this is big money on steroids. this is selling a path to citizenship for half a million dollars to wealthy foreign investors and anytime you have an intersection of big money and politics that breeds corruption. we have seen a lot of that here in south dakota. there are more questions about

eb-5 than there are answers and i guess i'm disturbed about both about mike rounds. he has not been willing to stand up and take any responsibility. he has not been willing to go under oath and answer the questions. he has not been willing to basically tell the truth. when i hear him talking about the jobs that eb-5 five created twitches five created which is 30 been debunked by the south dakota press corps like the jobs he talked about the keystone will create. this is nothing more than half-truths trying to convince people to vote for someone that i believe gordon howie is hard to trust. i've heard him talking about medicare and how it's going to be rocked by obamacare which has been debunked by the national press. i have heard him talk about

wanting to close down bosworth air force base because i got support from some progressive group. i've heard him talk about how he didn't know that there was a deal in southfield going on between mr. boland and a private group that he set up. it's time for some truth and honesty and i've been talking to people and if that's what they want for their next senator then i think mike needs to come clean tonight. >> moderator: a quick rebuttal on this issue mr. howie. what you have to say dead to this discussion? howie: i believe we have seen an exercise in professional d.c. in this whole race and frankly i'm not going to vote for rick weiland. i don't think that's a surprise to anybody that it aggravates me and most south dakotans when we hear one of the candidates say something that he knows is just not true. governor rounds you know that

rick weiland is not going to close ellsworth -- ellsworth air force base. why do you just tell the truth and while you're at it when you give back over the $1.5 million at you and your company took from folks of south dakota. are you ready to do that tonight? let's come clean and restore some trust in your candidacy. >> moderator: mr. pressler what would you improve about the program? governor rounds would use date tonight why the autopsy is than suppress? the people of the state wants out. we have been talking in circles but let's get to the heart of the matter. he was her secretary of commerce in your office every day for eight years. we have not heard a statement for me as to why you think he committed suicide or was murdered or whatever happened to them. this will be dug up by the press if you were in the senate. he should tell us tonight.

you have not been taking responsibility on this issue. have you been taking responsibility and what do you have to add? rounds: this is the kind of trash talking has been going on for over a year and a half. it's been any window and misinformation and mr. hou whiskey is a flat-out lynn. this is not the way we should handle this in the first place but this is what we had with regard to this particular program. this is trash talking. these folks don't want to talk about the real issues that are important to south dakota such as the failed obama policies. they don't want to talk about it because they don't want to talk about the issues surrounding the keystone xl pipeline and issues surrounding their support for obamacare. what they want to do is take as much time away from the real debate issues here so they don't have to defend the failed

policies of barack obama which has the president himself has said are on the ballot this november. a vote for any one of the individuals besides myself is a vote for the failed policies of president barack obama. >> moderator: quickly on the p5 and we will move quickly on to the other issues. howie: south dakota wants a leader someone who's willing to take credit for the good things that happen on their watch watch but not willing to take responsibility when things go bad. we haven't seen that from mike rounds. he is willing to throw everybody under the bus instead of being willing to stand up and say i have made some mistakes and i'm sorry but let's move on. he talks about the issues. we have several debates and forums with gordon how he and senator pressler that he chose not to show up to. we were talking about the issues of me sitting at home complaining in his paid television ad funded by big

money. all we want to do is trash talk and talk about eb-5. i hope the people of south dakota are listening tonight because you have seen the real mike rounds. he doesn't speak truth to power. >> moderator: thank you mr. weiland. according to our legislative poll 60% of south dakota and support building the keystone xl pipeline and 30% are posted. >> moderator: or question for you is do you think the keystone xl pipeline will benefit south dakota do you support the project? this question goes first to mr. pressler. pressler: i feel strongly that the keystone pipeline should be altered in montana and north dakota and midwestern refineries. to hault oil all the way down to louisiana coast to coast and then ship it back to south dakota in the midwest costs 1 dollar a gallon in terms of your fuel costs. i believe strongly that we need

to american pipelines and they should be made into an american pipeline. president obama can alter it or demand it be altered. to go to nd eastward to the refineries in chicago minnesota and wisconsin keeps the oil in the midwest. if we haul it to louisiana's governor rounds suggests and all the way back by train and truck it will be about 1 dollar a gallon more on your fuel bill when you are filling up your car. at the three-point pipeline plan and i resent governor rounds saying that we have not discussed that. we have had all these debates where i presented my plan and he has not attended. we do need to buy plants and north dakota. it's better environmentally to move oil by pipeline than by train or truck that we'll have to haul it back to louisiana by train and truck under governor rounds plan. i would go to see president obama and say please demand that the xl pipeline be altered so it

doesn't go across our precious water supply. we have very little potable drinking water and south dakota and i want to protect the obama water reservoir. it would stay in the region and your gas bill will be 1 dollar less in diesel fuel $1.50 less. >> moderator: mr. rounds you obviously support the pipeline. go ahead. rounds: i do support the keystone pipeline and i support it for a couple of reasons. number one it's a shovel-ready. private industry knew then that we were going to have literally 1 million barrels a day coming out of north dakota. this president has failed to respond to that and even though his own state department has said there will be 42,000 jobs created directly and indirectly and south dakota 3000 jobs. over $20 million in tax revenue

coming in and this is the company that wants to come into our counties and schools and south dakota in western south dakota. this is good for south dakota and also good for america because it allows us to continue creating an energy independent country. keystone xl pipeline brings not just canadian oil down but also 100,000 barrels of north dakota crude. that's trained we won't have to be taking oil out of north dakota and that makes it available for bringing grain out of south dakota. some people would say that's just a drop in the bucket but right now we have more and more oil developed and north dakota. during the same time these farmers and ranchers along the rail lines in south dakota are getting less on a per bushel basis than they would otherwise. here's what's happening. i'll be interchange is a severe filled with trains going to north dakota that are blocking the way so our trains can't get to where they normally go to

drop off corn. we have corn sitting on the ground in me sitting on the ground and soybeans sitting on the ground. it will take two weeks to get our grain from south dakota to where they would drop it now takes three weeks which means that producers have to rent those rail cars or an extra week and that extra cost comes directly out of their paycheck. this is an economic catastrophe waiting to happen and we are seeing it happen because this president failed economic policies in this misunderstanding about how to get the oil to market safely is hurting us directly. this is wrong. >> moderator: we need to move on. mr. weiland can respond. do you support the keystone xl pipeline and do you think he will benefit south dakota? weiland: i don't and it won't. very easy. just do your homework. mike is getting his information from big oil. he has everything to gain we have everything to lose. this is not a -- we are talking

