would need to be healed and dealt with. we have aa capability to do that here in a way we could not in the region. i'm afraid i think we have got the balance. while they're clearly is plenty of scope with different views, we have to make a judgment, and the judgment we have made is that accepting 20,000 of the most vulnerable here while stepping up a program of providing support in the region is the right balance. >> some years ago i went undercover in a refugee camp

in france. my overriding feeling from that time is not the vast majority of the people in the camper economic migrants. i would have done exactly the same, but what sort of analysis do you have of the percentage of people who are currently on the move within the european union? what percentage of people who come from countries as opposed to those that are less wealthy than around? >> i am not able to give you a figure. and clearly, those who are coming from syria almost entirely will be people who are feeling the effects of work. but it is also clear that not all of the people arriving from sierra. there are people from afghanistan, pakistan, turkey which i understand is

a policy of not requiring visas from citizens of islamic countries, which creates an opportunity for people traffickers but also for enterprising individuals who are seeking to move toward europe from other parts of the world. so while we all understand the motivation of those coming from syria command it is easy to understand, there will be people from other parts of the world seeking to join the flow of humanity and to try to obtain a better life for themselves in your. i think we all understand the complexity here. on an individual level we can all empathize with people wanting to improve their standard of living, create better conditions for the families.

at an individual level that is an entirely admirable thing to want to do, but equally we understand that collectively we cannot accommodate all of the people in the world who would rather have a european living standard. we must distinguish between those who are fleeing persecution and those who are simply seeking better economic conditions. >> would it be fair to say that you and the prime minister see what a lot of european leaders don't, the potentially hundreds of millions of people to be motivated to move into the european union if we give the impression that the doors are currently open? >> clearly, i should have said, of course, while we are talking about syrians and afghans, we are talking about people coming on the

mediterranean route, the central mediterranean route which was the focus of attention until very recently, people coming from libya, is dominated by african. there are some syrians and there, but it is dominated by africa. somalia, nigeria, sudanese, our judgment, the majority of that economic migrants. so clearly there is a very large potential pool of economic migrants. we have to tackle it in three ways of threshold for granting people omission, settlement in the european union. we have to help reinforce border controls and countries of origin and countries of transit, and we have to invest through our aid and development budget

and only in the uk, but i would urge european union partners to focus their budget on investing in the countries of origin to reduce the pushback. of course it is not as simple as people leave the country in which they are settled and have grown up just because they could have a higher standard of living in another country. they don't plan large. they leave the country of origin because they don't have any standard of living at all. so creating conditions where people can enjoy some prospect of being able to support their families, even though it may be hadat a much lower standard of living than they would enjoy if they were settled in the european union, it's likely to have a positive effect on migration flow. finally, i got an e-mail from one of my constituents today, if the italians with

the germans take him -- issue travel documents or they become citizens of germany, 800,000 people from syria, and more broadly if the european union is open and economic migrants as well as issue with european passports, presumably because people could be in the uk, if they chose to. of course under the current system of free movement once they are nationals of eu member states they would benefit from the rights available to eu nationals of free movement. >> if we remain members of the european union we could theoretically see many hundreds of thousands of people from less wealthy countries in the world and also refugees coming into the uk.

>> well, theoretically. clearly we are one of the richest countries in the eu. while there is concern about movement of migrants within the eu into the uk, it is not the case that the poorest countries of exited as britain has filled up. clearly the number of people who move because of the gradient of national income as it were, is limited. >> bulgaria still has a lot of people in it, even though the gdp per capita is far lower than the germans or britons. so it is an impact at the margin. of course you are right. those 800,000 people as they turn up in germany and eventually become german citizens will add to the 80 odd million people already in germany as people who

potentially could choose to come to the uk. >> is there anything -- i'm told it takes years to get german to five. >> how many years? >> on average over ten. >> right. >> thank you. >> you anticipate that there will be bumps along the road in the course of the deal. what are your concerns about the implementation? >> i am comfortable with the deal. i thinki think i have said this to the committee before, but i believe the by approaching the negotiation, someone who led the british in the negotiation, but by approaching this negotiation on the basis that we don't trust them and they don't trust us, it took us a very long while but does mean we

have a deal which is robust. but i also say, and this is my personal view, we would not have a deal at all if the iranians had not taken the decision at some. the cost to a ran of continuing to defy the world by pursuing a nuclear weapons program was just too great and it was not in the national interest to do it. we would not have had this deal. so i am clear in my mind that iran has taken the decision to abandon that route, not for reasons of altruism but because it judges it is in the iranian national interest to abandon that route. i am confident that the deal , once ratified and on through congress in washington and tehran, as we now understand it, will be implemented.

iran will not gain sanctions relief until this carried out, the steps of compliance that are required, remove from the iraqi reactor core so that it can no longer produce plutonium, dismantle the majority of its centrifuges, abandon a large part of its r&d program,, exported 90 percent of its stock of enriched uranium, etc. we have a robust inspection regime in place, and i am confident that the nuclear part of the deal, the nuclear deal will be implemented and will be delivered on. what i think i was referring to is the potential for a broader rebuilding of a relationship with iran. iran is a major power, an

important country in the region of the world's second-largest gas reserves, oil reserves. an educated population. we cannot ignore them. we do need to engage with iran, and iran is to engage in the world. we do not see eye to eye and will continue robustly to challenge iran on the issues we disagree. they will continue to robustly challenge us. it will be a difficult relationship, but better to have a difficult relationship than no relationship. so how do you respond to critics who say iran is still free to continue to develop more advanced centrifuges? or that iran will sign the

additional protocol for the nuclear nonproliferation treaty but also have 24 days for request from the iaea. iran must now provide information the past program, but if that answer is not satisfactory no one we will no what the answer is because it will not be made public command there is no way of knowing. the production of fissile material, and lonely last 15 years. give me your response to people who say these things, as you say, they don't trust us. can we trust them enough to develop other, more technologically advanced? >> all of these issues were discussed at enormous length and it clearly if we had simply been invited to write aa list of all the restrictions we would like you want to be subject to in perpetuity, we would have included more things that

are included in the deal, but it was a negotiation command we are confident that the safeguards that we have, the restrictions that we have are adequate. going to ask him to answer on some of the specific points because he was the man sitting up all night poring over the numbers. >> that is what online him up for. >> well, thank you. let me deal with this. research and development, very difficult part of the negotiation. a substantial number of people are involved in the industry, and it clearly wanted to maintain the argument that when the restrictions are lifted it will follow a civil nuclear program. so it will not undermine a breakout of at least 12 months or at least 12 years. and after that iran will be

able to gradually increase his research and development, that is true, but as with everything we need to contrast it not with a perfect world, but the world we would have lived and had we not gotten an agreement. the truth is, iran already had installed advanced centrifuges. so we haveso we have really pushed the research and development program a long way down the track. on the inspection, of course, the additional protocol itself is quite an intrusive mechanism, but it works in a way which refers problems. but we introduced in this agreement is that 24 daytime window which is your backstop if things go wrong. as others have said, you

cannot remove the traces of you reading within 24 days with 244 weeks. everything can still be traced and, in fact, the inspection process we have is more intrusive than the additional protocol. on the past military dimension, the ia ea has agreed to work with the iranian government which they need to pursue in order to allow sanctions to be lifted. i do not think anyone believes we will get a complete understanding of anything that has ever been done, but i think that we will get a pretty good sense of what past activities have been undertaken. last month to your peemack, this is an agreement which has different timescales within it. something's happened after ten, some 15 years. the 300 kilos is for 15 years. the limit on 3.67 percent

enrichment is for 15 years. there are other provisions which last for 25 years, and there are some which have no limit. we are confident that we are dealing with the problem substantially for a long time and that iran will have every incentive to abide by his nonproliferation treaty obligations for much longer. >> clearly the deal, do you think that commitment, are we paying the price? for losing support? some of the neighbors who are less happy? >> we have to extinguish a concern which is perfectly legitimate about iran's behavior in the region command the neighborhood

from concerns about the deal itself. i think most of the regional powers, most of the regional countries, when they have understood how the deal works are reasonably comfortable that it will be effective in preventing iran from developing nuclear weapons. there is a line of attack that says the iranians will always cheat. i heard this when i was in israel a couple days after we did the deal. i expect to show here at tomorrow. but the iranians will always cheat. they cannot be trusted. >> it is not just israel saying that. other countries. >> there is a suspicion of a ran, and we have approached this deal on the basis that we don't do it on trust.

