the proper i.d. there, that were not counted. many of which were cast by individual who had been casting ballots for decade. we can't due to secrecy laws in the state and every state is again different in this respect, know for sure who those people are. only the government in the state knows. but, you would have to believe that none of those people were actually eligible to believe that this, these sorts of laws have not ha had an impact. provisional ballots are a useful fail-safe but as mr. von spakovsky mentioned, some of the states with the most restrictive laws, require you show identification in order for those ballots to count. so it is a useful placebo on election day but for someone who does not actually have the i.d. in question, it does them absolutely no good to cast this

ballot that will be thrown out. . . plea silencer cell phones so we can have your full attention this morning. we want this to be a lively discussion and we want to hear from you this morning. so we would welcome your comments, your questions and your feedback via twitter, hashtag in j. day after.

we will also be accepting questions via twitter seize our moderators will have ipads in hand. going to pose your question that way that's fantastic. we will also be circulating with microphones during the event. if you'll just state your name and organization when posing a question that would be helpful. i want to get a quick rundown of this morning's program. first we weaken with a panel moderated by ron fournier, "about last night: analysis of key election results and outcomes." the next panel getting congress to govern will be moderated by ben pershing, and the final panel, a conversation with case papers will be moderated by michelle cottle. closing the program will be a conversation with charlie cook. this morning's event would not be possible without the generous support of the american society of anesthesiologists and united technology. here this will provide opening

remarks is chief executive officer of the american society of anesthesiologists. welcome, paul. i will turn it over to you. [applause] >> great. thank you, and good morning. we are very excited to be here and look forward to this very interesting program of analysis and discussion regarding the impact of yesterday's elections and the impact that they will have on the country moving forward. just as all of you, we of the american society of anesthesiologists watched with great interest yesterday's election. our 52000 members are deeply affected by the actions of government and we look forward to continuing our role as a political advocate and health care community leader. asa and members of her% in washington, d.c. by our chief advocacy officer, and his legislative regulatory and political teen.

as one of the largest health care political action funds in the nation, we also make it a priority to support candidates who understand the critical role physician and anesthesiologists serve in providing care to americans. one of the most important issues to our physician anesthesiologist members is patient safety. asa has been a leader in advancing patient safety and improving the quality of care our members deliver to patients since before the term patient safety was even part of our national lexicon. we always have been and continue to be the leading medical specialty championing the safety of health care for our patients. when seconds count, physician anesthesiologist save lives. asa is proud to serve the needs of patients, providing our members the tools and knowledge necessary to deliver the best and safest medical care possible while advancing the practice of anesthesiologists. as part of our commitment to patient safety, asa also works

to advance innovative new models in health care delivery and payment, including the surgical home, i just really to our nation's drug shortage problems, team-based anesthesia care, inpatient access to high quality and effective pain medicine. as the health care landscape continues to evolve, we look for opportunities to apply asa's commitment to patient safety and quality of care to states and federal legislation and regulation. with that we would like to thank you once again for coming to the days day after event and we look forward to enjoying this very important program with you. without i will turn back over. thank you. [applause] >> fantastic but we will get started with our first panel,

"about last night: analysis of key election results and outcomes." i want to welcome to the stage n and seven who is a senior reporter for "national journal," and ron will be joined on stage with whit ayres, president of northstar opinion research, celinda lake, president of lake research partners. ron, i will let you go ahead and get started. >> i was doing interview back there. so thank you all for coming. i know this will be a good conversation. whit is one of the record source of political mentors of my over the years, and keeping a straight and they can shed some light on what happened last night. since we're dealing with a couple pollsters i'm going to start with a handful of numbers that really jumped out at me with the exit polls and then maybe a thought experiment for our guests and i would like the uk should think of the thought experiment as well and maybe think of good questions will get towards the end of this. if you look at the exit polls,

little over a majority of the electorate who voted last night disapprove of president obama's. no surprise. 80% disapprove of congress as an institution to 60% disapprove of their leadership in congress and at the white house. only 44% of the people who voted had a positive opinion of the democratic party. less than that, 40%, had a positive opinion of the republican party. two-thirds of the country thinks the nation is on the wrong track. only 22% of americans right now think the next generation could be better than the current one. only 22% of the public still thinks there such thing as an american dream. so here's a thought experiment. if last night, waving magic wand, if people were our voting last i've had the sympathy of choices and policies that they had in the theater where they're going to shock of how they're going to shop, where they're

going to eat, we are in an air of choice, if people have that kind of the fate of choice and politics last night, how many republicans and democrats would have been thrown out of office? celinda, whit, why don't you answer that question? how much of a republican victory yesterday was a choice between two evils? >> there's no question that people are disgusted with washington and discouraged about the state of the nation. but let's not mistake who won and who lost yesterday. yesterday was a whopping rejection of this president and this president's agenda. the people who lost yesterday were democrats. republicans picked up or will pick up nine senate seats and are within an eyelash of picking up a tent in virginia. we defeated five are will defeat after louisiana run off, five senate incumbents.

we're going to pick up at least 11 states and maybe get the first majority in the house since world war ii. we held the governorship in florida and picked up three governorships in deep blue states of maryland, massachusetts and illinois. so it's pretty clear which party lost yesterday in which party won. >> the second part is not clear to all is clear is your party was able to prevent yesterday were not quite as bad as the other does. going forward how does republican party turn yesterday's democratic defeat into a true governing that improves republican brand going for? >> by demonstrating that we can governed. the smartest politicians i've ever worked with all belief that people vote for things as well as against things. they vote for positive agendas as well as against the genders they don't like. and that's one reason why rnc chairman reince priebus put together about the first of october a list of 11 positive principles that republican

candidates can stand behind, that it covers the array of various policy areas and that's the first place i think a republican congress can go. positive principles and show that they can go. >> celinda, i would suggest that -- going forward mainly anti-obama election. so first of all do you agree that last night was a shellacking for a thumping to use the last two presidents words, or would you have it better adjective? >> i think that obviously the democrats got badly beat last night. i think that there are three things i would say. one, i think the table was set very poorly for the democrats from the get-go. structurally, an off year election, the r-rated senate seats that were up, and a midterm election where the turnout of our voters is lower and we were not that successful

in mobilizing our base to counter those trends. spiff why? what happened to the coalition of the center? has a decline? >> no. it turns out every four years. it's a huge problem. >> we have elections every two years. why is it a problem? >> a problem that gets better every year the because the republicans are moving on borrowed time on the coalition. i think you ask, this is a question i think democrats have to answer, why do we have such problems by such a great organization and turning out the base and why did reduce a poorly, particularly am an independent women's? think the answer to that is the economy. we did not have and we did not end on an economic message. would never want elections we haven't been had on the economy and on the election eve we are even on the economy. but even on jobs, we only split economic voters to all those voters that you list, the ones who think economy is not good,

their kids will not have a better future, we lost those voters. >> whose fault is it? >> it starts at the top because i think it's very hard for an individual senate candidate to articulate an overall economic message. that said the one thing i really want -- >> why did the president fumble that? it's his economy. why did he do a better job of? >> i think either by choice or by circumstance. yet a lot of crises. >> but president have to do with crises and run a campaign at the same time. >> i would agree. i hope you will call the president a talk to them about that. >> what would jesus be the articulate tomorrow and economic vision for the country and say, we have done this but it's not good enough and when not going, we will work with republicans to get these things done. >> try to come on that message the president's aides were pretty defined. one was quoted as saying he does not feel repudiated.