3500 permanent jobs in 1800 temporary jobs. that's like macy's hiring holiday workers for two weeks. this is not energy security for south dakota or the country. this is energy that's being pumped to pipeline down to port arthur texas and is going overseas to be used over there there. it has nothing to do with energy security. this really is the new argument coming from big oil because it has nothing to do with freeing up the rail lines. that's another big oil argument that they are trying to make. they have lost the ones on jobs and energy security. they want that to go to the east coast not to port arthur texas. they're not interested in putting in the pipeline but big oil is so desperate and have people like mike rounds in their hip pocket unfortunately that they are willing to say anything they can to convince the

american people and go been south dakotans the biz -- and now they are 60% out there that think it's a good deal but you have been hearing the propaganda from mike rounds in the oil companies for far too long. it would have been easy to rick weiland to rollover latino it's at the heart of this? we are talking about a pipeline that if kids build, it could basically wipe out the aquifer. we have a lot of farm families and ranchers who are out of business. they have been on the land for five generations. is it really worth it for no jobs and no energy and the whole grain thing that mike is making a? is it worth it to run a pipeline through this country? i don't think so. >> moderator: we will give mr. howie a chance to weigh in on this. howie: thank you. i agree with most south dakota set this pipeline is a net gain for south dakota and frankly for america but the larger question is are we going to have the

united states senate that will work together and develop a comprehensive energy program? we have seen that seau by the kind of leadership that demonstrated with mitch mcconnell and harry reid. they have both failed us miserably. so yes i think there is a net positive but i just can't stop my time without challenging the governor. he sat here and said it was a flat out lie that his company took 1.6 million from izzy p5 committee for his company. i'm just asking you, do you categorically deny the press reports? >> moderator: we are talking about the keystone xl pipeline. anymore and the keystone xl? howie: i'm waiting for response from the governor. >> moderator: mr. pressler let's move on to you for a bottle on the keystone xl pipeline.

rounds: you cannot carry north dakota crude in the same pipeline as a person's oil and that's a lie told to us by the oil companies. the original keystone plan was to move canadian tar sand oil to louisiana. now that they are under fire they say we will put north dakota crude in there. you can't. i looked at an engineering report today. that would be impossible to do so our shippers should not be told that we need to american pie lines to run in north dakota, two american pipelines taking up two midwestern refineries and bring it to south dakota. this is absolutely absurd. >> moderator: mr. brown's a quick rebuttal. rounds: with all due respect to senator pressler i've talked to the individuals building the keystone xl pipeline and they have made it clear that they have reserved 10% of the allowable space on the pipeline to bring north dakota crude

which is a light and sweet crude. it's different from the tar sands coming out of canada. it's not intermix. set up in separate segments to run through the pipeline. one of the things the opponents to the keystone say is they will contribute to global warming. it will reduce the cost to the american consumer by 6 cents a gallon. i don't think farmers and ranchers will burn more diesel. the other part is this. those same petroleum refineries are actually right now this is a replacement for venezuelan crude. we have become more energy independent. we are actually -- >> moderator: mr. weiland we will give you a chance to talk.

weiland: the 10% demand talking to folks exploring and pulling out the bakken sweet crude? no. big oil is a conspiracy going on between keystone and mike rounds wanting to build this pipeline. the folks out there want to send it to the east coast. they don't want to senator pipeline to texas and over to china. it's not about jobs. it's not about energy security. certainly not about bringing up grain cars to move our corn and what it's about frankly and at the end of the day do you know what this is about? it's about greed. it's about greed and making millions and millions of dolla dollars. >> moderator: thank you mr. weiland and we need to give mr. howie a chance. howie: you have heard that 60% of south dakotans approved of the pipeline and what tells that

is 40% don't. i believe both -- >> moderator: 30%. howie: the undecided business has a lot to do with the leadership we have seen in america and frankly in south dakota of late. i believe if we are going to be productive and effective we need to have leaders that we can believe instead of the old argument about information and misinformation. would it be refreshing if we had a leader we can trust? >> moderator: from pipelines to job control. our discussion but the candidate wraps up. >> welcome back to her u.s. senate debate. congress rejected a proposal for high-capacity magazines last year. our question for the candidates to support this type of gun control?

mr. rounds you get the first response. rounds: i and the endorsed candidate of the national rifle association. i believe in protecting our second amendment rights. i think the new attacks are going way too far and i will not support those. the idea behind the second amendment was to make sure constitutional rights to bear and carry arms -- but to take bits and pieces out. the whole final response is that you cannot allow the federal government to make after into our 2nd amendment rights. the only people that will not have guns are those that are law-abiding. the criminals will still have theirs. to me this is a very simple issue. 2nd amendment rights should be defended in south dakota. it's not just about the defense

but the quality of life we get. i got it because i wanted to pass down the heritage to the next generation. if this continues the way it is we may not have that right again so some of us have to stand up and say we understand that a gun is a tool and it should be respected. we have to train young people to do that correctly. we should not be making all of these crazy new ideas and saying some person suggesting that an assault rifle is one thing and you can't have that in rifle without summary shells. >> moderator: we will give mr. weiland a chance. do you support putting restrictions on high-capacity magazines? weiland: i think sometimes democrats get pigeonholed into being against guns and the second amendment. i believe in the second amendment. are people push back sometimes and i disagree with mike here.

we saw another school shooting last week. we need some kind of legislature process that would allow us to do universal background checks and try the best we can with our technology to ensure mentally ill people and criminals don't have readily access to firearms. i don't think that's radical and frankly as i have traveled around south dakota by a vast people that have shown up at my town hall meetings what they think and that seems to be pretty common sense. mike wants to talk about common sense and the values in south dakota. i think a majority of south dakotans are with me on that. the nra is not not your grandfather's nra or your dad's nra. they have a calm a very narrow focused group that frankly i think is being driven somewhat by big-money special interest in

the arms manufacturers that don't want any kind of commonsense legislation. i just think that's unfortunate. we can do better by her kids, by her students, by her teachers and administrators. >> moderator: mr. weiland thank you. mr. howie do you -- howie: the gun owners of america issued their scorecard and rated me the highest of any candidate running for federal office in south dakota. i don't have the celebrity politician endorsing me. frankly i don't know but i want them but what i found interesting is that those celebrities come to south dakota and perpetuates this deception that says some mouth governor rounds is the only pro-gun candidate in this race the only pro-life candidate. my record of support for conservative traditional values is clear. it's crystal clear in the recent

bad misdirection and misinformation is perpetuated is an attempt to keep my record in the backroom and cover frankly for a record on those two issues that the governors we come. >> moderator: thank you mr. howie and mr. pressler your feelings on putting restrictions on assault style rifles and -- pressler: i support the bob dole plan which requires some background background checks if you buy an assault weapon. that does not mean you were strict gun control. i'm a hunter but we need to do something about the killings in our high schools in our schools. that is the present law. i can't see why governor rounds and the nra is against it. i think it's very appropriate that before one buys an assault rifle there should be some

background checks are we not selling them to people who have severe mental problems or her record. almost every case where there has been a problem it is than where someone has been able to buy a gun who should not have been able to. that is a lemon to say that i'm for gun control. you are getting those mailings and tv ads that don't believe it. i have $140,000 in my campaign fund. a lot of them are in this area. i am for the bob dole gun plan which is a republican plan incidentally which calls for some background checks on assault weapons. >> moderator: we will skip the rebuttals and go to another topic the affordable care act being implemented currently. is it realistic to repeal and replace the law and we will go to you mr. weiland. weiland: i came out very early and said you know what we can didn't make us better for everybody is give them an option to buy into medicare.