trust. we do it on the basis of robust mechanisms. we start with that assumption that goes to strategy and put in place mechanisms to make sure it won't work. the more serious challenge from our interlocutors in the region is, you should not do a deal with iran because they are doing bad things in the region. i have some sympathy with the light of reason, but it is flawed because the deal that we have done is a deal to live sanctions that were put in place specifically because of iran's illegal nuclear program. if iran now ends that illegal nuclear program and we can verify that it has ended, we must in all conscious, if the integrity of the international system is to stand, we must then lift the sanctions. now, what some of our

interlocutors in the region would like is for the sanctions to be rolled over to deal with events brought her behavior. here are not doing nuclear weapons, but there are lots of things you are doing that we really don't like. we share that view that iran should change his behavior in the region, but we recognize that we cannot use the international sanctions that were put in place because of the illegal nuclear weapons program to address iran's other behavior. we will have a however continue to press iran on his behavior in the region, as will other countries in the region and other international powers. we hope that as iran reading gauges with the world it will rethink the way it wants to engage in the region.

there are people who will say that as a naïve view, and we will have to wait and see. i think that it is self evident, when you isolated country as we have done with iran for very good reason, it is likely to become more bellicose in his behavior and if it gets fully engaged trading with enjoying investment from the rest of the world. that is what we have to hope , this re- engagement will strengthen the moderates and iranian society and give iran more of the sense of having a stake in the region coalition to reengage in the region as an important nationstate, player in the region. >> and in your recent visit digit talk about some of this? the incursions in the neighboring countries?

>> and we have a different.of view from the iranians. we see these things differently. hamas different, the such to the situation in bahrain, yemen, and that is, perhaps, not surprising. the fact that i was in tehran talking to the senior players about how we see these things differently i think is a step forward. and again, we have to hope that as iran reading gauges with the world just as a debit nuclear weapons, it will start to make decisions based upon its assessment of its own national interest to modify some of its behavior. it will not happen overnight and it has been doing so for reasons of international self-interest, not for

reasons of regional altruism but actually responsible nations acting in their national, enlightened self-interest within the international rules is a game that we can all play, even when we don't agree with the policy objective of the nations in question. >> is there a plan b if they deny they support for the deal? >> well, numbers today are looking like the president may not even need to use his veto. if we are clear, he already has more than enough support to sustain the veto. i don't think that is a contingency that we need to plan for. now, we do no that in the iranian system they will have to vote on this deal, and there are plenty of

people who are picking a deal out there. i'm pretty confident that it will get approved in the us and iraq and look forward to implementation. >> you reopen the embassy two weeks ago. premier previous assertion, there were obstacles. how was obstacles overcome? can you share with us how they were overcome? >> these things are always a judgment call. the difference, the priorities in the genders. we have moved far enough on the key issues that the

situation has changed far enough, and the assurances that we have received reassuring enough that on balance it was now right to reopen the embassy in order to obtain a greater level of dialogue with the iranians and to support british businesses in pursuing business in iran that country. >> so very specifically, i just want to push you slightly on this. to appear to get into our embassy, that clearance, to be received assurances from the more hardline elements about the security of our staff? and if in the uk, reported to the precondition for

opening the section. >> on all of those areas we have made sufficient progress that we believe we can now move forward. we -- and none of these was an ideological position. there were practical issues polling agency practical ways forward. ways forward. in all areas we found practical ways to proceed which allowed them to go ahead and reopen the embassy. that doesembassy. that does not mean to say they won't have continuing and robust discussions about some of these issues in the future, but we are confident there has been a conscious decision in the iranian system to accommodate the reopening of the british embassy commander should not underestimate the significance of that for the iranian regime. britain enjoys a special place. we are uniquely historically

-- we carry unique historical backing. and to take the decision to push ahead and facilitate was a serious political decision made within the regime. decided to use the political capitol. so we have to regard that as a real commitment. >> if we can now move on. >> yes. concerned about the things happening in egypt over the last number of years, and also the indication that has been given for the united kingdom for the foreseeable

future. a number of people are concerned about the issue of human rights and the things being done over the last few years. and i just want to ask, three specific cases we had the clearing the 14th of august 2013, about a thousand people. it was an exception, but it does not appear anything is happened in relation to that now i understand human rights watch have applied to the un council to ask about be carried out. can i just ask what they are doing in relation to that either pushing for the

inquiry are asking the un bodies to get involved? >> well, 1st of all, we share your concern about many of the things that are happening in south egypt and raise these issues regularly with the egyptian counterparts. mdd was in my office yesterday having a meeting with the foreign office junior minister today on specific. we also recognize that egypt is a very important country, huge population, a vital component of stability in the middle east, arguably one of the most important countries in africa. britain's national interest as well as the best interest of the egyptian people requires us to engage with the egyptian government.

engaging with the regime and talking to them about these issues more likely to elicit a positive response than refusing to engage with them and shouting at them from a distance. i had discussions where i have found him willing to engage and talk in a calm and detailed manner about the most difficult subjects. someone who is willing to engage and discuss. our judgment is that by engaging with egypt, by recognizing that egypt faces some very big challenges economic challenges and security challenges that we

have a huge amount of shared interest, particularly in the security challenge. and by workingand by working together we will get a better outcome for the uk, better outcome for the egyptian people command a better chance of addressing some of these very significant human rights problems in particular the concern we have that the political space in egypt a shrinking, not expanding. the long-term situation in egypt. >> i have one of these people who believes in talking to people. i think what people would like to no, they're has been discussion. has there been any kind of real answer given by the government?

the case that they accepted? any concrete response? >> i have not gotten the briefing here, but we have discussed it specifically. but i need to check the record. >> three times. and it was under which we would reengage because they would commit to an inquiry. internationally overseen. what happened? >> as i just said, i recall that we discussed, but i would need to check where we are in terms of what is currently happening, and i will write to the committee. don't have the briefing. >> to other issues, specific

cases where we have had 183 people charged with the murder of these two police officers. very much a kangaroo court command have all been sentenced to death. has there been any discussion about this mass execution? >> i don'ti don't think max -- mass execution has taken place. one thing i would like to no , do they know has to how many people have actually so far been executed? and if they are going to be, you know, i'll be taking up this issue, the way this is being carried out people will go.