but does that bode for us going forward if the president thinks that last that was not a big deviation of his record so far? >> one of the lessons from this election is that arrogance will bite you. this president is the most arrogant politician of my entire lifetime. he set his own people up. he really did. hhe said his own people of. the only way that kay hagan's and the mark pryor's and all the other democrats who lost yesterday were going to survive was to separate themselves from the president. and the president's response is, well, that's fine, but all voted with me anyway. or, while i'm not on the ballot my policies are. the president made the republican argument for us. we barely even needed to make it. and the response yesterday was, well, if these democrats hadn't run away from the president, many of them would have done

better. what alternate universe are these people living in? it is breathtakingly arrogant, and this president helped make our case for us, and helped sink all of these democratic senators. >> on the topic americans, a very well and respected republican consultant said last night the hard right is not controlled by the republican agenda anymore. the inmates are no longer running the asylum. do you think that's true? are the inmates, is the hard right no longer running the republican party? >> i think part of the key for the republican victories yesterday is that we have candidates that managed to unite the republican coalition. that's another take away from yesterday is that candidate quality really, really matters. across the board we nominated better candidates who ran better campaigns. just three quick examples to cory gardner in colorado was a far superior candidate and we

nominated. he ran a great campaign and he won comfortably against a guy who beat the war on women to death, senator uris. >> senator -- get the name right. >> sorry, mark udall. joni ernst in iowa was a great candidate who ran a great campaign. i'm so proud of ed gillespie i'm about to bust. back in labor day i told -- in your steven nyman ed gillespie. is going to be an upset special and a lot of people thought i was nuts. but if you know ed gillespie you know how good he is, how smart he is, how good a campaign he ran. he is with an eyelash of knocking off someone the virtual everybody thought was unbeatab unbeatable. so you better candidates and we have candidates who could unite through republican coalition and, of course, that's what it's going to take in 2016 spent the

could really answer the arrogance question. let me try it another way. there was a poll that came out last week that said the number one issue that voters were looking for a candidates was the economy. close number two was looking for people who break gridlock. i see no evidence this last year's the president of the united states is either willing or capable of compromise and breaking gridlock and i see no evidence that republican party establishment is willing or able to compromise and break ground. >> i disagree but if you look -- listen to mitch mcconnell's -- >> words are words but where is there any actual? >> mitch mcconnell was pitch perfect last night and he basically said just what i said to start this panel. we need to demonstrate that we can govern the h. mcconnell believes that. my senator kline's the one yesterday believe that. spent the president today will say the same thing to my do believe it is any different?

>> because i think you have an additive the people who got elected yesterday who realize they need to advance a positive agenda whether this president is even willing to work with him or not i have no idea. he has shown no inclination or particular ability to suck. >> you think republicans are incentive to compromise the? >> oh, yes. >> what about democrats of? >> first of all i disagree with the assessment the president hasn't tried work with republicans spent the case talked about it but he hasn't been able to get one single compromise. i've got to assume either he can't or he won't. >> he reached out today and said let's get together. one of the things we find it to look academically at the academic studies of productivity, divided congresses, divided government, congress on one hand, the president on the other, far more productive. i think the house and senate will be able to agree on a lot and deliver it. and i think neither side is interested in just the bill,

government by vito. so i think it is, it is greatly incentivize. when you have one house and once in the never say anything up. the other thing i want to say that i think is most important lesson of last night and what agree with a lot of what you said but this is the one thing i don't agree with you on, the democratic agenda was not rejected last that the democratic party and candidates were induced very unfortunate i think the republicans were very successful in nationalizing the race. >> an interesting distinction. >> look across the board when voters had the ability to directly vote on the issues -- >> minimum wage. >> minimum wage in four states, legalizing marijuana in several states, and you can go on and on rejecting the two-party primary. across the board a democratic agenda did very well. when voters had the ability to vote directly on the issue. >> is that a fair distinction,

whit? is the distinction the democratic party can maybe learn from? >> well, a lot bigger issue than minimum wage or any of these other issues was obamacare in these critical senate battleground seats. obamacare was an albatross around the necks of democrats who voted for it. not just because of one factor. it's a combination. its substance of the law. it is what it represented a large government intrusion into the health care sphere but also how it was passed. major social changes get passed by bipartisan majorities if they are going to stick. a majority of house republicans voted for medicare in 1965. a quarter of the senate republicans voted for medicare. medicare prescription part d that passed during george w. bush's administration passed with democratic vote in both the house and the senate.

obamacare, we had clients who are personally willing to work with the president on health care reform and and the basic attitude is, we have the votes, we don't need you. so they crammed it down the throats of republicans changing the rules in the senate to get it through and created a political issue that basically has killed seven promising democratic careers, it is going to be an ongoing issue because of the way they passed it. >> i will stick to it that you both are last answers for sake of argument that democrats have an agenda that on its own can be popular, and in this election obamacare was a big and they'll come at the present was the 2016 presidential race radically different electric. obama will have to step out the door. obamacare will be two years old. how can there were other republicans -- by the way, the country is vastly becoming a

majority-minority. and republican party still is basically advertise itself as the party of white people. >> come on, ron spent that is basically the brain. it will be interesting if you can push back on that the next two years but that is the brand. >> we do not advertise ourselves as the party of white people. come on. >> isn't uncomfortable place for people of color to be now. >> people of in arguing me do a better job reaching out to minorities. we had a latino vote, 35% of latinos voted for republican house candidates yesterday. that's not what we need to be. we need to be up with a 44-50% that george bush got. >> how do you get to in the next two years? >> it's all about how we govern into we nominate. remember some of us are old enough to remember the so-called republican block on the electoral college back during the '80s where there was no in the world of democrats are going to be able to elect a president again because we have a lot on

electoral college. bill clinton comes along and says i want to end welfare as we know it. i'm for the death penalty, and in wind election, want elections was the democratic party around to the republican party is one candidate and one election away from resurrection at the presidential level. >> do you see that candidate out there now? >> well, i happen to have a few options. i mean, marco rubio is a client of ours and happen to think -- to a number of possibilities that can give a new image and a new face for the republican party. >> what happens in two years if we still would have immigration reform and the still 12 million people who are working hard in this country but still living in the shadows? how does that affect -- >> let's not make those assumptions. we have a new congress, a new day. >> you agree that's an important issue? >> no question about it. here's the problem.

yesterday 75% of electorate was white. in 2010 it was 77. that's a continuation of a pattern of every midterm election is about two percentage points less non-hispanic white pig in the presidential election in 2012 it was 72% white, less than in the midterms and that goes down about 2%. we will have an electorate in 2016 that is a 70% white, 30% nonwhite. it doesn't take a real genius -- we got to do better among asians, latinos and african-americans. >> celinda, the president was obvious as you say was repudiated if one of the first things he does is buy fiat legalizes a lot of illegal immigrants and doesn't work it through the political system and get some bipartisan support and whit is right, this legislation to be durable and history has to have some bipartisan support. what message would you be sitting to the american public? i tweeted just it would be the

equal that of flipping the bird to the american public. you agree with that? >> honestly i think, i think the number one reason that i think the people who won last night at the governor level i think are very illustrative. because there governors who have to deliver. the republican governors were able to save themselves because they have to deliver. and i think it is a lesson for the senate. i mean, you know, i think if the senate will not -- i mean, if the senate passes that immigration reform, that's going to be as bad as not passing any immigration reform. and if the president says these people will not work with me to have decent and humane and practical immigration reform, i'm just going to get it done. and that's an entirely different message. >> is the public going to buy

the explanation? are they going to say yeah, he tried hard and he couldn't have done so is doing the right thing? or will they say this is just another politician who is giving lipservice to compromise? couldn't get it done and will punish his party begin? >> for one thing if you pass immigration, however you do it -- >> executive order. >> real people's lives are affected. real people see something different on tuesday than they had on monday. you know, went to get something done it affects real people's lives. >> it doesn't matter how you get it done? >> i think it matters less to you get it done than getting it done. a major frustration last night was yes, they can't comment much but they are not getting anything done. rome is burning and their not getting anything done. >> whit, real quickly on that. is getting immigration reform time anyway okay? >> you can't just pass something. i mean, it's obvious we have a

seriously broken system that hurts our economy, that hurts everybody involved with it. and we have a series we broken system that incumbent upon the congress to fix the system, it is not incumbent upon the president to arrogantly try to do it on his own. that's the way i know to kill immigration reform is to come out and take an executive order into something that even has said should be the province of congress and try to do it on his own. >> i want to turn to to 16, 2016, but before i do i have to post up a bit of got ask about these polls. if you guys are paying attention closely they were all off but they basically overestimate the democratic turnout. this has got to be a hell of a scary time to be coupled with the way we're changing and committee getting. can you explain why they were all off yesterday and how your businesses will have to change to be more accurate? >> i think the number one thing,