medicare serves south dakotans well. 140,000 south dakotans rely on it. i have been attacked by mike brown. he represents the insurance industry and i understand their concerns. to be forced to have to compete with medicare i'd be a little bit problematic. they may have to cut the salaries they're ceos are making. medicare works. 97 cents of every dollar goes to pay for health care. 3% goes to pay for salaries. that's not the same when it comes to big insurance. i think giving people a choice between big insurance which will bring down the cost of health care for everyone. even on mike's web site it talks about we need affordable health care insurance. join me and let's -- i have asked them to come out on the road in debate that with me but

he has refused to do that. they didn't want medicare. they have the political contributions and the lobbyists and they killed it when it was being decided in washington. >> moderator: we need to be quick on time. mr. howie. howie: it does not come as a surprise to anyone in south dakota. i do like governor rounds suggestion that we should repeal and replace. we should repeal the entire law and frankly governor that includes you. i think it's time that we put government in its proper role. >> moderator: mr. pressler on affordable care act. pressler: the affordable care act illustrates why i'm running as an independent. the absurdity of -- in this country. this plan was started by governor romney who i supported and gave money to and he is a friend of mine. it was then carried out by

president obama. romney had run the election it would be called, it would be called and all the republicans would support it but because of called obamacare all the democrats supported. it's about the same thing. we do need some form of the affordable care act in south dakota. i've talked to county commissioners. they say that they need something like that so they can push back. >> moderator: we have to move on to mike rounds and you have 30 seconds. rounds: we have to repeal and replace obamacare section by section. it's over $2.4 trillion no plan to pay for it. it will increase the federal debt like you can't believe. it will take away choice for positions and takes away choices for individual patients. medicare subsidized by private insurance industries picking up the difference between the cost

for what medicare paid. if you do what you will see medicare go away as it exists today. if you don't want medicare to exist then follow what rick is suggesting because it will cease to exist as we know it today. >> moderator: thank you mr. rounds. we will be right back. >> welcome back to our new special report for a time for closing statements. mr. rounds you can go first. rounds: tonight you have heard my vision for america. i want to bring common sense to washington d.c.. we have to repeal and replace obamacare. we have to pass the raines act. we have to get the pipeline in the ground. we have to protect our constitutional rights. this is critical for south dakotans but tonight also we have to take that south dakota, and sent to keep send it to washington so well you have her divisions. you have heard my vision tonight that you have also heard from my opponents. you haven't heard of vision from

them. what you have heard some trashing me. that's because they don't have a vision. what they will do with pass a failed approach to policies by president barack obama. a vote for any one of my competitors is a vote for this president's policies. south dakota deserves better. the stakes are too high. i'm asking for your vote and your support. thank you. >> moderator: now to you mr. weiland. weiland: this election is about a fight for the middle class. i also think this election is about the trust and leadership and i've been spending a lot of time talking to people of south dakota and i know what they're looking for. they are looking for honesty. they're looking for someone who show up and fight for them every day in the senate. someone who is going to show up and fight and be on their side. this election is about getting money out of our politics and our government and out of the pockets of people who boast about raising $9 million boast

about spending all their time outside south dakota doing it. there couldn't be a starker difference between mike rounds and i when it comes to this election and our hopes for this country. i believe in the promise of america. i really do and i believe in equal opportunity for everyone. mike rounds supports the paul ryan budget which squashes equal opportunity because it goes after programs and invest the middle class. i believe in the power to vote. as for your vote next tuesday. >> moderator: mr. howie. howie: thanks for the opportunity. this is a sacred trust and i believe this election is very much about who can we trust. can we trust career politicians? if we look back at in history we see george washington who was the example for politics in this nation. actually only served eight years. he wasn't looking for a career advancement.

he was looking for an american advancement. [inaudible] politics should never be a career. it should be a calling, call to service to god and country. i'm asking for your support for conservative traditional values and i will guarantee if you look at my record you will see i will be a strong supporter of the values that south dakota holds dear those conservative traditional values. >> moderator: thank you mr. howie and mr. pressler you get the final word. pressler: there will probably be for independents in the senate. i was endorsed by angus king of main who is a fiscal conservative who very much wants me to join msn and pennon. it appears that there will be in attendance senator selected from kansas. those for independents will challenge the senate rules and get things moving again. the personality we talk about may be gone or change that we must change the rules of the

senate so he put on things that we get things done. i can take my seniority back to the senate to fight for south dakota. south dakota is 20 years of seniority invested in me and i came out of semiretirement as a professor to run on idealism but for one term i have only served six years because income senators have to spend 52% or time raising money. i can work 100% my time for the people of south dakota. they want to go back to the senate take my experience in my seniority fight for the state of south dakota as far as real services concerned are senior citizens and by the way i am for -- social security. don't believe the ads. >> moderator: we would like to thank her candidates for competing in her u.s. senate debate and thank you to the viewers. watch for details coming up on the news at 10. >> moderator: thank you very much.

up next on c-span2 political posters talk about next week's midterm elections. then in new hampshire governors debate between incumbent maggie hassan and walt haven't signed.

now a discussion about midterm

elections. democratic and republican pollsters discuss some of the key issues and races. this 90 minute event was hosted by the bipartisan policy center. >> good morning everybody. i'm a senior fellow at the bipartisan policy center. i like to recognize any of my former colleagues. i see the honorable jim jones former ambassador of mexico and distinguished american pr bomb martin frost distinguished american from the state of texas. martin gave me this book called the partisan divide that he and congressman tom davis wrote that is going to be published fairly soon. i'm giving him a little plot there. and the other former members of the house or senate here in the room? thank you. i want to thank everybody for coming this morning to talk about something which is on a lot of people's minds in washington and i can think of no better beginning than the beginning of the new congress to discuss reasonable ways that our government can work better.

the politics is interesting in the campaigns are interesting but the whole purpose of all of this is to elect a government that is supposed to do right for the people. i think as we look at the issues today we ought to consider how this is going to impact governing america over the next couple of years. and understanding the cause of the partisan divide has been a big issue at the bipartisan policy center for the past two years. with john's leadership we have had something called the commission on political reform chaired by former senator daschle lott snowe governor kempthorne and myself and we have a lot of recommendations on how to get the country back on track and those are available on line. we can get you hard copies if anyone here needs and here needs and could we have three excellent panelists are today better on tv frequently with mark mehlman and amy walter walter. if the decade of experience analyzing elections and politics in washington.

they are here to talk about what they think is going to happen next week and how they think the results will shape the next two years of governing in this country. before handing off the microphone to john i can't resist weighing in on the candidates races that are near and dear to my heart. sometimes we in kansas get paranoid even though we are a wonderful state and everything is beautiful but often we are known for that deepest hand dug well in america and the largest ball of twine. but we also have perhaps the most interesting political environment in the country right now with respect to not only are governors race in our senators rice and secretary of state's secretary of state's racing events on the congressional races out here. when thomas frank asks what's the matter with kansas i see nothing is the matter with kansas. in fact we have genuine debate taking over and a revival of policies bear and other places in the country as well.