>> i discussed these issues with the foreign minister. and the egyptians take the position, which you would recognize, that there is a judicial process, and they cannot interfere in the judicial process, but there is also executive powers which only come into play with the judicial processes when it's full course, including the appeals process. my understanding is that those sentences are not subject to appeal. and the president's position in discussions i've had with them has been consistently that he cannot intervene while the judicial process is ongoing, but reminding us

that he has an executive power of clemency was the judicial processes and. i think engaging with the executive power, whether there is a separation between judicial process and the executive, making clear that those executive powers can be used to achieve outcomes even with the judiciary, with the judicial process does not, i think that is the right way to engage, certainly the best way to try to get a result. simply bludgeoning the egyptian government is not going to achieve the objective. again i recognize, while these are going on, the most

likely way for us. >> without putting words in your mouth from what i understand. >> what you say, with that said, your thinking, get into the issue, saying look at that. >> what i'm saying is, at that point we have the relationship built, the ability to access the decision-makers, and if our relationship is strong and growing, we have hopefully the leverage to make your voice heard.

>> the 3rd issue that has happened, we understand about 14,000 people over the last year to have been detained in prison, some being tortured. are you able to give us any idea as to how permanent that is? >> i would not disagree with the number. but i would not disagree with that. i mean,, egypt is facing a counterterrorism crisis, but by confusing the counterterrorism with the broader political, they are making a mistake that will ultimately be an unsuccessful policy. the consistently explain

that our own experiences, the way to deal with the terrorist threat is to focus on isolating hard-core terrorists from the softcore passive supporters and clamping down on the softcore passive support is not in the end a successful strategy. so we do not think that rounding up tens of thousands of people is a credible counterterrorist response. we explained that quietly impatiently using examples morrow district, and we tried to persuade, encourage in a way that we hope we will lead to a more productive and constructive approach in the future, we can only do that by engaging >> i think myself and i'm

sure many people here will agree that is the way forward. >> on egypt, given the seriousness of the indictment, potential indictment, there is some suggestion that there might be action this season should he overcome on charges of crimes against humanity. also, do you have any concern about that? >> as a head of state he will come with special exemption. and, indeed, foreign places. >> sure.

give you any comfort? on one of the subjects we have covered, cut and dry. >> your.about engaging with people, i totally agree with that. we had a discussion about that earlier. >> we did that on newsnight. >> i mean,, would you agree that we hereby,, extensive taken place in the last number of years, somehow linked. we know that half the people fleeing, it is because of

sedan. sorry. and then, you know, the military conscription as well. i mean,, do we not feel they're should be other things like that in relation to assad as well? things like a no-fly zone. for example, no-fly zones. >> okay. >> the issue about the no-fly zone, for example. >> they only work if someone is prepared to police them.

syria has a sophisticated air defense system provided by russia properly operating in part by russian technicians. i am not aware of a competent air force that is offering to police a no-fly zone, which exists only on paper, like a yellow line is, i'm afraid, undermining credibility. you know, the united kingdom , if we're going to talk about no-fly zones, we had better be clearly assured -- prepared to share policing them, and i don't think we are. >> syria has an air defense system and the russians are integral to the operation of the system, would it not be

possible to actually engage the firing from aircraft carriers park somewhere in the mediterranean, just taking out one or two of the helicopters which are apparently dropping the barrel bombs given that assad does not have a limitless number of helicopters, i wasi was told. maybe about 60 or so, maybe more than that. one or two of these helicopters. saving the lives and perhaps intentionally others. >> that's a different strategy from a no-fly zone seeking to destroy the air assets being used to bomb the syrian people.

it is a perfectly possible military strategy. ii do not know whether you are suggesting an appetite for such action on the part of the uk. >> i'm not saying the uk alone. they are making it very clear they want to stop the bombing in the civilian population. >> that's very interesting. it was your party. >> have said that publicly. maybe we should give with your colleagues. >> having, i think the answers, followed by saying the syrian defense systems are sophisticated. there is a slight temptation to forget that. and all the actions that have taken place, the

syrians have not ever engaged with allies ever. they haveclearly made a decision not to engage allied aircraft because they are not targeting the syrian government or isil forces. they have sophisticated capabilities, and i think it would be a big decision to start using coalition assets to directly attack syria. that would be a major step and one that i think would need to be thought about extremely carefully. [inaudible conversations] >> one question on egypt. >> this commission, met with the president.

the freedom of expression, and particularly the give the impression very clearly that it was an embarrassment something that happened before he came on the scene. i wonder if you are making progress, the fate. >> it goes back to the exchange i had earlier. there is a distinction between the judicial part of the system in the executive part of the system. the new sentences that have just been handed down the judicial. i have not yet discussed this case myself with our egyptian and a lockers.

we will have that discussion this afternoon, and i will be interested to hear from him what he has said about the current executive thinking about the process. none of this is quick. the egyptian system does not necessarily work very quickly. but i have no reason to believe the president's position, and he told me much the same thing he told the committee, has changed. >> thank you very much for your time this afternoon. >> tonight gary epstein, chair of the fcc and sent to the auction task force will discuss the upcoming broadcast spectrum auction

that will allow wireless companies to bid on airway space. >> a congressional determination that was made in the spectrum act, and one thing i want to emphasize, we are not taking spectrum. it is a voluntary auction on behalf of the broadcasters. broadcasters continue to be an extremely valuable service. they will be able to relinquish rights in return for a share proceeds. and so what it is is congress' determination in the fcc's implementation to use market forces to make available more spectrum to meet needs. in other words, the need for spectrum is burgeoning by multiples and exponentially. there is not a lot of good low band spectrum left. this is a new and novel method that the congress has put in place in the fcc has to implement. >> tonight at 8:00 o'clock

eastern on c-span2. >> and after that testimony from state department and border control officials on security issues at the us-mexico border. this book border. this book before the house oversight committee. we will show that tonight at 8:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. next, a discussion on the 50 state strategy, a plan for the democratic party to regain control of the us state houses and other elected offices. this was held at the annual conference in phoenix. it is an hour and ten minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> that was a fast few minutes. thank you for being here. how we can reverse the decline.

i am excited to see everyone here. i think that this is one of the most important topics we can be talking about. there are states like arizona all over the country were democrats to be doing more or less, but we are not we have seen over the last five years the democrats have lost over 900 seats in the state legislature across america. we have gone from having democratic trifecta is the democratic governor, democratic state house. we only have five now when democrats control all the leverage which means only five states in the union have any hope of driving for anything remotely progressive. washington state is one

where it is no longer. soon embark minimumsoon embark minimum wage bills, paid sick leave. in other states voter id. you guys no well. this is a great opportunity here today to talk about why that happened. but we want that to be a short part of the conversation. how we fix it, we do about it because we diagnose what is wrong and pivot it immediately. very excited to have this discussion. want to introduce our panelists. a programming change. very excited to have assembly member guns always gonzales with us. the california legislature is still in session. i had a call, no longer to make it. very disappointed. remember that name. she is an amazing rising

progressive star. [applause] however, we have someone fantastic who has agreed to join the panel. monica perez. i will let the panelists introduce themselves. she ran for state legislature couple years ago great experiences about running winning campaigns. that's where i also work. so it's great to have a local of the on the panel. sitting next to her, former state senator turner. [applause] who ran a great race in ohio last year. she is not the current secretary, but i think she has a lot of great insights to talk about, how democrats

can win and especially at crucial states like ohio. sitting next to her is the newly minted executive director of progressive majority washington state. not only a great friend of mine, but a great organizer and someone who is passionate about making sure everyone participates in democracy and that the government works for all the people. he does great work, and i'm glad he can join our panel. and last and absolutely not least is executive director of the campaign committee. they do amazing and important work to hold and gain democratic seats in state legislatures. we're going to fix what has happened, they will be a central part of that. thank you for joining us. [applause] i am planning not to do very much talking. we have an amazing panel.