and we haven't talked about, i think the number one thing to help expand when the polls were off is that we overestimated the women vote. utah, 72%, or 75% white. it was more white, older and less in the many other pollsters accounted for in older. folder. many of the posters account for a being more white. most of us did not account for it being less female. >> why not ask what went into the thinking? >> for example, in 2010 the electorate was not looking at the 1994 it was put in some ways, and i'll be interested in your thoughts on this, in some ways the structure of elected resembled more 1994 than 2010 were you this decline among women in 1994 it was so that it was called year of the angry whitwhite man. enjoyed also the decline in the proportion of women. we lost yesterday because we have fewer women in because we lost women by more than -- we

won women by less than we lost men like. and that's a formula for big defeat. so i think women voters are a big piece of last night's story. what we have a talk so much on this panel and it's a big reason i the polls were off. >> i don't accept the premise of the polls were way off. this is a classic way the election. ways brake leaks. he was up by only four points a week ago, the tuesday before. we pulled through the weekend. by thursday he was up by seven. by saturday he was up by night and he won by 14 percentage points. but you would never have caught that unless you pulled all the way up to election day. >> even for the weekend is kind of kinky, right? >> know, but if you look at the polls over the course of the last week it was very clear that what democrats were leadin leave a hamster and north carolina,

the lead were narrow. and what republicans were leaving, like iowa, colorado, arkansas, the leaves were wiping. the trend was there clearly and i think what happened was a classic wave where you came in very late and within the course of the last week and you ended up getting a substantial republican -- >> they all went one way. >> exactly. that's what a wave is where you have a lot of relatively close, they go in the same direction spent i agree with whit on what the big -- i think whit -- >> can you quickly, celinda, policy wise why women stay at home? >> well, i think that the number one thing is women, men think it's a good day when government hasn't been anything bad to you. ..

>> keep them home -- >> no one spoke to them. they felt no one spoke to them. no one is doing anything for me and i have a lot on my mind. >> what do you think of that? let's not make too much of this. the majority of people who voted yesterday were female, 51-49. a point or so less but not like

there was acute shift in gender balance yesterday. women have a tendency to place a higher priority on issues like education, issues like healthcare and any politician, republican or democrat, has got to have something intelligent to say about both of those issues. to articulate a position on education. it is no coincidence the last republican president was very good talking lot about education. lamar alexander talk about about education. we don't into compelling picture about how to improve the educational system. >> a good transition in 2016. >> the last two republican presidents -- very -- >> there was another bush to -- >>

>> my next point probably yesterday -- presidential sweeps around the country that were men and women thinking about running for president surrounded by family and consultants digging into the results yesterday's. what does that say about my chances, what makes me the next president? who do you see as being the year the winners and losers. in 2016 based on his results. >> the republican primary. >> the secretary -- >> i don't think it is particularly productive to squeeze the presidential campaign to work out of this. there is no one faction in the republican party that is large enough to produce a presidential

nominee. you can't run from one particular slice and hope to win the nomination. whoever wins it will demonstrate an ability to delaine tea party libertarian establishments social conservative and international republicans all in one coalition and get enough of each of those groups to build a majority. >> is that more likely to be somebody outside washington who has done something done in the governor's office? >> governors frequently have an advantage but it all comes down to the quality of the candidate. back to one of our earlier points, a candidate quality really matters. what is more important is the caliber of the candidate and their ability to lead and paint a vision to the country where they come from. >> i agree with what you are saying. the difference, 2012 where we

end with that was legitimate rape and quality candidates in joining 14, it was really dramatic. if it matters democrats are in good shape because we have as our front runner secretary clinton who is considered a supreme column of the candidate by the voters. if women are the problem voters are in good shape because we have a woman candidate who seeks to win the slide. always has mobilized when voters and can be very effected for. if the democrats need to communicate we have an economic message, we have an economic plan and we will fight fight fight until this economy is back on its feet for ordinary people but i can't imagine anywhere to nominate them than clinton. i think 2016 is really good and i plan to be on vacation all of 2015. >> i want to underscore your point about canada qualities. i live in virginia and walking

out of the voting booth yesterday after not deciding who was going to vote for until the last minute i wish more people had a choice like this. gillespie and warner. the reason that race was so close is people really had two good choices. secretary clinton. stipulate everything about the qualities and demographic makeup favoring her, but again, this is an electorate that is really down on all of its institutions, not just political institutions but all of our institutions. wearily pessimistic in washington, really down on politics. secretary clinton for all her strength is an institution. she is a preacher of washington and a political figure. how in an hero when people looking for change in the new way of governing in this new century, how does somebody with her background breakthrough that? despite being of a first female

president how does she make herself being the change agent the next president has to be? >> i disagree with you a little bit about this change notion because it wasn't a buick change election because if it were, republican governors would have lost too. it was an election that sends a message, get something done for a change. that is the change people want. hillary clinton in her own record and clinton pledging general communicated different notion. >> competence thing. >> qualifications, getting things done and any ability to compromise to do that. people think you have to work together to get things done. that is the history and people have very positive memory of the clinton years, more positive -- secretary clinton herself has shown the ability to work with a person in a primary, work with

republicans. tom delay, she authored the foster care bill on children. so i think that last night was a mandate about get something done. >> before we respond to that, in a few minutes we will take questions and if you line up at the microphone. do you agree with that about secretary clinton? >> no question that secretary clinton will be a very formidable candidate. i don't think anyone believes she won't be. i will tell you it is exceedingly difficult for one party to win three presidential elections in a row. history suggests he's a very unusual event. it occurred in the 88 which george h. w. bush but keep in mind ronald reagan was a far more popular president and barack obama. making the case that you are the candidate to follow an unpopular

president for a third consecutive term for one party is going to be a very challenging case for her to make. >> besides that history, we define history all the time -- >> i think people think that a clinton presidency and obama presidency would be quite different. a lot of people are now including ready or wrongly that he changed, didn't have as much the experience as we needed to get things done. nobody questions secretary clinton's qualifications. >> secretary clinton was part of the obama administration and a key component of the national security for an affairs teams that people now disapprove of obama for handling. it is going to be real tough for her to separate herself from an administration in which she served. >> i am sure we have much smarter questions out there than i have come up with. anymore questions of these two? smart thinkers.

>> u.s. news and world report. you talk about the agenda on the issues you mentioned minimum-wage and also realization, were you saying that is part of the democratic agenda? >> it should be. the voters are in favor of it. drug laws are a nightmare. in terms of incarcerating young african-american male, this is an insane policy. we should be legalizing marijuana. >> legalizing marijuana or changing -- >> doing both. we should be doing both and the majority of americans support legalizing marijuana. >> to your comments with regard to how the election outcome in the senate might have impact on the president in terms of judicial appointments and specifically if a supreme court justice decides to retire over the next two years how do you think that will play out both in

terms of who he might nominate as a replacement and how the senate might deal with it. >> what is yours? >> i was going to say in some ways honestly the next panel is more -- i don't want to speak to your expertise. my expertise is nothing that i would have read in national journal. place to read it. on these issues. i think that i think many democrats, everyone stays healthy for two years. >> the quick answer is it is going to be a very different nominee who can get confirmed now that it would have been before. >> any more questions out there? why you guys a thinking of your questions i want more from the audience. can you quickly mention the warning sign you saw in the results. >> what was the biggest red flag

for your party? >> i would say two red flags. >> and until turn out operations. we vastly underestimate and don't have near enough respect for the turnout operations for the republicans. they have caught up. we don't tend to respect it. their voters are different, they have a good turn operation. we underestimated in 2004. >> looking at the are in sea microtargeting effort, it is real. >> time for the pollsters, one of the places of bipartisan cooperation, we have known it is real for a while. the second thing is we have to