whatever the reasons it's clear that over the past decade or two the most conservative candidates have had a successful couple of decades in kansas. notwithstanding kansas natural republican leading his kansas voters are playing close attention in examining the race for governor or senator in secretary of state and even the congressional races based on the results of thing, and tenure its impact on jobs public services global economy and society as a whole. kansas voting patterns historically trend republican. in truth and they dueling republican and i would say i was a victim of that myself in the 1990s. kansans are not wedded irrevocably to one party and people forget the 1978 democratic speaker of the house incumbent republican governor in kansas. in 1990 the state treasury beat a republican governor in kansas and i will talk in a bit about the bob dole race in 1994

because their democratic congressman almost beat an incumbent republican senator but no matter what happens in november whichever party wins these races i'm hopeful that this can be positive not only for kansas but other places as well. senator dole who is one of the founders of the bipartisan top center here in the legend of american politics once told me that elections are therapeutic. i believe he was referring to is specifically a closely run race in 1974 against former u.s. representative bill roy. roy gave him a tough race. senator dole won by about 1%. it was the closest political race in the country post-watergate. each dole and roy spent roughly about $1 million in total in that senate race. today i don't know of $1 million would have bought them three days of advertising. in my view such a close call against senator dole the incentive to pursue more

pragmatic approaches to politics and to do the job with greater stability. senator dole never gave up on his conservative values but he did embody a more inclusive approach to the kansas electorate. he was a senator for every kansan and not just republican kansans. i think that race is also a lesson for both people on both sides of the isle democrats and republicans. the politics can be a way to try to bring people together rather than divide people. no matter how the elections turn out next week let's hope that all the winners not only in kansas but all over the country can follow senator dole's bipartisan lead. with that i turn to john 48 red river democracy project to introduce our great panelists. thank you all very much. [applause] >> thank you dan. i was wondering if you are going to go with the metaphors that we

are falling into a hole or getting bundled up in twine. thank you for that great introduction. we have a great panel today to talk about the midterm elections which are upon us but also to think a little bit about the polarization in our electorate or congress going forward. each of us are going to speak for 10 minutes or so and have a discussion and open it up to your questions. each of us will address the current races but also the longer-term trends and polarization. a series of polls that we did on political reforms some of them directly addressing polarization and some of the policy changes so we will hear more from them on that. ..

see you on our website where he pulled a number of candidates and parties and groups and it's a great panel and i will say a few words and i will go right down the line as well. where are we going in this election and there is a republican direction to this election and i think it's something of the republican

election and three big macro factors in elections at the midterms to go against the president's party. they almost always lose. two midterm elections are a little bit more republican in terms of their composition and i think that people can overstate how different they are. certainly bringing a mix of voters that are more favorable to the republican party. and third, the president's approval rating, which does affect these elections and the president himself has said that he is on the ballot and republicans are trying to sustain that. it does affect these elections and the president's approval ratings have been very consistently throughout the year and finally in the senate where most people are noted, republicans obviously have a lot more seats and focusing your

attention with what they are competing on an very republican places and i will come back to that. because there aren't so many seats like this in the senate and house today. we're republican residents when bylaw, these are those which republicans are quite likely to win and if they win there is a body of others that they will have to win a few seats. so they began with a strong base by having likely winds. aside from that, there are only six other races we would watch. and that is where republicans are leading in the polls, iowa, colorado. two states where we have republican leaning states that are going against the polls that are very close and that is in kansas were dan mentioned and also in georgia.

and certainly these are leaning a little bit democratic and they are swing states within the margin. and so quickly without saying much in detail, the house, again, the direction and number of seats available is not so great. the number of those out there is small and the gains of the modest amount are likely. and so it's hard to say how it's going to go. we have a good republican trend, but many have close races, some against trends and some were republicans my win in a democratic state where democrats could win in other states as well. close the states.

and i think everyone will take this on in a different way. one way of looking at congress and what has happened is to think about how members of congress do this against their party. and these are very common. in 1992 there were many seats that were held by democrats we're republican presidents would win overwhelmingly by our town and we had a measure where there were over 90 seats that democrats could say, that number was a large number. and a substantial number in democratic places and today we

think about others on the democratic side, some of who are retiring like that on the democratic side. so i think that we will see some of the trends continuing and that is my point in the senate. if those seats that we are talking about in montana and alaska and west virginia, is a term republican we will be left with a few seats left better like that. joe manchin is still in west virginia and you have a camp in north dakota. and a few republicans. that is a state that is democratic, she's a republican. and that is just a tiny fraction of the senate and those members of the senate where the most moderate. if you think about a member from a swing district, they are not necessarily much different than

their average member of congress. but this is where you find a democrat representing and a republican representing. so we have some sort of trend at least in the senate that we have been seeing over the last 30 years, less party voting represented. so with that, i'm going to turn to our guest. when you think about the races and some of the work as well. >> thank you to the bipartisan policy center for putting this on and for inviting us. we have really enjoyed working together. some of the worker we have done is very interesting stuff and i encourage you to go on the website and take a look at that. and it's also important to share

this. these two are truly voices of reason and the very best in their fields. and it's a privilege to be on the podium with both of you. john has done a good job of sketching this environment and those of us who in the polling business has seen this coming for a long time and we are constantly on the lookout for a way and we knew that thunderstorms could develop even if they are not on the radar at the moment. so we are constantly scanning the radar. but within last week to 10 days

we have started to pick up the thunderstorms developing. and there were was only four percentage points up a week before the election, the tuesday before the election that we were pulling through the weekend. and so on thursday he was up by seven and saturday he was up by nine and the following tuesday he beat an incumbent democratic senator by 14 percentage points. he gained 10 points in the last week. but unless you're pulling through the weekend you would miss it. so we are starting to see this now, as we sit here the thursday before the election of a building of a republican wire. but in "the washington post" just came out with this, 66 to

64. cbs news came out with one where we have generic preference for republicans at a point. and this includes 57 to 39. the generic preference for republicans in 2010 was about four. just to put that in context. there's a real sense where you are starting to see republicans favored now a lot of the bigger issues they had it been a few weeks ago on the economy. and in states where republicans

have done well or even better, and we are starting to see an expansion of the republican leads. we are a week away from the election, but it's fair to say that we are starting out to see the evidence of this wave and if you follow the polling through the weekend, you will be able to get a sense of just how big that wave is likely to be. and i agree with john, i think the republicans are likely to pick up the three in west virginia, south dakota and montana and i think that republicans are likely to do very well in louisiana, although it'll probably be a runoff in louisiana and we may not know until december. but if mary landrieu and cassidy are in a runoff, the object overwhelmingly favoring chastity in that race. iowa and colorado are two of the

swing states where wave comes in and it's going to be enough to do this. and so we get a commendation of the larger forces and the broader environment and you have the makings of a significant way. and that is something this year that is kansas. if you would've told me that a

incumbent republican governor and senator will both be in tough races for reelection in kansas, and here we are and there's a lot that we all have to learn. in the house i think the best bet right now is probably upper single-digit gains for republicans and if this wave comes and ended substantial as it is at the moment it could sweep republicans together and so assuming that we are right or republicans take control of the senate although that may be december 6 with a louisiana runoff or maybe even january 6,

assuming that they control the house and senate, what does this mean? well, to a certain extent i think that the outlook depends on the press. bill clinton in 1994 lost control of congress and said that i need to recalibrate here and he figured out how to work with some of the republicans and welfare reform being one of them. and he had less ability to work with his own party in order to get something done in congress and i will just issue one

morning when it comes to polarization. this is one question from the survey that mark and i did in february 2013 and i have to give credit where credit is due. this is a stroke of genius that came up with this idea and we asked about education policy and a split sample. and we have reduced class sizes in our schools and now the republicans have proposed is making sure that they teach the

basics. democrats have proposed increasing teacher pay while licking making it easier and so republicans love the republican plan. seventy to 10. and this was the republican plan and the democratic plan and everybody goes to their corners and said let's support our plan.