the 1st thing i want to ask, what happens? why is it that we went from having democrats and lots of democratic control and states ten years ago to where we are now republicans are running right? what happened and why? >> hi, everybody. i would like to say, i think what happened coming from the perspective of arizona, what happened here is we started focusing on congressional races, the sexy races, on governor and above. we have not even focused on secretary of state races. we races. we need to put enough emphasis on school board candidates. the school boards are based for building great state legislators who in five to ten years our knew congresspeople, governor, and that is where we need to start. a lot of folks run for the state legislature not knowing what issue motivates

them. if it is immigration reform, you could make a bigger impact their, but you've got to start somewhere, and you've got to figure out how your issues play into what you are running for. another when i ran it was 2004. the district is redistricted now. old district 25, new district 14. it was the chance for democrats to win back then, but we were not focused. the party focused on legislative races. i thought, that's a great deal to have a great year to run. none of the money comes to the state legislative races. i was fortunate enough to have emily's list. i see tori taylor. groups like emily's list came into my living room and helped me come up with a plan that is what dsa does, what i want to do. i want to do what they did

for me for state legislative races, and since i'm from arizona i will never forgive my home state. thank you. [applause] >> were just going on down the track. you know, i happen to agree with sister perez. you don't build a roof, and i don't know if there's anyone, coming from a woman who never built a house, but -- app seven. >> you have to be a scientist to understand that climate change is real, and you do not have to be an architect to understand the best way to build a house, you build the foundation. and so i do agree, she talks about the fact that one of the reasons why we have lost lots of ground, they, being folks who do not believe in equality and justice for all, wn

the majority in terms of the republican party, when folks don't vote for their self-interest starting with the school board member, the township trustee, mayor, city council folks, you build a foundation with locally elected people on the foundation are the foundation. the hands of time being turned back in this country, the reversal of roe v wade all of the things that we care about is happening on the state level of government. having a fantastic president is all well and good, but it takes teamwork to make the dream work, and the quarterback is only as good as the person that they can throw the ball to. the. the boss to be thrown to progressive board members, mayors, state house members and senators winning back statewide offices. and i definitely speak from experience. i have to thank the dfa and

jim dean and governor howard dean for making sure that candidates like me have aa fighting chance of making an investment in rising of the base. all paths to a great nation go through the ballot box. one woman, one man, one vote we cannot lose sight of that. we have lost sight of that. because the camera's flash the presidential candidate, the thing that happens to you and your children, us and our children happen on the local and state levels of government way before any president has that kind of impact. we're going to find it, brother. we're going to find it. >> i had to follow that. >> am speaking from a

washington state perspective. what happened in years past was definitely, we as a party and is progressives have seizures are contractors and don't often adopt the equity principles. so when we give them our money to run, the candidates that are working hard, they are talking the same language. their time the candidates to speak to the middle of the old american majority, not the rising american majority , not the population that we need to hear it from most enough thoseis waiting to be brought into the electoral process. also, with those contracts, we need to examine how we spent that money, not just where but who we are going on my to and whether they are spending it equitably. if we leave out large

sections of the relation we are not doing our job. >> thanks a lot. >> really interesting question. five years ago going into the 2010 election the democrats held 60 of the 98. thirty. a big part of what happened, what happened in the 2010 election when national republican wave took down a lot of our legislature. ..

where is what we call picture program or be placed 300 computer organizers across the country in specific districts and i'm working on a statewide race in one community. 311 folks and we felt like we really did make a difference even though the electoral word where we wanted them to be. we knocked on thousands of doors. last weekend alone we had over 1.4 million and that was fruitful and it allowed us time to know where the trouble spots

were and where we were struggling with turnout and enthusiasm. one of the things we did last cycle was unlike some of the other committees as we wanted to look at this long-term. the ohio senate last cycle even though they were going to win the majority that when cycle we were putting 311 organizers together they put together the senate and put together a good plan and we wanted to find a handful of organizers that would organize in the community and i think that's really critical to be able to have the funding to be able to find it not just for 2016 but be able to follow through on 18 and 20. >> one thing that i heard is the decline in part of how you motivate voters, how do you get people out to the polls? i was just having lunch with a woman who ran for secretary of state in a mexico and she pointed out that she was walked a very narrow line because

100,000, from 202010 to 2014. the turnout we saw across the country were turnout to drop dramatically from 2010 to the 2014 midterm. what do you think is behind back? why are we having such a struggle turning people out in these years we have a presidential candidate on the ballot? we will start with michael. >> i think there are a lot of different factors. at some point we will get some of your opinions as well. i think some of it is related to the fact that even white e.j. mentioned before, a lot of democratic candidates don't go enough to the base. there is an issue with that. and we take a look at a lot of republican advertising and throughout the cycle. a lot of times we will scratch your heads a little bit and say why are they talking about such a french issue something that actually doesn't come up very high is a side issue on the polls.

but what they are often doing is trying to send out those messages to their own base to engage them so that they vote and often quite frankly a lot of those messages are you know to the worst of people sometimes, right and we look at it and think that folks are going to pay attention to it. that is what drives their base and therefore a large amount of base comes down to by the midterm elections so i think that's part of it. i also think it comes to just a larger effort that i think we as democrats and progressives need to do to besides the fact that local elections in state elections are critical. they really are important. i can't tell you how often i will have a conversation with family friends and friends of my wife and they will want to talk about politics and talk about hillary and president obama and so on. that's really their touch point. they don't necessarily know who

their elected officials learned i think we really in this room after work to actually try to change that. it takes all of us to be able to change the approach. >> i want to second that. i think the focus is something i wish we would have paid more attention to and money on because there's nothing more -- i don't know if you have those in your states. because it matters. if you have no water anywhere in the west and you don't know wider in your running for state legislative seat and have to come up to three months before you go in front of voters you are going going to struggle. the progressive majority we maintain a farm community in washington state. we have created many people we work with over the course of years to get them ready to run in this year while we did was we said we want everybody is willing to step up for these

special-purpose districts like water districts and reclamation districts school districts to control in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars and oftentimes don't have a quorum or they have really convoluted process for elections. we have some in our state that aren't elected on election day. we have a special election two months later so of those printed maybe people we work with we have -- we told everyone single one of them you're going to run this year and be in our program and 160 of them step up and 160 progressives and i've gone through the bidding process are running and are going to be on the ballot in august. i think that the game-changer because it became better folks in the small districts they are going to make substantial policy change moving forward. what is happen in the past and the reason why this goes back to the writ original question is i don't think we have done the legwork to make sure we are valuing voters. >> amen brother e. j..