-- the second thing is we are not going to win anything if we are not had on the economy. we never have and we never will. the number one thing we need to do is lay out our economic plan and agenda that assures everyone in this country can have a chance for themselves and their kids. >> you sound like clinton 92 and even more than that. the twenty-second that about the republican turnout operation. to the rnc and national senatorial committee, congressional committee put in place is light years better than it was two years ago. we have a budget two years ago and we have adapted which is -- >> my column today will be on this. make sure you see it this afternoon. >> which is one reason no one political political party has anything, you get tired of losing and the other party adapt and figures it out. the biggest warning sign yesterday was exactly what we as

seen coming, the inexorable march of demographic change. the electorate was 2% less white this year than it was in 2010, it will be 2% less white four years from now than it was yesterday. we've got a third of the hispanic vote, we got to do better with hispanics, in, we have seen that coming. it is not arguable and it is simply easy challenge we have to be successful if we are going to elect another president. matt is math. >> i am sarah lynch. i appreciate your h is math. >> i am sarah lynch. i appreciate your comments about the female voters and can you talk about the female candidates? >> i don't pretend to be an expert. to me it seemed like the year of the republican woman candidate.

there are two things that i think -- may be always talking threes, three things happen. one, republican women made it out of republican primaries better than they have in the past. democratic primaries are 58% female. republican primaries are 45% women voters. our primary includes some of the voters most in favor of women candidates. african-americans, liberals, republican primary traditionally include voters least in favor, born-again christians and more conservative role, having a hard time getting out of their primaries whether it was love in utah or ernst in iowa as they got out of their primary and i agree that joni ernst is a real

right winger but used heard gender, frankly independent women in her state as well. she is a real model for future republican women. i think that last night was a year of the republican woman and i believe we now have a record number of women, way too few in congress and a record number of republican women. >> work on a book in 2005 at harvard is now the youngest ever member of congress. >> accused victory yesterday in a swing district -- what is happening is you have a better, more qualified, capable females running and doing well. i hope that in the future not

all republicans females will start and at with the word castration. some of us felt a little bit of the willies but the fact is she carried it off beautifully and it was a hell of an ad and the campaign. question? >> if we could pull back a little bit i am still interested in how vastly changing the populace is and how it is affecting our institutions and leaders of any institution. we touched on this earlier. it is really going to be the cutting edge of change and how you identify and paul quality information out of people giving out bifurcated different -- tell me how polling industry has changed and we're reducing it is going? >> i want to point out one demographic change we haven't

discussed today which is also a huge and that is the rise of unmarried voters. half of america now unmarried. half of earth under 30 to unmarried women, 42% of all births to unmarried women. we talked about education, something we have to work on in five years having kindergarten class, the children of single moms so -- >> a majority will be of color too. >> in places like omaha it is already true. not the place you would see this change. there is a >> going on and actors the electorate it is reflected and will demand a lot of changes in policy. >> a number of people are staying home. >> last night if unmarried women turned out the same way as married women we would have won a lot of those because unmarried women voted at 61-65%

democratic. married women voted republican so this is that huge change and getting that vote is important. in terms of polling, there are a lot of folks who don't. and both of us have more grist than we want to admit because we are trying to combine methodologies. we tried much more accommodation cellphones online, over the telephone, we call that, we are in the field for longer periods of time because it is more difficult to reach people and we have to try multiple methods. >> what do you think polling will be ten years from now? >> our industries in the midst of the same transition that occurred in the 60s when we moved from door-to-door interviewing the telephone interview and had many of the same complaints than. not everyone has a telephone. we are in the same transition now. affairs asserted that doesn't include cellphones you should

pay attention. i am not a gunk person any more. i don't have the land line. the idea that you can do a legitimate survey without a significant portion of cellphones is fanciful. we have gone from 20% to 30%. we will hit 50% very soon in our samples but ultimately we have got to figure out how to go to online data collection and that has all kinds of challenges regarding randomness, huge panels but you got to opt into the panel. we are in that transition period, ten years ago, most of our data will be collected through some version of online data collection but we have a lot of methodological challenges to sort out. >> i like the comparison to the 60s. this is interesting. thank you so much for helping us out. [applause]

>> i want to thank our panelists and thank you, ron, for moderating that discussion. i want to remind all of you joining us in person -- go ahead. no worries at all. live stream at nationaljournal.com, we will take your questions and want to hear from you via twitter and hash tag am jay d. a. and the nick and ottawa and will take your questions via twitter. i want to welcome to the stage our getting congress to govern panel. bob bennett, former senator, you tie a senior policy advisor on fox, but kramer, former u.s. representative, alabama and managing director of f t i consulting. martians off, former u.s. representative and texas senior partner for -- the hon. olympia

snow, former senator, a senior fellow at the bipartisan policy center and the hon. steve lat r latourenne of mcdonald hopkins and president and ceo of the main street partnership. this will be moderated by been perishing, editor of washington journal. i will turn it over to you. >> thanks for being here. appreciate all these former members coming bright and early. i assume everyone had enough coffee that we will get going. the first thing we want to discuss, the question of whether the next congress will be able to govern any better than the current one given what we saw last night. the 113th congress has been historically and productive, has gotten very little done. smaller things that have to get done and bigger more ambitious things. after last night the big

question is with this new alignment with the big republican majority in the house and the new republican majority in the senate, is this congress more likely to come together and agree on things and get a president to sign them or less likely? you don't mind starting. >> certainly the message in this election because it was certainly a broad and sweeping repudiation of the status quo, the dysfunction in the senate and presidential leadership and policies. across the country people are fearful of the political paralysis in washington so it is abundantly clear that congress is going to have to move forward and learned to legislate and govern. move from messaging to legislating and governing, compromise and consensus has to

be the operative language. and senator mitch mcconnell underscore that in his own speech and the speech delivered earlier in the senate this year where he outlined how they wanted to restore the senate to what was intended to do which was to govern, deliberate, consider legislative initiatives, have robust debate on policies, have the committees considering legislation, marking it up, reporting it to the floor, in gauging the rank-and-file in the united states senate on broad issues that face this country so it is returning to the senate to its original purpose and founding and i believe that that is going to be his underlying objective moving forward. >> does that mean the house and senate republicans are coming together themselves on things and seeing what he will do or do you think they will be willing to pre agree with the white house and work things out to

avoid confrontation? >> hopefully beginning this week when the president is meeting with bipartisan leadership, that is the first step in the process. both the president and congress have to learn to work together to develop political compatibility for what matters to synchronizes that agenda. obviously -- first and foremost they have to find areas of common ground reaching agreement in critical issues to move the country forward most especially when it comes to the economy and also on the budget. from that standpoint it would be prudent, both the republican leadership and president to be able to work in synchrony on some of the critical issues in the lame-duck, getting what needs to be done, setting the tone, laying the groundwork of to the new congress and with the new congress beginning obviously establishing those areas in which we agree we confined areas

of common agreement in critical issues immediately such as reviewing medical device for example or infrastructure. some things that matter and then moving forward and how to proceed developing a budget to pay of the way for tax reform and perhaps entitlement reform. >> two big issues people constantly wonder if they are right for a big bipartisan agreement immigration reform and tax reform that people talk about, i am curious disease results make either of those deals more likely? >> first, if i could mention former congressman tom davis and i have written about partisanship in congress that will be out in january and you will hear more about it at that time. correctly identify the two toughest issues which will be the real test whether you can have bipartisan cooperation. tax reform is a very difficult issue because you have a lot of special interests who have both

sides to both parties to try to resolve this issue will be a real test of whether you cannot operate on a bipartisan basis. immigration reform is a war. complex issue. i often tell people immigration reform make social security reform look like a walk in the park. it is difficult to come to grips with but those that the issues that will be the test of true bipartisanship. i was in congress in 1986, when you did have the last immigration reform bill, it took a long time to get it done. the role of the president is very important here because hopefully president obama will see these last two years as the opportunity to build whatever legacy he has as president and he will want to work with the new republican leadership in congress. that is yet to be determined how successful that will be and one

of the institutional problems is in the house of representatives so many safe districts where people, district safely republican or safely democratic because the wavy lines are drawn and institutional forces push people to the extremes in their own parties because they are worried about a primary challenge, republicans are worried about a challenge from the far right, democrats worried about a challenge on the far left, very few people actually lose in primaries that people change their voting patterns because they are afraid they might lose the primary that makes it more difficult to meet in the center, more difficult to compromise. the jury is out. we are all hopeful. we would like to see bipartisanship and cooperation, but we can't tell you if it is going to happen. i would comment on one other thing. i think mitch mcconnell is a very able leader and a thing he will want to try to get things done. the question will be for him just as john boehner has a