>> this guy knows his audience, i will tell you that. >> thank you for my invitation. i'm happy to be here today. and i don't disagree with anything that has been done and i am much more interested in what happens after the election and what is happening on election night, even though it is christmas to me. i have been staring at these boxes with a big bow on them for weeks and i have been shaking the iowa senate one.

and that is something that we need to look at, does this look at a 1995 way that both sides recognize that we can't get this done without the other one and move forward. the idea of the long-ago times. so for those of us who live especially in dc, we will appreciate this and in the dc area. we have a county board election in arlington and this is the county board and we want them to worry about the roads and they

gave me the positions on obamacare and gay marriage and they're giving you their positions everywhere else. and i just want to make sure that those streets are paved and the schools are funded and it has to be that. you can't possibly vote for this especially in arlington where it is a democratic county. just to let you know that i didn't vote for ken and i love gay marriage. so even if those are not issues that you shouldn't be should be concerned about, people are still voting based on that sort of mentality. you can't possibly be good as an independent because we can't trust on those other issues. so i think that we are kind of trapped in that cycle. the other thing is watching politics since 1994, the batters about the elections is when we

talk about what clinton was able to do in 1995 and he was able to do it because there were moderates in the house. in the house and in the senate. there were peoples that were republicans in new england and democrats in the south and they all wanted to work together because they knew it was in her best political interest and there are zero republicans in new england in the house. john boehner is the last man standing in the south in georgia is a white southern democrat. and so i say this to both sides that democrats won in 2006 by turning every republican, including the moderate middle republican into a caricature of george bush and all the badness of frustration including moderate democrats in every

republican turned to this character of obama. so there's not much to work with. and typically but the republican party in the selection, yes, we have to talk about this next legislative session. and about who they want to be and who their agenda is going to be. they have been very successful in this 2010 election about making the case against barack obama and how terrible he is and how terrible his policies are. there's never been a positive case made for the republican party.

it doesn't work with midterm elections or when you're trying to be elected as. and it is clear that the leadership wants to get something done. kevin mccarthy talking about how there's going to be cooperation and mitch mcconnell talking about the regular rules and regular order. this is going to be a collaborative process. the crappy thing that we're going to to work with both come in a house in the senate, we're going to get together and focus on an agenda. and some say that sounds fantastic. so it's kiloliters back and look at who the people are in congress would have to agree for this from their leaders. and so when you look at how there are three charts that i put together but i think highlight just how difficult this is going to be for

republicans to bring the party together, the first is the brookings institute which has done a great job looking at primaries this year and if you go back to 2004 primaries are getting more competitive which is not surprising and they are getting less competitive at the general election level in more competitive at the competitive level. as the margins have narrowed with his and her challenger, he saw where we heard from the mainstream media that the tea party was dead and that all those incumbents survived. ..

>> >> we want more cooperation cooperation, we don't want pitchforks or torch's to take the place down u.s. republicans specifically do want to see cooperation? the question how they ask it in "the washington post" poll is working in a bipartisan manner verses sticking to your position 50% said stick to the

position. begat teapartier only 30% one compromise. sova identified teapartier voters that does not say i want to see republican leadership to go out to work with the president and i think that is somewhat problematic. hoodies think has a vision for the country? the republicans nor the president who has a vision to move forward? 40 percent of republicans think that republicans have a vision for the country so it is a report -- a problematic place to be right now. i would argue the best news is that they don't have a very good night because what

every party does is they take it as a mandate that everything they have done is right and everything else is wrong with donated compromise we picked up 12 seats in the house doing everything right. and that will lot be governed with a much bigger challenge for the republican party right now we think it is time to how mr. to compromise with the white house. >> everything has been said that not everyone has said it. that with this gentleman

everybody on the panel individually i am not a southern gentleman. [laughter] let everyone is wonderful and i am delighted to be here. [laughter] but to talk about the election item think it is all over. i am still fighting so i will talk about the election for a couple of minutes then talk about the future implications there are three of four factors that are largely central but are underlined the first is a mid term that is the most single fact about the election they are not kind

to the power party in the white house only three times since 1862 has not lost in the house and those are extraordinary times in 2002 the country was still in the grips of 9/11 1998 the republicans bill clinton and in 1934 the country was coming at a real depression so these are unique circumstances. we'll have anything that significant going on by any stretch of the imagination besides ebola so this is a mid term and the party in power loses seats on average 30 seats in the house. in terms of democratic lawsuits in the senate it is

not nothing so the fact to read some of that commentary that thinks that it did not have a history that democrats will lose some seats but it is just history and presidential approval is important it may be the better they do the less well they do the president obama is currently 42% plus or minus putting them above george bush's standing in 2006 and slightly above ronald reagan in 1982 and

far below where clinton was with 65 percent and bush as 68%. dramatically different but the reality is this president's approval rating is not so hot. why? the economy is recovering people notice consumer confidence in the most recent reports that a seven year high but the reality is there not in sync with the a economy and then with all the foreign policy chaos with those economic improvements. read the wrong fair or not people believe the president should control as well as

war in other countries but right or wrong they will the president responsible. and that affects as well but with a growing correlation with us congressional senate and at the gubernatorial level is very hard for a democrat for red state or republican to win the blue state there is a much tighter coordination but that made many of the seats that we are defending our incumbents in those red

states but those that are in danger are the democrats because of this increasing in changing correlation. but the reality is the math is the greatest enemy this year because of 2016 we have blue state republicans who are up for reelection. but i have to say clearly but if republican end up winning but if they did is that a wave than the democrats lose the average

number? i am not sure. then i think we can agree but it is not that important but not necessarily lot of cheerful thought. but the reality is the correlation with the denny for democrats this year but it does change in 2016 but we are defending a lot more seats than republicans and that matters a lot. there is one wild card that is part of the images and people don't like congress or democrats the truth is the republican party images at a low point historically. and no major party has ever

been as unpopular as today how will that affect the election it will with the benefactors but we don't know exactly how. but that it helps us at some level. >> and with the 47 seats that they have to win to keep control of the senate's but if they win and there is said good chance. but georgia and alaska i was colorado louisiana kentucky only three of those need to go to the democrats in order