just think about last year. last year was the lowest voter turnout in our country in 70 years. think about what was happening in the united states of america seven years ago. we were real busy with the wars, called a worldwide. 70 years of people are often out because they do not believe that folks who hold elected space really give -- about them. i'm going to keep it pg so 70 years that's pretty sad. so for me running for secretary of state in the great state of ohio one woman one man one vote that's the greatest equalizer and how hard it was for me to get traction because i wasn't running for governor. when everybody knows it's the secretary of state's race and i'm not saying that because a sister is running. because the people of cambodia and they don't have access at

their voice cannot be heard for the power of their vote if you can vote for president or council or personal school board member or mayor or governor the ballot talks is the most important so what i think happened last, i have to quote my sister janet jackson what have you done for me lately? [laughter] and citizens in this country are not feeling those folks elected to office really are doing anything about their care or concern those of their children their neighbors and what kind of future our people going to have so we really have to start to talk to folks where they live. we talk about issues. people are trying to solve problems. if i don't have a job that's a problem. if i have to string together three, four or five jobs to make ends meet that's a problem. if my baby is not being educated that is a problem. so progressives are intellectual

but i haven't met anybody that goes out in boats because you are intellectual. they go out to vote because you make them feel some type of way on why you are running in what you're wrong to do to let them so part of it is her message. we have did be the people's hearts and we can do that. titles are good for purposes better. we have a lot of folks running for office and they want the fancy title and they are angling for the next decision in stead of angling to make people's lives better. i don't care what side of the aisle they're on i come from that, it's really from the "mother jones" school of thought brave "mother jones" used to say i will collect and fight for the living at all times. i am for the people in it like to think those of us that have had the privilege or we have elected or aspire to run that this is a ministry. it's called an elected ministry and if you don't care about people you ought not run.

one of the things for progressives it's about soul agreement and we have got that. we like all the issues but how do we help to make sure that what we are right about on the issues permeate through people's hearts of their mode dated to come out and vote number one and vote for their own self-interest. that is part of the problem. even the folks who do vote are not voting for their self-interest. every single election year is important and they are programmed in this country and the society to only come out every four years. think about it come every four years. if there's a person or issue on the ballot every year and we need to give as much firepower in a minucci to those elections every single year because we are building a house, we get to the roof we have a house in the next four years we get to the roof, we are building a house. that's every election year.

i'm just feeling this thing. [applause] >> now i feel wide e.g. just felt. like i should just pack a bag. can we regroup this for a moment? >> don't start. running for president sounds kind of good. and i'm not really joking here. one of the things they got me to run if someone asked me to run. i think we have got to take a real step back. when you are recruiting women and people of color you have got to ask them and you have to ask them at least 10 times. i was lucky that when i was working for howard dean's presidential campaign and the campaign ended his message was he wanted his staff as activists

to run for office and i felt like governor dean was talking to me. was like monica i want you to run for office. i love her in arizona and governor dean i felt like he was speaking to me and saying monica i want you to run for office. i was organizing for him running from kochi's county in arizona and i felt like he personally had asked me to run. there was a group there for me and they said we want you to run. there's an open seat in in the legislature. i was 25 years old. i'm one of those crazy people that in 1871 to run for office. just don't know when and just don't know where. that's the story of gsa. we got people to run for office so we asked them. we asked them and pledge to give them support and help so those folks who were my volunteers as field organizers then became my volunteers as a candidate and that's the beauty of me working

at gsa coming home for me because they are the folks who got me to run. they're the the folks who told me don't worry that you haven't finished your degree, don't worry that you are 25 years old that you are a single hispanic female with a strong cap but background. my mother is catholic let me tell you. and don't worry that planned parenthood and emily's list have endorsed you. you can talk about a come it's okay. your mom will not retreat, believe me. i got kicked out of my church when i got the endorsement for planned parenthood. they came out of my local paper. i got kicked out of my church and my mom got kicked out of our church, our neighborhood church gave my mom stood up for me and a me and i stood up for my values and i said fine i will find a church that welcomes me. i'm still catholic rate i'm a proud pro-choice catholic and i will find a place. we need to find a place for all those candidates. we need to make sure that we are asking people to run, we are making sure that teachers,

nurses community activists veterans are being asked to run and when they tell you they are not ready, they are ready. we have got to tell them. you might not be ready now there are 10 groups waiting to help you. dfa is he ready to train them. i'm ready to help them. i want them to apply for endorsement. we want to help them. they are people like nina turner , what more do you need? i think it's asking people to run and i think it's making sure we hold them accountable. if i ever went back on my promises in 2004 it was pre-sb 1070 that we had an initiative on the ballot. rosie will remember when when we have to show i.d. at the ballot box. i was the only democrat who spoke out against it. i was running the two incumbents and a 25-year-old young woman was the only ones speaking out about it because the party told me i shouldn't speak out. you should stay neutral. how the hell am i going to stay neutral when my parents are

immigrants? there was no way i was going to stay neutral on that and i may have lost my race because of it that i kept my head held high and i still have my integrity so we have got to make sure to hold those folks accountable. if they are promising us a platform, they are promising us progressive values and once they get in the close the door on us guess what that's what primaries are made for and we have got to do that. in arizona we have got to get a lot better at that rate i've seen way too many folks running for the legislature with their eye on congress and then they get to congress and their home state might as well be washington d.c.. so we have got to get back to that. we have got to get back to the days of you know this activism where we had folks who truly cared about the people where you can just run a campaign on direct mail and facebook ads. you have got to knock on doors. i don't care for primaries are in august and it's hot in arizona or anywhere else. you've got to talk to people and if you are not for the people

you have no business running. thank you. [applause] >> one of the things i'm hearing from this panel is the importance of asking people to do things asking people to run, asking people for your vote in the calls to mind something that i remember very well from the spring of 2014. a facebook discussion happened to be with one of the leading political consultants in washington running for democrat in somebody posted an article about how single young women are one of the key democratic demographics. i said this is great, help anyone running for state legislature is reading this and planning how they will reach out to single young women. trying to reach out to poor people. they don't show up to vote in midterm elections. i would advise my community to

do that. they should vote for this four x four voters who have no rival voters. is that the strategy? is that ron? if it's wrong how do we fix fixt and it's right how do we motivated? >> as a single female, who ran as a single female i will tell you that i know i'm not a targeted voter. i know that because i vote in every election every little bond election, everything i'm not going to get those pieces of mail. i'm not going to get that door knock and people are going to remind me to vote because they are going to rely on guess what i'm voting anyway and we are forgetting to talk to our base. i think it's so wrong for us not to talk to single women voters about family issues, we care about them, about education issues, health care issues. it doesn't matter if you are a nontraditional family, family with no kids, grandparents

taking care of kids everyone has the same struggles and we shouldn't have direct messaging for just single women in saying let's just vote for hillary because she's a woman although i worked for hillary but we want to make sure the messaging isn't just directed at you because you are single woman. oh you poor single woman let me talk to about some things that might keep you busy at night because if you are not on match.com or something you might have time to read the issues a little bit longer than if you had kids. we all have the same struggles. i think it's called the american electorate for a reason. we have been talking about it for a feel like 10 years now. it's the untapped group that i guarantee you are issues are 100% with us. we are just not talking to them. or we are talking to them as if they were some odd mythical

group of voters over here and they are not. we are all the same. i care about the same issues that you care about guaranteed. amen to that. single women have to eat and they have got to work. women want that whole dollar. [applause] we want the whole dollar. whether single or married we want our own dollar. [laughter] others a wonderful book coming out called brown is the new white. please visit and support and basically what this does is in terms of the rising electorate that is black and brown and progressive white folks. we are the majority pointblank and if we put a little extra in our ordinary extraordinary things will begin to happen. so we can no longer leave and a

sister or brother behind or in a consultant and i can tell you i had people trying to advise running as a statewide candidate. i would have folks, you all know about ohio the great swing state of ohio and i had a coat salton sea now senator you happen to be black. [laughter] i'm serious. and it took everything i had. to keep it together. are you feeling me? i happen to be, and he went on and said no us and don't draw attention. [laughter] i couldn't make this up. don't have too much attention to ethnicity and i'm saying to myself my name is not rachel.