similar question, how does he deal with the more extreme element of his own party? can he get them to be willing to join in this dialogue and do something constructive? we can't tell that yet. the extreme element, the tea party element had veto power over what john boehner could do in the last congress. we will see if they still do in this congress but this is a new day. i remember i am old enough i remember the cartoon when richard nixon was elected president in 1968 and he had a clean shaven richard nixon sitting in a chair and said everybody should get a clean shave, everybody should start a new and that is where we are now. we will see if in fact all these folks can work together. >> congressman latourenne, the idea that the house republican majority has gotten better and a lot of tea party line republicans are coming in gets a lot of press attention but a lot of members elected from

northeastern states, upper midwest states who might in fact be more sympathetic to the main street partnership that you are affiliated with. to those members push john boehner in the opposite direction toward compromise? >> i think they do it if you look at the -- syracuse and a couple of the other -- main for instance, you still have the tea party faction but you also have what i call pragmatists. people who want to govern. that will strengthen the speaker's hand moving forward. you will still have the caucus that referred to as chuckle heads. if you can marginalize them and not let them get the momentum. mitch mcconnell and john boehner, two people who are detailed data is dealmakers who can put to get the legislative packages and some people forget,

people talk about the hester rule in the house, it has been bastardize. not that you need 218 votes, you have to have the majority of the republican conference which is 120. if you put together 120 republicans with a light number of democrats and stan the whole year is a great deal maker on the other side you get these things done. we will see. the president has to dance but if the president dances he can get a lot of stuff done. >> the start of the last congress john boehner had a scare. there were just a few members in his conference who wanted to vote against him for speaker, embarrassed and a little bit. do you see anything like that happening again or is that past? >> you will still have people show up on opening day and say i think we can take him but that will be marginalized. the speaker's troops have circled the wagons and made it clear if you look at john

boehner for speaker and the other lead ship tax to the rabble rouser is, they didn't get any money and the other lesson that emboldens the speaker is the republican establishment did a very good job of making sure normal people were nominated and when you don't nominate nazi tuts the squirrels have nothing to eat said that helps the image of mitch mcconnell. >> back to the senate you know mitch mcconnell will. a couple things he talked about, if you became the majority leader he would have a more open for process. more amendments allowed, more freewheeling debate, harry reid is not allowed and the issue on which he has been -- what he will do with harry reid's rule changes on nominees. i am curious about your thoughts on these issues.

will he allow an open amendment process and will he referred to the old nazi rules or keep the current one? >> i don't know what he will do with respect to the rules but i do know that he did is deadly serious about returning to regular order. he made that speech almost a year before the election. i am told from people who were in the conference that members of the conference, republican senators said to him if you do not do what you just promised to do we will replace u.s. leader. that is so essentials to get the senate where it ought to be. one of the things that has been ignored in all of the cutting and slicing and dicing of the data, half of the senate is in their first term. you have half of the senate who have never seen legislation occur in their lives. they lived with continuing resolutions and blocking of regular quarter.

they never attended a conference of any kind between the house and senate. they don't understand how that is supposed to be done or how amendments have been handled. olympia and i, the normal pattern was a bill was put on the floor, a string of amendments, much too long, you spend your time as manager of the bill or managers because you have a republican manager and democratic manager. they were offering amendments they would you please not offer that for the following reasons or saying we will accept that and between the two managers, and just so we can move ahead on this, you end up with five six important amendment raised on the floor, debated and voted on and take the bill to congress.

half of the senators see that activity take place. mitch mcconnell is determined to return to that kind of a world. and start to educate, all you do in the senate is make a speech and all the legislation is cooked into the leader's office and tucked in as drop into a must pass c r or something of that kind so you as a senator have no input whatsoever on any legislation. the leader takes care of all of that, all of the historical analysis of lyndon johnson and how powerful he was. lyndon johnson never had the kind of legislative power harry reid abrogated within his office and his staff and mitch is determined to change that.

when that begins to happen all kinds of good things begin to happen. if you have two managers on the floor, republican and democrat you have to get together. olympia has done it. you can't be mad at your democratic counterparts when you move the bill across the floor. and wonderful things begin to happen. that is mitch's number one goal. mitch has enormous advantage that is not available to most senators. he knows he is not going to be president of the united states sunday. consequently he will focus on the institution and making it work. if i were advising him at this point, do this to get rid of the

difficulties that agreed the senate and the house. eliminate the sequester. and appropriators made decisions based on what needed to be done instead of being locked in the straitjacket of a sequester that says we are going to lower the spending, lower the spending across the board without regard to any need. all we are thinking of is the top line number and we are going to force anything, if he can restore regular order and convince john boehner to convince his troops let's get rid of the sequester and go back to legislating intelligently it will be enormously powerful and the best thing republicans can do. and in 2016 the question will be

which party is capable of governing. and right now the answer is neither one. if the republicans by controlling both houses of congress and tapping fingers down. and tapping down the chuckle heads it can establish itself as a party that should win. i will leave use this with one piece of history, i am older than you are. i remember -- 1964 the analysis after 1964 was that the republican party was duped and it was only a question of how quickly a new party would be formed to replace it, because of the tremendous shellacking to use president obama's words the

republicans had received in the 64 election. four years later the republicans won the presidency because of all the difficulties that were there and the inability of the democrats to deal with their biggest problem which was the vietnam war. so i don't think the republicans are doomed for the future. i don't think they're going to disappear but if they're going to come back they have to demonstrate that they can govern and that means in congress they have to demonstrate they can legislate and mitch mcconnell's number one priority. >> you were a long time appropriators so following up on senator bennett i am old enough to remember when appropriations used to pass bills in regular order one by one and all or both of them would get considered separately by his chamber. it was a long time since that happen. the think republican control of congress means we could go back to that or they still pass? >> we will see.

we will go back to that. there's a tendency for each of us to look back at our service. i was 18 years in the house of representatives and it seems like an eternity and i was there when what became known as the blue dog coalition after the devastation of the 94-95 election cycle but what we saw as democrats a lot of change, a was fairly new then. i had a career threatening night that year, looked around me and saw blood on the table and a lot of colleagues around the south that were kicked off, fired from their positions. we put that centrist coalition together because we wanted to work across the aisle and project that we were working legislators, we were is there not to carry party labels or leadership agendas or the president's agenda, the president then was bill clinton and there was a reaction there but to pick up the pieces and say we are serious about this. we intend this to be a

bipartisan group, maybe we could have 10 or 15 house democrats come together with 15 republicans, each leadership put its thumb on its members. our leadership we had committee assignments and that sort of thing they threatened us with and i remember interesting conversations about that that i tried to dodge. we did come together unfortunately as a democratic group but needed to the appropriations committee and back to your question. it is appropriate serious issues affected my congressional district getting those appropriations bills done was afforded to me. i know to mitch mcconnell and senator shelby's the appropriators over its share that i know are serious about returning to the day when those bills can be passed, the job can be accomplished and not done by c r. next week we will see, the dust will begin to settle and we will see if we do another one. what harry reid's attitude is

coming off of this very bad night, the democratic -- that the democrats had and how they picked up a piece of affairs but quickly because i want to involve the audience in this too, we will see if the next two years the message of last night is translated by new members and members coming back from the trenches. this is the time to fight the president and repeal obamacare, repeal obamacare, we have serious legislative issues that need to be addressed. the appropriations process certainly but that debt limit, issues that seriously affect the economy, can tax reform be addressed in a bipartisan way? steve and ira involved in -- i care a board call center forward, means 3 partnerships we try to bring ourselves together to bring senate members across the aisle, house members across the aisle together over e issues