to keep control every one of these democrats as a path to victory and it is very narrow and the likelihood that all of those democrats will potentially navigate the path to the and it to be achieved that is at least for the moment still being a little uncertain yet what will happen exactly but the reasons underlying with the discussion of the future and the role the polarization but the reality is once upon a time politics was local but today it is all partisan. that is a fundamental fact of life and the question

that makes it very clear the policy is less important to him the label. there is greater people talking about partisanship today in the past only one recent survey settled in a percent only 9% was the culmination democrat and republican. can you imagine? what about the other categories? [laughter] race, sex, gender, only 9%? so the reality is with the tremendous social distance that they though consistently in the same way moreover that they're no

permanent friends then could enemies with shifting coalitions that is not true anymore by now would get every single issue in the same people lining up again. then you go deeper and deeper and deeper that is the political reality just to say people are voting democrats or republicans and that is creating a partisan divide that is real and substantial and encourages and engenders the antipathy that makes it very difficult to cooperate in any meaningful way. >> we have time to talk among ourselves but you are

a proponent but give us an example of a race that you are watching that fifth babydoll the kids in play but it would be indicative of the republican direction but then take on a mes point that maybe republicans would be better off with a small victory? may be a larger one than we expect? what would we see from the atmosphere out of that? >> one state to keep an eye on is to hampshire with the general assumption is that gene will coast into reelection but the numbers are getting closer and closer if scott brown wins it is a pretty good indication of the wave.

i'll take up the challenge. >> thinking 1984 house the feels close but they all fall the same direction and if we have that situation next tuesday with a lot of senate seats by one and zero or two points that all the same direction that is a pretty good definition of a wave. i happen to think the more republicans in the senate and the house of better. i can tell you there is enormous frustration for the lack of debates and the

inability there is a pent-up demand on our side for the senate to function as a deliberative body as it is supposed to. in the republican caucus there will be enormous pressure to be bored to lucrative than it has been but i am hopeful more than 51 seats to what it never ends up being that it will the the the republican caucus to adjust the way the senate has been run to be the body is supposed to be. >> i have two points. looking to history but the

closest races as a tossup going into the election this has happened to the point the average 80% to go one way or the other not 50/50. 460% on one side. and in one case it was 70% it would not be this way and then that went that way colorado this way but a really gives the good sense it is true they can stay

close to the end but the other point is a good one that how the senate is run. coming out yesterday or the other day with a charge i am on one side or the other voting with every single campaign and had with 96 percent with the president and the irony of that when democrats put themselves in that position by saying we will not vote on everything unless we have consent among democrats so let's not embarrass the white house to protect my vulnerable democratic incumbents but in doing so amended they could show distance from the white

house to vote on pieces of legislation to offer amendments. to have a 100 percent voting record to but they keep trying to say that but have no ability to show that. if i was a republican in control knowing i have pennsylvania and new hampshire and ohio i would try to find is many opportunities to give them a chance. it may not be popular there but it would be at home. >> and let's be honest that some points in the past it

is all about the partisanship to have message amendment though it's to improve legislation designed to put them in got seat that is a republican majority to say i will not force them to vote on the democrats to force us on the record. that is what unfolds. it is about partisan competition republicans understand 2016 will be a better year but they are looking to control the process than the reality is that will move on whoever is a majority to greater levels of control and less

freewheeling debate that happens with no permanent friends or permanent enemies. that makes it very difficult to run the institution on a. >> first of all, i will give you a chance. but to make the point about the primary challenges the common story is there not a lot of knocking off those incumbents but significant challenges are pretty close you want to elaborate on the future?

>> but this is where pat roberts is a great example to win the battle that i have to win a primary and to do that i need to move to the right with the clever with the white house then two's said up perfectly very far right controlling the republican party feeling very frustrated with that weighing of the party is not so much to elect a democrat or republican but what kind of republican do want to re-elect? by moving so far over to the right he set up a great argument to say he is not who you think he is.

it anyways to take chances off the table it would be better to have a candidate. >> and pat toomey although he is leader of that teapartier challenger that it would be a tough race even new hampshire for portman and in the presidential turnout that is something to watch for. but i do think in some point with that moment where we

have hit rock bottom and we have to let themselves keep dropping to be a national party and democrats had that moment we will define and we will continue to hold congress as a good regional party late think that is where republicans find themselves now that is enough for control of congress but if you win 270 electoral votes you have to win north carolina and virginia and florida and ohio right now we don't see the brand getting any better

in the day after the election to say all i am sorry we are wrong. [laughter] they have to figure that out. but there are two kinds of people there want to know who will win or lose then people like me better commentating to write a column the next day i wanted it to be over. net is not like extra innings. [laughter] no, no, no. to be up all night to be awake and a life. [laughter]

this would not be great if north carolina and new hampshire rather polls closed early if either goes republican and i to be pretty confident to start my column as republicans go to the majority in the senate blah, blah, blah. if marks scenario was corrected there is not know ways building and they break the way they sit is as light at a disadvantage to the democrats that i have two's stay up all night. alaska does not even close until 1:00 in the morning our time. [laughter] then the territory to bring the balanced down we will never know. [laughter] >> with that dilemma facing the republicans' 2016 i don't underestimate the challenge that amy lays out

at all pliable enough and a number of us can remember the republican from the electoral college when we would talk about the 1980's when it would just be impossible for the democrats to put together an electoral college majority because the republicans had such a lock. along, as bill clinton i afford death penalty and end welfare redefines the party then all of a sudden they moved into the white house eight years no party has a firm lot on anything. that is a lesson that history teaches because eventually the losing party get sick of losing. and they make the changes necessary to become more competitive. i am convinced the republican party is one good presidential nominee and one presidential election away from resurrection it just has to be the right nominee

and the right message. look at how quickly the democrats turn this around you have to assume that no party has a lock on the white house over a long period of time. >> and to take this on before i get to that talk about the republican primaries but not so much they're not so many democratic primaries but few were bred state democrats why don't we see that? water your thoughts on that? >> with democrats in the white house you all there the blue jerseys but then when we lose everything he

does makes me crazy. that is just like life in general. it is easier to be frustrated it is one piece of it that this is much more homogenous whether focused on the democratic side is not that there are not big gaps like a marriage or abortion or contraception you pretty much had unity even on the economic message with the blue dogs on trade and those issues but for the most part with a cohesive agenda.