i am a chocolate sister. i couldn't make this stuff up. you do have people and they met while. another question senator how are you doing down south? down south where? i'm not running in mississippi. i'm running in ohio and they want to know how a sister is doing in the world parts of ohio. when you are in the room of folks to think that way and this was a good person. just think about me woman of color of african-american heritage, i was born that way. it was a little risky. i don't happen to be i am. i'm saying that to say that people are good consciousness. we are the majority and we can't leave anybody behind. in 2012 african-american women were the largest voting block in

the united states of america, the largest voting bloc. we bring the mamas together, the latina sisters the asian sisters wherever we hail from women make the world around her to cat leave anybody behind the women have that type of impact on their families especially if you are single in particular that you have this impact on society. when i say mama i'm not just talking about birding but you have the spirit of a mama somebody who protects and speaks truth to power. that is what we need more of in this country. you've got to get rid of those folks that leaves someone behind. you while no i saw somebody's tweet and i can't keep up but shirley chisholm once a tremendous amount of talent --

that was true then and in 72 standing up and sing or run for for the president denies that america no matter what people say about my ethnicity and my gender and all of us but particularly women stand on the shoulders of a bold sister like that. she said i'm running for the poor. i'm running for children. that's what we need. we can't leave anybody. we don't leave anybody behind. >> hell yeah to all of that. [applause] >> i must have been something real bad in a past life. you said a few things that struck me because i think when we think about who's running the world is women and people of

color but we are not running politics. we are not getting the contracts. we are not pushing back on people that are making the decisions talk to people where they are and telling the candidates you know your last name is a little too latino. so the yard signs say chiquis or on your list people are constructing very constructive use of u.s. hyperprofessional buying into the respectability of politics and the fact that the largest candidate recruitment organization and i can do days without a similar position which is really really messed up. i am a latino in a large state within large latino black or asian population and i have -- work in my industry. it doesn't have to be that way.

it's that way because we are not training ourselves to tell people it's okay to call our own folks out because of their our own folks you begin with the effort to make sure the back of the house is looking like the front of the house. don't just put us in the commercial let us put the commercial together. [applause] and i think part of this has to do with winning versus liberation and mummy look at people voting the parties interested in winning on the ballot so we fill in but when people vote they are looking at who's going to help them liberate their lives because they are in a struggle. they are voting for security. people need to know when they cast a vote is going to protect their families. we are not doing a good job

talking about that and a part of that is we don't have the right people running the campaigns. one of the last things i will say is this idea of voting for security i guess what i mean when i say that? this is a group of progressives. you guys are all not normal people. [laughter] security to many of us looks very different than security to other people throughout the country. in central washington we have a large latino population which is systematically being suppressed through election laws in the way we elect people. it took a federal voting rights case for them to change the way we elect people and for the first time in one city which has never elected a latino which is a majority person they have nine people of color running in the city now. this is about make sure that we are changing the game at the same time.

>> i don't know how to follow-up on so many great comments besides the fact that i mentioned before and i really think a theme throughout this entire discussion is that we have to expand our base. we can't just continue to talk to ed band of folks and expect to be of the change the entire state without actually changing the debate ourselves and talking to people that we need to talk to to in these elections. we have been trying now for too long and we need to actually know how many folks are voting especially in a midterm election. it's critical. when we begin to fight over the same 30% of the elect are and get 51% of the same 30% of the electorate it hasn't been made winning mathematical problem for us to have the last three

elections. i just think that ultimately, i hear about how narrowly we want to talk to people. they think we actually have two here are committee patients here are a few programs bring more people into the process and to ask them to support us. meet them where they are on their issues and their problems but also from their engage them. we want their to help and we want them involved. it's not the same mob clubhouse we may have had before. we need everybody's attention will ask everybody to help. >> so there has been discussion about 2020 strategy, 2020 being the next census the legislature elected in 2020 are the ones that drove the next set of legislative districts and congressional districts. do we aim for 2020 and try to take state legislatures back?

what is strategy look like and what do we need to be doing concretely specifically over the next three election cycles to make sure by the time the next set of districting comes around we have a bunch of democrats that will drop gerrymandered districts and we will start with michael. >> i appreciate this question. one of the things that we work on is to elect democrats across the country and earlier this year we started a new super pac advanced 2020 was former congressman mark schauer has been directing them put together comprehensive redistricting strategy for legislatures, folks on 2020 but as i said earlier what does that mean? what that means is having a short-term plan to be able to have success in 2016 and the elections that are coming up in

2015 and 2016 are critical. we can't wait until 2022 actually do some good things for people and stop a lot of bad things that are happening at the state capitol and at local offices across the country. so we have to actually have a short-term plan to have some land but then from there make some investments in the key states and candidate recruitment , nexus development and training to build and to be able to make gains in 16 and make gains in 18 and get there in 20. a lot of times people focus on, i understand on what happened with republicans. they really put us in the hole but some people may remember the republicans drew maps and many in a critical state after the 2001 maps. they true the maps in michigan and they drew the maps in wisconsin, drew the maps in pennsylvania and some other states as well but those states

democrats have majorities and there there were one of not too chambers in each of the states going into an election. and then we have the national elections that pushed us out. so we can get the majority by the end of the decade. these districts, that's one thing the republicans are scared to death. they know that the electorate is changing. they know the conversation is changing. they know they can hold off change for a little bit of time when they redistrict up by the end of that decade those districts in the state look a lot different than they did at the end of the decade and that's why we need to focus on having a program to address that. the one thing we have going for us this time that we did not have going last time is the fact that in 2020 it will be a presidential year so we do have the opportunity to 16 and 202 have higher turnout than we had so we can take advantage of that to win more of these seats.

>> i think there's a political strategy and we need to push the party to be a bit more open-minded about the democratic party. around what it means. every person needs to be counted if we want these lines to be drawn fairly. and washington state we had some pretty abysmal census turnouts especially in counties of color where we had high populations. took large investments of folks that typically were not interested in what this could do for them and door-to-door contact in education or in getting people to build build that how so could do two things. one could help tilt voting rights violations that are happening in yakima valley and it also brought more people face to face with folks who are already invested in the political outcome so they were

meeting people who could show them what policies meant for them. bring the back row to the microforms of people could see how it affects my everyday life comment this affects my children's schools and this affects my wages. as politico who tends to look at things that don't impact was felt much but are important we need to get out of that mindset and we need to make sure we continue. the second thing is many first aid redistricting commissions in washington appointed by her legislature and we had a huge missed opportunity where our democratic speaker of the house didn't listen to communities of color and didn't listen to advocates who said we want somebody on the commission who will make sure the commission represents are are just some guy is somebody who did not represent that and in fact really hurt us in many ways. we need to make sure he knows

that. so for those of you who had appointed redistricting commissions make sure you reach out to your speaker of house and tell them exact with the one almost commissions because often those are decisions made in a backroom somewhere and they don't become public. they should be publicly vetted and those are people we should be putting into place. the last thing as i am in a special-purpose district, the water district and the school board. they will lose the war if we continue to not fill those positions with experts in qualified people especially those who have to be on the ballot in the first place. >> amen to what michael and e.j. had to say. one should never told their shield on the battlefield. we have to have a cycle by cycle plan so the blue wave is coming how is coming how do we weigh from 2015 to 2016 to 2017 to 2018 to 2020 so those are the

things. in ohio with chairman david kessler we came up with initiative called the 16/18 plan and part of our 16/18 plan, because understand of ohio people tell me how much we love you, we'd love you you all higher but when it comes to the midterm election some folks don't even know we exist when it's time for the midterm elections. they are like ohio who? we are not going to let that happen again as we did twice once in 2000 once in 2012. we are going to make sure we get love into 2018 so we built that way that's coming. we are very much focused on the local election come who's running for mayor and his running for school board and 2015 as we ready ourselves for 2016 do the same thing for 2017 for local elections and then in