specific topics to tried to show what kind of give-and-take is going on. i hope we see more of that. remains to be seen. >> one brief observation. on the question of regular order i was in the house for 26 years we had a succession of speakers starting with newt gingrich and continuing through nancy pelosi, continuing through dennis times and john boehner, all of whom said they wanted to return to regular order, none of whom actually did it because they decided they needed to write bills in the speaker's office, needed to have leadership bills. returning to regular order, maybe that is possible in the senate. >> is very hard to do because leaders of the house are not inclined to go to regular order. they are inclined to have a strong speakership and a top down operation. i hope you are right but it is very hard because you have democratic and republican speakers since 1994 who said this is their objective and has not done it. >> the center has been wiped

out. there are very few centrists that are there that moderate wear their leadership has come from. >> one follow-up. you were in the house, house democrats in the 90s when bill clinton was in office and one thing he did was take some stand to make deals with republicans that his own party was not happy with and i am curious whether you think president obama might reflect to last night's results by bucking his own party a little bit by being willing to do things a majority of his own party in the house and senate doesn't want him to do but he does any way. >> i don't want to give a long answer but it really rests with the attitude of the president. if the president decides that he really does want to try to get things done on of bipartisan basis and is willing to take some risks than i think democrats will follow his lead. if he kind of hide in the white house, if he doesn't take a stronger role than i am afraid it will be much harder. it comes down to the president. i am hopeful president will in fact look to his legacy and try

to provide some real leadership. >> senator snowe, one of the big issues that has bedeviled congress is the debt ceiling. it is coming again maybe in march or later depending on tax revenue. mitch mcconnell made clear he is not interested in a government shutdown but the question of whether the debt ceiling moves in the clean way like the white house keeps wanting or whether as many republicans want it has conditions attached to it. i am curious what will happen. >> they need to get rid of the debt ceiling issue at have a bipartisan agreement that that is not going to be where they are going to spend their time. we will see if it will happen. >> i think certainly they don't want to repeat the fiasco of the debt ceiling crisis in 2011 which could have been of limited. you think about the greatness that occurred in the united states congress that was of the vine from congress, everyone was manufactured, senator mcconnell will want to avoid getting into

a major conflict on that very question because quite frankly we are in the worst post recession recovery in history in a post recession period and as a result the economy and private sector needs 70 and establishing 70 when it comes to the debt ceiling will be critical. i am sure they will find a way to pay forward and that would mean doing other issues along the way, setting the agenda. what is going to be key for mitch mcconnell and john boehner and the president is to agree on the areas in which they should take action and frankly that is what is different today than it was in previous times. the first year after the election you could really count on legislating and governing and understanding politics in the second year. now the perpetual campaign. that is what they have to avoid

this time in establishing that agenda so the more conversations between the president and bipartisan leadership and regularizing those meetings between the president and bipartisan leadership and communications will be absolutely essentials. the bottom line is they both have to have motivation to make a divided government work in the best interests of this country. that is what the american people want. in a presidential election, all of this castigation will occur quickly in the legislative process. kind of an elite down sooner rather than later and certainly on these critical questions so i am sure mitch mcconnell and john boehner will want to clear the deck so they can begin a new -- >> the test for mitch mcconnell will be whether he is willing to tell ted cruz from my state that he is the leader, ted cruz is not the leader. he has got to make it clear he is in charge and ted cruz can't

be the tail wagging the dog. >> just to follow up on that mitch mcconnell may not envision but a lot of other republican senators may indeed, could have multiple members of the chamber running all at once. on the debt ceiling and other regions will that make it harder for mitch mcconnell to move quickly when a lot of people want to make a stand? >> there is no can year politician in washington than mitch mcconnell. >> agreed. >> ted cruz represents an unsettling factor within the republican congress. my sense of things not being there, this comes from conversation, mitch has carefully, methodically, under

the radar isolated ted cruz, he seal them off like a body puts a sack around for a matter that would prefer to expel if it can. the tea party caucus was formed that was going to be so powerful when mike lee was elected, you won't be able to do anything, i will have all these bodies, live -- by the time they got through the tea party caucus was ted cruz. jim demint left and rand paul didn't jo lin kent and marco rubio didn't join and all these other people, we will stay away from this. mitch mcconnell, i do know some specifics of people who publicly

-- won't be for mitch mcconnell. they had the conversation and now they are with mitch mcconnell and ted cruz is going to look around and there won't be many people with him. mitch mcconnell can deal with this. >> we are couple minutes from the audience q&a section. if you're interested in asking a question there are microphones. you can use hash tag m j day after. a couple more minutes of conversation and we will go to the q&a. we will talk briefly about health care. mr. latourette, is it possible the two parties will agree on some smaller part of the affordable care act? >> i do. paul ryan and john boehner recognize it is not good to have the 59th a vote to repeal

obamacare, in january. most people if you look at the election results feel there is a decent part to be affordable care act and some horrible parts, the process was obnoxious. it was rammed down the republican party's wrote. any big change requires put in from both parties. the smart people in the republican party and get that there has to be an alternative. you just can't be held no. let's replace, let's repair and replace. there is the opportunity to do is this. back to regular order and the appropriations process. the dumbest thing that the house of representatives ever did was eliminate earmarks when it comes to behaving in regular order because people misunderstand and was bought off for a bridge, that happened a couple times in my 18 years but i will tell you

that more often than not if you were on the bubble on a 900 page bill and someone said to you we can take care of something that is important to you. it is not going to cost any more money, but the crusade to end earmarks has done tremendous damage to the ability of the leaders to get their folks in line. >> the constitution gets in the way too. >> the gentleman at the microphone. >> can the new congress find consensus on infrastructure, roads, clean water, safe water, other infrastructure? >> blood may know more about that than anybody. >> those issues have been postponed, having lost his way, they will emerge as the likely ranking member of the house

transportation and infrastructure committee. broke my teeth on that committee when i came into the congress. not to be labor the earmarked issue but that bill has been -- the surface transportation part of that has been a hard pill to craft without the issue of earmarks or directed funding in a bill like that. that is a perfect example of a serious piece of legislation that is overdue for bipartisan participation. >> complete abdication of leadership by everybody in washington on the infrastructure question. we have known since we wrote the safety bill in 2005 that you have to have more money. there are only a couple ways to get more money, raise the gas tax, go to miles traveled, tax important barrels of oil but the president has been a wall and the congress has been a wall and no one wants to take the mantle and i tell you as a republican

transcontinental railroad, panama canal, interstate highway system republicans are known for building america. we should be ashamed of ourselves. >> i wondered what the panel fought harry reid's approach was going to be in his new job as minority leader, obstructionist or do you think he will be a deal maker? >> i served -- you serve with harry in the house. i served with him when he was in the house before he became a senator. harry is a very able, skilled politician. i don't know how he is going to approach things. i can't answer that. he understands that it is in the interests of everybody that there be progress on some important issues. doesn't have the situation that he had in this election. he had so many democrats that in difficult races this time when he tried to protect those senators who came from red

states without having to cast a lot of hard votes. that is not the case in the next election and he is not in control, mitch mcconnell will now be in control so i am hopeful that harry will find a way. he and mitch mcconnell of both very capable are both very capable people. is just a question can work this out and mutually agreeable way. >> one person asked interesting question. how does trade including trade promotion authority work for bipartisan cooperation next year? >> a bad issue one bipartisanship, majority of democrats are heavily influenced by my friends in organized labor on trade issues. the republicans will have the votes now that they are in the majority, to pass trade legislation depends on the president's attitude whether he is willing to work with them and redesign it. i can't answer how that will play out but it will be easier

to move trade legislation now that republicans control the senate but no guarantee. >> i think it depends to a great deal on how much leadership the president decides that he is going to exert. the president has been pro trade, a kind of, and the divisions in congress are strong enough that you can't get it done, kind of. you have got to be very firm and very solid and i think if president obama comes out and says okay, this is what i have to do on the trade issue, and democrats get in line and support me on this i think -- >> the best you can do is to get a significant minority of democrats to agree. you won't get a majority of democrats on that issue but enough democrats to join with the president and the republicans you have a real

chance, you can get that done. >> it happened with nafta and trade with china. a majority of the democratic caucus voted nobody enough democrats voted yes that you could achieve it but we will see. >> is a difficult, tough issue. >> over there at the microphone. >> what do you think the election portends for what will get done during a lame-duck session? >> very little. in the lame duck session we have all served in lame duck sessions, they are frustrating and not overly productive. i will speak briefly again. i hope they can reach an agreed upon on the bus appropriation bill rather than punting this to the next congress but even that remains to be seen. >> in 2010 there was a very productive lame-duck session but i wouldn't expect that to take place now.