. .

since world war ii there is only been one time when a presidential party seeking a third-party term has one and that was george bush after two

terms of ronald reagan and he certainly couldn't get that fourth party. there's a natural inclination towards change in the country so two terms of democrats like we had makes it a realistic possibility for republican is to win the presidency and nothing is going to happen. thanks to the strength of our candidate. it's not crazy and it's a possibility. in terms of governing, if democrats keep control is not going to look much different than if republicans take control in the sense that not much is going to get down because there will be enough republican shirley to brock -- blocked the senate from doing anything in there would be a president who would stop republicans if they succeeded in doing something that he is doing and there will only be modest areas of

agreement. in those areas where agreement can be found we may have progress. i want to make one final point on this and it goes back to the education question that we had talked about. part of what it is tells us as we are highly partisan and people are normatively sensitive to queues. if the republicans just as president obama stood up and said i'm for same-sex marriage in the african-american community and moved overwhelmingly within days toward supporting same-sex marriage. if a republican stands up and says i'm going to make changes in our party platform the republican base will follow and so it's a very important measure. somebody has the courage to take those on the republican side and

move the party. if they do they have a real chance of being more competitive. i think it's going to be harder for them. >> we are going to turn it over. a mic is going around the rim and what i would like to do is wait for for the m and odata for yourself and keep it a question. are the mics and the? i will identify martin frost. >> via the 64,000-dollar question for witt and this goes to the possibility of bipartisan agreement. is the republican party capable of getting immigration reform because in order to have a real shot at the presidency they probably have got to have -- they have got to do somewhat better among hispanics than i have done previously.

whenever anyone on the republican side suggests that they might consider immigration reform their right-wing base cl's amnesty and everybody disappears so can the republican party operated under bipartisan basis on this issue? >> the short answer is yes. it's going to take real leadership but we so real leadership in the four senators to join the gang of eight in the senate and produced a bill that got 68 votes. i think in the house you are unlikely to get a comprehensive bill but it's just as good if you get a series of individual bills that gets you to the same direction. there's an overwhelming consensus among republicans, not just entire voters but among republicans in the country that the immigration system is broken that it is a drag on our economy, that it is not serving the interests of anyone very well. so you have an obvious problem that is linked to the number one

issue which is the sluggish growth of the economy and you have hopefully enough people who are willing to put together a set of proposals that will help to make the system better. i think that's entirely possible. it's going to take some real leadership to do that. it's going to take what mark suggested i think at the presidential level somebody willing to take on that issue and articulate the case for it. but i will tell you within the republican party among republican voters there is a strong agreement that we have got broke in system and we can make it better. so i'm hopeful that will lead to a concrete result in the next congress. >> okay we are going to get the microphone and we have a question right here. >> my name is tom hill and i've worked for the national conservation association. i have a question.

you all have agreed that one reason for the difficulty in bipartisanship work in the congress is the extreme partisanship that exists across the nation and i'm just curious why you think that has occurred. what were the underlying reasons for that? you didn't mention the reasons and i'm just wondering if you have some thoughts. i have my own thoughts that i can tell you later. >> up i could just add to that question which any of you can take this but in your polling you did with us one of the questions please sought to get after it is it washington are the people? maybe you want to highlight some of those things. >> i will just do it while he's looking and i will give you what

i think is one culprit. there are multiple at one of the nationalization of the news i think is one piece of the reason we are having a nationalization of politics. this idea that all politics is local, you have got your news locally and then also watching what is happening nationally. now if you look at where people are getting their news sources is much more nationalized that it is localized. part of that is the focus of newspapers on the bigger quote unquote stories which do the big stories coming out of new york or d.c.. we don't have the boots on the ground to be able to go and spend a whole lot of time especially here in california and get digging in and doing those deep dives. we are going to get everything from where all the action is happening cheaper and that's

where people are taking their cues from. as i said we are voting on a county level position where the issues are marriage and obamacare. that's a tough challenge. >> our survey addressed precisely that question or at least the americans perception of whites become more partisan. there's overwhelming agreement that we have become more partisan in recent years. we asked whether it's because republicans have become more conservative court democrats have become more liberal or both had changed about the same. about one third of republicans think it's because democrats have become more liberal and one third of democrats think it's because republicans have become more conservative but the overwhelming answer is both parties have changed. most people think that's bad. is it a good thing because it gives voters a real choice or isn't a bad thing because division makes it harder to get things done? three-quarters of each party thought it was a bad thing.

there is one interesting twist. we blame everything on washington. other deep divisions because the political parties in washington, but they are not deep divisions among everyday americans. the american people have more common than the government makes it appear or are there divisions between the political parties because they are divisions among everyday americans, divisions between doing democrats and republicans reflect the deep divides between american people majorities of independent republicans and democrats thought they were deeper divisions among the political parties than they were among the american people. >> the american people are wrong about this in the sense that they are much more divided than they think they are. they like to blame washington blame the parties but it's reflected in where people live increasingly, neighborhoods or counties one-party counties are

increasingly one-party counties. people are less likely to live with people people from either party but if he asked what the source of this is i think the source of it is, there are a lot of sources. another part is the basic sorting we have gone there in the country that is leased to have liberal republicans and conservative democrats. we don't have that anymore. we have relatively homogeneous and it goes back to what i was talking about before but it's also true in the public at large. people are much more conducive in terms of their beliefs and their partnership and that creates a much bigger divide between people and among people that existed before. that continual tension makes it less likely you will marry someone of the other party makes it less likely you will live with someone of the other party

and that makes it less likely you will work with them as well. >> those of us with advanced degrees in political silence -- science and that includes a number of us that there will remembered old political science article called towards a more responsible two-party system that was primarily driven by the desire to have democrats be liberal and republicans be conservative and responsible two-party system would be better for the country. well folks this is what we have got. >> we are voting like we are in a parliamentary system but yet we have a two-party system. it would almost be better if we said let's just have 15 parties so that you can have the lamel democratic party and the liberal moderate tea party in the tea party in the establishment republicans in and the green party here. that's a way to make it more effective. >> one point i wanted to echo

especially with amy and mark were saying we have certainly a nationalization of our parties and it's hard to say if someone can call themselves an alabama democrat or massachusetts republicans republican and distinguish themselves from the national party. it's a little more possible in the governor's race. if you look at some of the governors races you might see a bit of that also it has also moved in that direction but you may see some surprises where republicans are moving into a very democratic place and the democrats and in the other direction more than the other races. >> usually at the state level. >> just one comment on amy's point i remember the study commission in the united states said look what we really have to be more like the british system. that's the way to change american government at the same time there was a commission in britain that said we have to be like -- like the israeli system where you have a commission in

israel that says we have to be more like the american system. so you know we can make all these changes but it does not work out that way. >> we have more questions. i will try to hit all parts of the room. >> whit witt talked about americans feelings that washington is more divided than american having served as a committee counsel for 14 years in washington i think that might be true and i wonder what people on the panel would say about the idea that real solutions to problems that are now basically impossible to reach in washington because washington is deadlocked might be achieved in the same way that states originally forced congress to propose the bill of rights. using the article v powers that they have and the threat of that article v power there've republicans and democrats in state legislatures might

actually decide to work together as politicians in washington don't often seem to be able to do to force reforms on congress that can't happen here. >> it's a good idea. i have no idea how to answer the question. >> the states tend to work better than congress in part because states are far more homogeneous in their political outlook and in their value structure. and so there is less of the divide like mark is talking about in massachusetts or in an alabama than there is when you throw them all together. there is at least a greater possibility for cooperation and states working together but count me skeptical. >> actually the problem we are seeing out the state level is that what we have always thought about washington and its dysfunction and partisanship is