2018 when all the statewide offices are up again that we have a strong foundation to take back the constitutional offices so we have to build our shield. heart of the 16/18 plan is another initiative called the main street initiative. for the first time in the ohio democratic party's history chairman pepper and myself have created an initiative where we raise money for that initiative in those dollars go to candidates running on the local level of government. we showed the local candidate the love that they deserve. number one is democrats and progressives we control a lot of local offices to remember two that's how we build a strong bench of people then can run for the state legislature you can run statewide office, it can run in the county. we have to build up that way so we have to take a cycle by cycle if we have to feed the elephant at all the best way to do it is one byte at a time.

[laughter] >> i love it. i'm going to start with what i would like to see happen in my home state of arizona. i will tell you that i was gone from -- for six years from arizona. when i left the same people in power that were in power when i ran in 2004. kaine left in 2007 and went to washington d.c. and someone told me her home state will appreciate it more when you come back. not so true, let me tell you. i have come back and i have lived in nevada. i have seen great leaders being built up in nevada. i feel like nevada was what phoenix and arizona were 10 years ago. when we opened our doors we really encouraged new leadership came back in 2014, 2015 the same people running stuff and arizona. it's a boys club. i'm tired of it. i'm so tired of it.

i will always be involved, believe me. everyone can learn from someone like this like rosie and the people that came before me but i've got to telling the state legislature i'm represented by three guys. i don't like that. i love that they are all hispanic. i hate that one of them is anti-choice and he's a democrat. this is what we have got to be doing. it's not easy, it's not pretty but we have got to be calling those folks out. part of our party platform is inclusion equal rights for everyone. that includes our and friends come our veterans women's reproductive rights. i don't consider you a democrat if you are representing me and you are anti-choice. [applause] we have got to hold folks accountable. we have got to make sure that labor is talking to environmental and then did bsa is talking to labor and we are

working together and these great tables and circles that we are are building in the state we have got to make sure everyone is represented. i've got to tell you i even had a conversation with someone about hey i got to join this table and arizona. i am esea, i'm local and i work national and state races. i'm local, let me just put that out there. i want to elect good represented; state but i can't bear i'm going to do it all of the country but we have got to make sure that in our state all of you are advocating for new leadership. rosie blazed a path for people like me. everyone has a rosie lopez. i want rosie to stand up if rosie doesn't mind. rosie lopez ladies and gentlemen. [applause] if you are from arizona you know who i am talking about in her granddaughter's my best friend. and every state we have got to go back to this. they want to retire, rosie wants

to garden. she wants people to take on the fight the fight at some of the younger generation have to fight to be at that table. i have had to fight to be at the table in arizona and we got to keep doing that and keep the people who are elected right now in office. they are not fighting for us we have got to get them out. [applause] >> because those panels being livestreamed we'll take your questions in a moment after one more round through. we have been asked to have people who want to ask questions asked the map the mic in the aisle here so after one more round of questions we can get to questions. i want to ask the panel here related to something that was discussed. i have heard it discussed earlier today as well. you mentioned s.b. 1070.

we talked about some of the voter i.d. laws and redistricting and houthi republicans have thrown that process. we can talk and there are about how and what we progressives can do to fix this problem. republicans have tried to push back on us and make it harder for us to do our jobs especially with voter suppression. what are some things we need to do? what is the chicken and egg problem? we need to have the state legislature stop the attacks on voting rights. they have to win elections that put -- against those of the restrictions on voting rights. >> i'm a believer that a search for the candidate. i come from that world where i was a candidate. i think it starts with candidates but also starts with all of us. i think a lot of, arizona got a lot of attention with s.b. 1070 but we have been dealing that --

without for 15 years. this wasn't as horrific as the s.b. 1070 and we haven't done a good job in states like arizona talking about voter suppression. we talk about a really well here in our own state but we don't have, we are not pushing our national leaders to talk about it so we have got great people and congress. we have got to make sure they are sharing our state story out in the national media may can sure that folks know that this is really happening. there are a lot of bad things happening in our state but we have got to make sure that's coming out. and we have got to make sure we find those folks who are part of the movement. there is an attorney that have been defending voting rights, they would make a great legislator. we have to get folks at the top of their game and not issued to run for office. i think that's the chicken before the egg is making sure we

get good people in office making sure they are protecting it all the way down. we have got to build coalitions around voting rights. we have great coalitions and arizona round immigration reform and the jammer act is so amazing but that also includes voter rights and just because you are j to this doesn't mean you can't be advocating for your brothers and sisters who can vote paid we are voting for them. my vote counts five times for four dreamers that can vote so we have to make sure we are building those coalitions and everyone is making a difference in talking about that. i do think it starts at the candidate level. [applause] >> it's really repetition and we have to continue to tell the story every single year and even if we are noxious from saying it over and over again we have to make sure that people understand that all paths lead to the

ballot box. there really is the great equalizer. that is no hype. that is real and so in doing that though christine pelosi says in some of her training city don't respect you don't expect. if you don't respect me, don't expect from me and for a lot of people of color or a lot of poorer communities they really don't feel like folks who are being elected to office really care about them or their issues. so people have opted out in order to get people back into the process we have to energize and remind them that it is important so they care about education funding they have got to go. if you want snow plowed and you live in ohio not arizona you have got to vote and if you want your garbage removed you have to vote. if you are willing to have the right to control their own bodies we have got to vote. all of those things whatever the issues are that matter to people

we have to make sure we remind them to vote. the era the congress needs to take care of that. it's high time in its past time. that's the foundation of this country. [applause] and so for me it's really an emotional thing. how do we get people to be emotionally invested in their future? and since most folks won't run for office that has to be done to the people who do run answer to i don't know if it was sister perez or brother michael or e.j. that said we get up -- caught up with folks running we need the scorecard from folks and find out if they are really working for us. it's what you do once you get there to make the lives of people better said keeping people energized and being authentic. i used to work for mayor in the city of cleveland and the came to the cabinet, something

terrible would happen in the city of cleveland and you would have thought that we just said it was raining outside. if your hair is on fire act like your hair is on fire store hair should be on fire every single election cycle and we need to make sure we act as though her hair is on fire. all the issues are important but we can't tackle those issues unless people feel a part of this representative democracy of ours and we have got to get out there and exercise their right to vote. repetition over and over again. >> i see the line so i will be really quick. when we are acting as if our hair is on fire we need to tell those democrats voting rights should put your hair on fire. when the congress is not acting, we need to be making that a priority of our party. there's no reason why any state should have a majority of either house should not be advancing legislature. in washington state this is a real issue where we have weak