i think basically it will be what has to pass at this point between continuing resolution or and on the bus deciding on the expiration date next year or to the end of the fiscal year next october and beyond that, tax freedom and several other items, this would be a very productive -- >> they will get in and out of town as quickly as they can but appropriators are anxious to give a shot at some on the bus. you have the national defense authorization act which has been passed every year as far back as anybody can remember so you got in the lame-duck some serious issues that can be addressed. more funding for ebola, louis ends that inevitably present themselves. will they do quick in quick out next week? will they continue into where the sea are carries until december so something will be addressed? >> if i were a republican serving in the senate, i would

not much want done in lame duck because i would want to be for as many things as i could when my party would be in the majority so i think the institution will be hard to get things done in lame duck. >> mitch mcconnell wants a clean slate. you would like to get everything put together and done so that the republicans don't have to deal with the hangover and it is interesting that two senators have sent him a formal letter saying they would object and you can guess who they are. >> if one objects then that is it. >> at the microphone. >> yes. i would like to ask what the actual incentives are for this congress to worked together and cooperate? it seems you had an

obstructionist congress in the last session and republicans obstructing the legislative process in the senate. i am not really comfortable with -- what incentives are there with such a narrow majority and the republicans almost shut down the government. >> wait a minute. decontrol of the senate was in democratic hands. the person who kept bills from coming to the floor was the democratic majority leader. you have democratic senators in alaska for example, mark begich, furious because they could not get any of their legislation even discussed, any of their

amendments even raised, so back to my opening statement, mitch mcconnell is going to open that up. is not the obstructionist republicans who have shutdown the senate. it has been the strategy of harry reid, which i understand. i think he made a mistake. i can understand his motives going in that direction, back to an earlier question what will he be like? i think harry will recognize i had a strategy, we tried it, it didn't work, we paid a heavy price for it. i am willing to change. ..

amendment towards a consensus if you can't offer amendments you can't really build consensus and reach a compromise on any legislative initiative, they are all about messaging and not

about solving the problem. that is fundamentally different and with mitch mcconnell wants to return to and i think the opening day vote for -- both house and senate will be critical in the message sends and the rules adopted. i know as the government to bypass this policy, the political reform have come up with a number of recommendations in that regard and how to institutionally change. a lot of good details and senator mcconnell's proposals. it is crucial because if you don't have a process can't move legislation forward and that is what has been in action for too long on so many issues the american people care about. so if either side becomes obstructionist they do feel in 2016 the window is very limited in which they can function successfully and effectively in terms of securing its own legacy there is a lot of interest on the mutual basis to be effective

and not be viewed as obstructionist. >> don't think that's the bloodlust for putting people out of office was satisfied just with the 2014 election and if the congress can function there are a lot of people that will be in trouble in 2016 that it is in both parties interest to get some agreement that it's more so in the republican interest because they have a lot of the people up in the senate. >> i think we will have to end it there but i want to thank the panelists for joining. i'm sorry that we didn't get to everyone's questions. [applause] >> thank you to the former

members of congress for joining us. taking the stage is to as the walk down influence conversation i want to welcome jeffrey forbes partner, bill pierce, senior director of apco worldwide, heather podesta founder and ceo and jennifer higgins partner with chamber of health strategies. the panel will be moderated by the senior writer for the national journal. >> first of course i want to thank all of the panelists this morning for coming out to try to help everybody process that has exploded on the scene. the first question i want you to address it seems like an odd one but will this make an appreciable difference in terms of what will be going on or is it just going to be a dysfunction as usual?

>> header, do you want to start? >> sure. things are different but very much the same. at the the hard work of doing this day in and day out of government relations does not change. you will see an administration that is activated by this election and a lot of activity on the regulatory front. we have seen a decided senate needs plenty of work for democrats and republicans. it doesn't really matter who is in control. it will be -- i'm excited about this new approach that the senate majority leader and mitch mcconnell is going to take to the senate. i'm interested to see how long that actually lasts.

i think that we are in for some interesting times and appetites are big right now and once people remember how politics work and help us and it works and how the institutions work understand that we are still in washington. >> we are in an environment that has a lot of potential. on k. street and capitol hill and at the administration you are looking at the potential for activity. and like heather pointed out that there was a window of time that will occur. we have a chance to see whether this administration wants to work with republicans to the store and whether they can in the majority. >> this is basically a full employment program for k. street and so do you pretty much see that as the way that it's going?

>> the answer is yes and because there is a possibility that the legislation might be past that is going to create the activity that everybody is going to be worried about their bill and their piece of legislation passing but also the other activity that goes on the matter what is already also looking to the future that maybe we won't do anything the next two years that this might set the groundwork for what could happen in 2016 and beyond. so the activity does continue and in some areas it is going to be lots and lots of smoke that's not much five-year at the end of the day but lots of smoke. >> so far this administration and the congressional republicans idea of negotiating and we are going to have to see if both sides continue that road than we've seen what's going to

happen. nothing. but if they decide to get together and go out of the house with democratic support, let's not have to worry about the filibuster. what's past that with 60 plus and if obama sits down and negotiate something that we have a great opportunity. i am skeptical frankly but i hope that it works. hairy reed invented the treaty that's been around for a while and i hope that we have an open process and -- >> change creates uncertainty no matter what. so the morning after do you have to do a lot of pan holding or are you getting a lot of phone calls can't how does that work >> it is an understanding of what that meaning. we don't believe of answers. we are at the status quo point

where we realize a lot of the work whether it's on the regulatory side or the administration will continue to progress and it may be in the absence so looking at what the opportunity may be on the legislative cited the budget reconciliation over the next couple of weeks and months. please send out a memo to the clients now. what happens in the lame-duck. the lame-duck is when everything gets scrambled and crazy. you may end up with some type of tax pay for. so it is this matter of all

right are they going to do a cr, are they going to do an omnibus, or they are going to be policy writers, which tax provisions are going to go forward. are we going to try to throw other tax measures into the mix because the end of the year that he didn't pay for the business tax cuts so it's sort of free money. these are all of the things our clients are asking about now and we are guiding them and making sure that their interests are protected in this very tumultuous environment. >> because we knew this result was not is not surprising what may be surprising was the number and some of the things that happened. so now people are not necessarily panicked and it makes a good point. it's bigger than we thought what

impact what we have on the lame-duck session and will the new members push the old members to not do a lot just to kind of do a minimum, so is it a three-month cr, four month or something longer than that? that is where we are right now. i do healthcare and we can talk about that. >> on a little bit of panic are the folks that lost champions for the cause and the constituent companies. i think that is the only bit of the rights so everyone else is what we thought would happen. >> you had mentioned the possibility of reconciliation. do you want to talk about --