showing itself in the state. there are fewer and fewer states where you have a divided one party controlling the legislature in one party controlling the governorship and you have the senate and a d governor. you have one-party control in more states than certainly in recent history. i don't know how far back we would have to go. what we have seen and i think part of this is making these competitive governors races and in the case of north carolina leading into the senate race is that those one-party legislature governorships are creating a more polarized partisan climate and pushing more ideological agendas and it has hurt somebody like governor hickenlooper in colorado especially on issues like guns and a way that's not always appreciated across the state and in north carolina

where tom tell us the republican speaker of the house is struggling, because they are republicarepublican-controlledln governor pushing an ideological agenda. that is out of step with a purple state. so i think that is the one fear at least that i'm saying about the states. they used to be these places that were laboratory side ideas and we could get bipartisanship working and had tours and fixers and now the states are becoming as polarized as ever. you can't have a more ideological agenda and the states can look a mob more like washington then increasingly they are. >> the red states on the republican side are getting redder. their portion of the republican control of the state legislatures in the southern states has been growing over the last dozen years to the point where they are virtually

uncompetitive. >> question? okay. >> i would like to ask about leadership versus the actual senators and a republican congress. my experience in covering it though is the senior citizens -- senators are very frustrated that nothing is getting done but not just the senior citizens, the junior senators are frustrated too. i remember at a hearing where a bill to reform fannie mae and freddie mac had have a hugely difficult issue had actually passed but it wasn't going to be brought up on the floor. heidi heitkamp was just beside herself with frustration as a democrat and bob corker from

tennessee a republican was equally frustrated. so one has a sense of the senators don't want to go out there to do nothing so why is it your sense that this will last for a week and then it will be all over and it will get back to normal when my sense is many senators on both sides really want to get something done? >> i think that's absolutely true. it's true with every senator. i don't think there's anybody from the top leadership to the most senior members who don't want to get a lot done. this is a case where what starts to happen his politics gets in the way so when you say we will have a fannie freddie reform bill and i don't know the details of that for the context but when someone says okay we want to have an amendment and

put the democrats for obama camp is and it has difficulty in deciding whether to support this or not, that is what leads people to say leadership to say we are not really going to do this. if we are going to take staff and stop giving health care to our staff like most employers do in the country we are not going to do that. it's irresponsible to do it like they want us to do. democrats much more responsible for sure but we will do political things to mackinac republicans will say wait a minute we don't have to vote on these things. that ends up shutting down the process. the only way you can get around it is when people say you know what, it's more important to get to the business of the country done that it is to score political points and we are

willing to sit back and not score political points. when you have the current minority leader saying in the context of the last election the single most important objective of republicans was to prevent obama from being reelected is pretty clear what the number one objective is. keeping obama from being reelected. if he was speaking honestly he would say his number one priority to become the majority leader which is a big if, i would tell you he won't say publicly that if he was on a lie detector he would say my number one priority is to keep the republicans in control in the next congress. >> what you just articulated was exactly what i hear from our senate, just exactly. and at some point you have got to say i didn't come up here just to perpetuate myself here and get absolutely nothing done.

we elected you to take a few risks and indeed take a few political risk to get something good done for the country. at some point i hope somebody will be persuasive enough in the senate so that they will be willing to take at least a few political risks and do something little like pass the budget for the federal government. >> we have a little bit more time. maybe i can go all the way to the back there. >> thank you. i may have missed this but i haven't heard any of you talk about the populist sentiment in the country the frustration with wall street, the corporate influence in our politics, the decline of the middle class. how is that affecting the election now and how will it affect the election in 2016? >> i think it will be a central

theme in 2016. if you look at republicans like marco rubio and mike lee this whole idea of increasing upward mobility of regenerating hope in the middle class and dealing with the lack of opportunity for middle-class families is going to be central to a lot of what they talk about. and indeed that is central to why so many people think the country is going in the wrong direction right now. the sense of frustration with the economy and the lack of upward mobility, difficulty in getting the kinds of opportunities that historically we have come to expect. so i think precisely those issues will be right at the heart of much of the presidential debate probably in both parties. >> i think voters have been asking for an answer to that issue since 2006. they haven't gotten an answer that they particularly like on those issues and they feel like

they have been saying to washington we need you to figure out how to fix this economy especially for those of us who feel trapped that we are the middle class and we are and have not seen any of rise in income in 15 years being able to send your kid to college or have retirement now seems like they are pipe dreams and washington has come back to perceive some politically motivated agenda. i completely agree this is what 2016 is going to be. that is a challenge for both parties which is how do you go into this next election with an agenda that looks like it's addressing those concerns and there's an actual policy proposal on the table rather than just saying if you do the things that republicans want we are all going to be eating dogwood out of cans and grandmas never going to get her social

security and if you do things the way democrats want we are going to be you know socialist country where we are going to look like canada with her health care plan. so we have got to get away from that. i think there's a reason why we have in this election the fact that we are not talking about this issue and we are going to see a drop-off even in a midterm election of voters even below where we see it normally in the midterm elections. we are seeing now a national viewer people interested in the election and fewer people voting than we have seen in 2006 or 2010 and i think that's exactly because those issues aren't being talked about. >> i think that has been the theme of every major democratic campaign. it's being drowned out by the other side focused on obama

which is all the other side is really talking about. that is just sort of a fact of life presumably in 2015 the obama keyes will fade a little bit and both sides will debate the issue. there is one other problem and the problem is people are increasingly confident that there's anything the government can do really to solve not only that problem but many others if not most of the problems as well. the level of confidence in our institutions is continuing to reach new lows. peoples believe that government can address those economic problems is really in tatters and that makes it extremely difficult for anybody to advance those plans successfully because people just don't buy it. that's just a fundamental problem. >> just as election campaigns have a finality where the last

vote is cast on election day so does panels we are at the end of our time but please join me in thanking this fantastic panel. [applause] [inaudible conversations] bing a couple of live and study about. first discussion of the midterm elections and the latino vote. we will hear from the present of the congressional hispanic caucus institute and the director of hispanic media for the republican national committee. watch live coverage from the national press club tomorrow at 10:00 eastern here on c-span2.

and on c-span a conversation on oil prices energy analysts and economists will look at the political and economic effect that lower energy prices might have been one it could mean for russia, iran and venezuela. live coverage from the wilson center starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> the midterm elections are less than a week away and c-span has more debate coverage tonight. up next to new hampshire governors debate between incumbent maggie hasan and while havenstein.

new hampshire incumbent governor maggie hassan is running against governor bob havenstein. mr. havenstein is a former ceo of an aerospace company. this debate was held in concorde and is courtesy of an h. one and wpi and tv. >> moderator: tonight the showdown for governor new

hampshire the incumbent democrat maggie hassan running for a second term in congress and republican challenger first time politician while the havenstein kisses her reckless spending. she says he's nothing but a failed ceo. the debate starts right now. ♪ ♪ >> moderator: good evening. i'm political director paul site has her. welcome to the crucial debate in the gubernatorial and congressional election. tonight the race for governor. let's introduce her candidates democratic candidate maggie hassan was away in private practice before being elected to the state senate in 2004. she served three terms in the state senate. she was elected governor in 2012. she's the second woman following gene gene to be elect