democrats not pushing hard enough. we have relegated the voting rights issue to a person of color issue and that is why democracy isn't working for everybody right now. [applause] when we tell people of color that their liberation and their fullest experience in democracy is theirs to be earned we have lost again. we need allies that will fight for us, not behind us and not sometimes on a sunday in not in the next session but every day sponsoring legislation that opens the ballot up. >> one of the things i want to echo for something that may not talked about was authenticity. i'd really do think a lot of our power a lot of the ability for candidates to actually not feel like we are just talking about problems and not actually

talking about solutions but we talk about these things in a way that connects with people. i know that's easy to say but so often on these campaigns we find ourselves in a position where they want to make sure we are not making a mistake or we want to make sure the campaign is as risk-free as possible. i'm running a national party committee and we want to do everything to make the best program possible. but we often see a lot of times, on paper there is a horrific record. generally unpleasant to be around and yet everyone knows where they stand and they are authentic and they own who they are and even people who don't agree with them will vote for them because they actually think i don't know who this person -- i know who this person is and they have the courage to say what they believe even though we

look at it sometimes like how can they keep on electing this person? you look at these folks and you have a movie about some of these folks but in the end they went. at some level they are running in the right district but they come across as authentic and i think that the people are hungry for. they have her problems and they want somebody that they can talk to that meets them at a human place. >> i think when you are talking about politicians voters often mistrust politicians into when they see a politician that's authentic that gives them trust. thank you guys for being patient in the line. i will start with you. >> thank you. hello?

my name is stephanie and i want to thank you all. this isn't a really good panel or them actually from minnesota which up until recently had trifecta but one thing that i'm a field organizer and i have directed elections statewide and one thing i see not only minnesota but other states even traditional red states is the very vast difference between the rural areas and the messaging that is effective they are and what people are talking about their versus what's happening in metropolitan areas that are economic drivers of the city or state. there's a rural's divide. unfortunately the structures that i have had the opportunity to work in have oftentimes fail to find a way to get that rural voice of the table in the war room coming up with communication so i'm wondering if you would agree or disagree with that statement and if you agree what's being done in your organization to bridge that gap?

>> i do agree with that statement that we have more in common than not say you are absolutely right,, when made we look at poverty we often see it through and urban lands but the rural poverty is just as a wrenching as urban poverty. so for me it's starting at that place based on what we have in common with our urban and suburban or rural you want to live a good life and you want to make your sure your children to have them they have a future and if you live in a community you can work and have a decent life. people don't get up for decent, they get up for good and great. deason doesn't do it for me i want good and great baby so that's really what it is in one of the things we are doing in the ohio democratic party is recognizing all highways 88 counties urban, rural suburban

and starting with the issues we have in common. for guns in urban areas that's a whole different discussion in a cleveland ohio than it does for some of my rural others and sisters. so it's really starting at those places and those spaces where we have that commonality about economic justice where your children have a future pulling folks in and because of the makeup of ohio that forces us to really do that. we can't really separate the two cell all ohio's democratic party we are trying very hard to bring that together a little more and be fed into the narrative more about what we have in common than not in deal with that strong coalition. even our party chairs across the 88 counties we have the rural leadership that will take that message back to it we have urban leadership and bring in those forces together because we are the same in the struggle for good and great. >> i just wanted to add a

someone who is from rural arizona and ran in the rural area i may have one if i would have found a nice urban democratic district but the district i had had the five counties including maricopa. it was a second-largest district in this day. my issues are different. i come from or rural perspective even though i live in phoenix. i don't identify with what's happening in phoenix. i'm always concerned with health care access for my parents back home. i might concerned about water issues like e.j. was talking about. in arizona for us at democracy for america my personal mission is not just ethnic diversity but geographic. we need to hear from all of you. you will need to push us as an organization to say i've got this great candidate in the rural part. there's not an airport or a target or anything but they are going to change your state rate we need that.

i feel like in the legislature there needs to be a rural caucus. if you don't have one in your state legislature they are talking about rural issues but they are also talking to the urban folks. so please push us in the folks who are running these organizations and working to elect new people, progressives that we need to support those rural candidates. it's really inexpensive with radio ads. my radio ad costs 5 cents. so push us at the organizational level. >> thank you. next question. >> hi, i'm another person from washington here and i learned about the democratic party when my dad brought home the machinists union paper from the shipyard job and heard the first party slogan, the new news, vote democratic the party for you and not just the few. as i look at how americans are

voting now, people like my dad a marine machinist with a ninth grade education, business people who have left the democratic party regardless or as george bush would say it regardless of what the republicans are doing to them and what the republicans are doing to them economically, doing to their organizers. their rights to form a union. you folks have done a wonderful job in terms of pumping up this organization. i would like to get your thoughts on how to win back those. >> i think that's a great question. a critical part of it is something that we preach in our campaign and then we do our programs is we have to build a campaign strategy that fits the

district of the candidates running. we need to make sure that our candidates are talking about issues that matter in the community that they are running in. and it's not the number one story or the number one article in the state capitol newspaper. that's okay but we need to talk about the kinds of issues that are resonating in those communities. i think it goes back to when we talked about authenticity and also being in a position where we are meeting people where they are as well and we are not just telling them why don't you get it? you should understand why this is important you. we have to help them make connections that our policies are working together will lift everybody up and success is not a zero-sum game where some people can be says -- successful and others can't. we actually have to stress that instead of letting their rights be able to talk about this

economy were you want to be one of the people that can win the lottery and everybody else is left behind. you actually did work hard enough and a lot of our folks, the people used to count on to vote democratic have subscribed a little bit to that. we need to reverse that and include something that includes everybody. >> be the thing that comes to mind to me is we don't leave the church but the church leaves us. there many parts of the country where there are people that are very much turned off but -- by this idea of lip service and not a lot of action. when i say action i'm talking about revenue and talking about tuition. i'm talking about people affecting their ability to break out of working-class jobs or poverty wages.

i don't think anybody in this room can really challenge that our party isn't as bold as they have been in generations past and getting that legislation through. every person that feels like they were left behind by the party maybe there is also a person who had the other experience. >> as will have to be our last question. >> thank you. i am state representative marcia moody from new hampshire and in my sixth term. i first have to agree with senator turner and monica that i owe my success to howard dean and jim dean and esa. [applause] they talked me into running in the first place. i'm on the election law committee so i really do appreciate the struggles we are having with voter suppression

and i want to go back to a question that you asked earlier. what do you think causes the voter apathy in people staying home and not voting? john nicklas in his new book has one of the most -- ways of voter suppression is negative advertising. what it does, doesn't convince you to vote for the other guy. it makes you so disgusted with not only the opponents but picking your candidate is being so bad too that you say it affects both of your house is so you stay home and don't vote. my question is, is that really the responsibility of all of us to tell our neighbors you can't just a home and not vote because of what you hear on the airwaves for what you read in the newspapers and all the negative advertising. you have to get out there and

vote for your candidate. would you agree? >> absolutely. [applause] >> thank you for running. >> i want to thank our excellent for panelists for the great discussion on how we fix this. thank you so much. [applause] and thank you all for joining. the next group coming is a conversation about -- thank you all for being here. really appreciate it. [inaudible conversations] ..