>> absolutely. there is a sense of given where the numbers are good and more favorable than we anticipated. the fact of the matter is looking at next year as we can accomplish in the senate with 51 votes from mitch mcconnell and going through the budget reconciliation process and whether it makes us both through the chambers task is an unlikely proposition but in the short term, but we anticipate its clients like mine are concerned about setting markers for things like medicaid cuts on the tax side so it's an opportunity for the lobbyists to engage and it will create a lot of anxiety the next six to seven months. whether or not it takes shape at the front of the conversation the idea being that it will set a marker for the future debates when we get it beyond. >> the biggest marker that will be sent is that we want to make this political from the get-go and if the reconciliation

happens, there isn't going to be something obama will find. it just won't have an answer that means the marker is out and we are going to campaign for two more years. >> i think most people assume tax reform, the energy. there is going to be a lot of activity. is that what you are assuming even if it isn't a big bill everybody wants a lovely large solution to tax reform and even if we are just talking rifle shot is if your assumption this activity is going to be trade were where do you see the action coming up? >> will there be a move meant maybe, we will see. but there will be a legitimate chance to reform pieces of obamacare. if it is done in a bipartisan

manner there is an opportunity for certain pieces to be done on a bipartisan manner i think that would be the focal point. >> and i think that building on what jeff said regarding healthcare, a lot of pressure will be on the congress to repeal it and we may see the bills. but i think that jeff's point about that is it isn't going to work so will we see the piecemeal pieces of legislation to repeal? the challenge by the republicans is doing it in a way that the president won't sign today also antagonize the president to your point, michelle, on the other place to be co- pieces they would like the democrats and republicans talk about if the president moves on immigration for the executive branch that would please indulge. they could poison it if both sides do want to work together on health care by sending a

stream of things he will not sign and he will veto. we will have to see. >> but we don't know is what road republicans will take. we won't know today or for a couple weeks. the road they could take his messaging, doing everything we can to show that we can't govern and we can't work with this president and therefore we would love to govern but we just can't so let's look to the president and things we can get him to say we are trying. on the flipside you can look at opportunities and to say things like trade, taxes, pension, obamacare off ramps, opportunities to look at things you can get 60 votes on the senate and appeal. that takes a lot to have that conversation but again i don't know that we know which path republicans are going to take. they say i wanted to take that track. the political person in me says let's take the other track and wait until 2017. but there will probably be a

combination of both of those things in play and i don't know how long it will last. >> then you have the regular pattern of bills that need to be reauthorized. can we work on a higher reauthorization bill and are we going to do a telecom rewrite? transportation infrastructure, these are things where there are opportunities to lead and you can see the movement on them >> if the president is planning to move forward without congress because he has expressed his frustration several times and take them out of these equations what does that do in terms of is the focus shift to the regulators and how do you handle that? >> it would be across the ballot as well and i think that that basically is saying i am not really interested in giving it a

bipartisan line just going to move forward. something very clear could happen and something happened to all of us up here today to >> it's the president's fourth quarter. he's going to finish strong and he's going to put a mark on this country. he the country. he has the ability to use his agency to change the way that americans live over the course of the next two years and i think that you are going to see a much stronger and forceful approach when it comes to issues like climate change on immigration and other matters. so congress is going to spend a lot of time doing what is he doing, how can we stop it and that is when this sort of battle

begins but ultimately right now, he has the power to do a lot of things and he's going to use it. >> you asked about the regulation. at least ten years, probably 20, folks in this business have realized when you pass the legislation that isn't even almost half of what we do that is important and that is the regulatory process. so, it is ongoing and we are constantly having to be involved in the regulatory process and if you're not you are going to miss a lot. i do healthcare and there is so much that is still to be done on the affordable care act from a regulatory perspective that we but we are also getting far enough away the regulations are starting to come around again so it's incredibly important to pay attention to the regulation and what more needs to be done and i suspect the president to have this point.

it's going to be very aggressive across the board whether it's regulation that has the power but it's still going to be aggressive and push the envelope. we have a huge amount having served in the administration we have a huge amount of power and discretion when it comes to regulation and congress. it's much more difficult for the congress to do something to stop or change regulation. >> you mentioned that there will be votes to repeal. what are you most optimistic in terms of the medical device and stuff like that? >> the opportunity will depend on whether or not does the white house say okay bring it on i will veto that lets move through this and then get down to doing what we might be able to do or

whether that kind of activity poisons the well that the president just get ticked off. and when the pressure on the leadership is so great to not compromise at all that but to just continue with these votes that there could be an limited number on them. we don't know. >> the other thing about it, if we go to the dynamic scoring hell does that affect all of us and is it all of a sudden become the device tax and what sort of a role does that play? the >> you don't snap your fingers and have the bills on the legislation. it is in this number in the sense that they will start

scoring everything that comes out of the gate and it is a lot longer. >> if i'm a democrat i would demand that republicans passed with any repeal particularly the full repeal but they also have ready to go to replacement bill and that's going to be because of the scoring and all other things extremely difficult for them to agree on that catches all the people that are correctly now having insurance as a result. how do we make sure they don't fall through the replacement. >> they may not be there yet but they are being realistic about the notion when it comes to health care into the affordable care act and what i understand they've recognized that they have to give that red meat to

these folks that we have to be able to talk about the four or five things as mentioned opportunities for bipartisan support that can catch president by that he could be willing to do, things like the medical device tax and things like that. opportunities where there could be changes that wouldn't necessarily damage the equity of the affordable care act. >> you mentioned what gets done in the lame duck. you have a very short window before everything is about 2016 so does this mean a lot of your act was offloaded and do you feel the pressure to move early? the >> v. will see.

it's been a pseudo- mommy of events and if they are all active on, we have the authorization that comes up is it just another patch or do they have to try to do something permanent. [inaudible] we also have the dynamic of the members in the senate and they will play a tremendous role in putting pressure on some things that maybe he's not quite ready to do or even on the tough votes where he may have folks where

there is that window of time we keep talking about. those are factors as well. >> the assumption is that there is about three that we can count on -- i think for that republican staffers they are going to work their little hinnies off to see what is achievable in this congress and then it will pretty much be set in terms of what is doable in the agenda by next august. does that change the work that we do day in and day out? no. we have 734 days before 2016. it is a lot of noise and distraction and a something for the commentators to talk about, but in terms of the public policy day in and day out, that will continue to move forward.

>> i was going to ask this because we have two democrats into republicans, but how difficult is it when the other team" in charge or by this point is it's just actually not even matter? >> to set the agenda, sure but you need the democrats to pass anything and we need republicans to pass anything. so i think that, you know, it really doesn't affect much and i think again when we become bipartisan it hasn't affected us at all but at the same time i like to be part of the team. >> is there anything that you expect to make a big difference? and is there anybody taking over you talked about the champions but just in general do you foresee any of the new -- >> there are a lot of changes in the senate.

it's musical chairs and where people landed. it's going to be interesting. some folks have never held the gavel before and are earnest public policy folks that are excited about the opportunity. others are far more political and this is why we love what we do. no matter what, we predict or project what will happen, something wild and crazy will happen because politics are always stranger than fiction and you are dealing with human beings and they do very human things. and i never cease to be amazed that you think that something is going one direction and you can have a u-turn. >> i said if something crazy is going to happen, it's here.

he won by the final tally over 100,000 votes. it was amazing. i think it is a good point. the one that will be interesting in the house isn't due to the election but the term limit pledges with darrell issa and the committee and what do they do, then what does the senate do do they follow the pattern? this is where republicans could exercise a good deal of authority in either a potentially good way or bad way. they could do oversight investigation. if you've been in the administration it's not perfect and it never is it you can have someone look over your shoulder while may be annoying it isn't a bad idea but if it is purely political in nature and it doesn't really seem to have a purpose, then it is annoying and it is not productive. it will be interesting to see where that goes in the investigations committee.

>> i expect under the leadership they are going to shine a bright light on the administration and implementation of dodd frank and the affordable care act. we can expect to that democrats will be equally as activated only instead of focusing on the administration they are going to shine a light on industry. so expect to see senator edward t., senator blumenthal engaged and is sending letters and investigations into different business practices. increasingly, what we have seen is one senator using they are convening power to change or correct behavior.

i think that we will see this only grow in the months to come. >> we have less than two minutes. if you have questions, again we have the microphones and we will be looking at twitter. we talked about how a lot of this depends on how the republican leaders put the markers down but also the president. is there anything that you are looking in a press conference that's going to make you nervous or that you are hoping for when obama gets up there later today >> i was sitting in the in a row with other folks room with other folks i said there's a period of grace. you don't have to do anything for the next couple of weeks. so i'm hoping to hear that again as they say all the things we want to hear about getting along and try to gather if you may

have different interests among the clients we do want progress. i'm interested -- i like the idea of governing and i would like to see the congress and the white house covered so that's what i'm listening for is to see is the fight going to start tomorrow. that's what i'm listening for. >> i hope that we will see more thoughtfulness and respect. i hope if this election -- one thing is the economic insecurity that americans feel, one out of two people still think that we are in a recession. figuring out ways to work together to address that is going to be the key moving forward. is that i'm focused more on friday's meeting at the white house. i think republican leaders and other members of the