>> yes. >> so when you're just starting out some co-ops, it's not like you are a private company saying okay, let's offer this new product, and if it takes us a few years we can do that. so i really think that the comparison of the co-op to a private business is a little unfair. and that's why i think we set up these three cars to try to help the co-ops get established, then the concept, dr. cohen, with they would become self-sufficient and they would be able to sustain their business model, is that right? >> i think those programs were set up the entire market transition. >> okay. and so, so i guess i was a little concerned when i heard you say earlier that you were

reviewing all of the state situation on an individual basis. and here's why. and i saw this from my and being in congress where my state things in july that the money is going to be sufficient for risk corridor payments. then they here in october that no, that's not going to happen. and have a real degree of uncertainty without cms is getting that state co-op with them how they're doing their capitalization, how they're feeling they are viability and they don't know day today whether they're going to build to offer a product in open enrollment period that starts on november 1. so the concern that a lot of us have is we don't have some kind of a bright line rule, the uncertainty in those states is really contributing to instability in all insurance

market. i assume you understand those points by making. >> absolutely. so i'm hoping that you and your staff would be willing to continue to meet with our committee staff on both sides of the aisle to help us figure out how we can help you get some certainty so that we don't have situations where states like new york and colorado are suddenly going out of business just a few weeks before the open enrollment period. the other providers including private insurance companies are scrambling to figure how to absorb this, and the 83,000 people in colorado, i don't how many it was in your, but this is affecting realize. i think you would be helpful if we could get much more clear standards going forward. >> understood. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you and it was 155,000 in new york. as we conclude this hearing i would ask dr. cohen if we could get a commitment out of cms to

provide the analysis that resulted in the cms awarding additional funds to new york's co-op ends of that at the end of 2014 spin i will work on that. >> annie duke commit that cms will provide us any co-op corrective action plans that may exist as you've done this analysis. could you forward those to the committee speak with i will have to look and see. some of those are market sensitive but we will do our best to get will begin to the committee. >> thank you for that. also i would like to entry into the record a "wall street journal" article that does have a quote from the cms the risk of corridors were intended to be much -- budget neutral ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record. so moved. as we conclude our hearing, can i want to first of all have also say that we ask unanimous consent that members written open status be introduced into

the record and without objection those documents will be entered into the record. and i'd like to thank our two witnesses for your comments as we all want to work together to a can be good stewards of taxpayer money. and i would like to remind members of the 10 business days to submit questions for the record, and to ask that witnesses all the great respond roughly to those questions. and with that this meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

>> with election day 2016 less than one year to wait the american enterprise institute hosts a discussion on the latest polling on presidential, senate, house and gubernatorial races shortly. >> i've learned that you can do anything you want to. if you asked me the first lady ought to be paid, if you get

paid to have to do with the first lady is supposed to do. but you can get anything you want to, and it's such a great, it's such a great opportunity. so i would advise any first lady to do what she wanted to do. and another thing i learned is you will be criticized no matter what you do. i could have stayed in the white house, poor bertie, had receptions and i would have been criticized. as much as i was criticized outside. but what i did, and i got a lot of criticism. you learned to live with it as i said earlier. you expected and you live with it. and never let it influence me. >> she wants her political partner from the first campaign as first lady attended president jimmy carter's cabinet meetings. champion women's rights and mental health issues can even testifying before congress.

their partnership on health and peacekeeping issu issues has spd four decades since leaving the white house. rosalynn carter's this sunday night at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series "first ladies: influence and image" examined the public and private lives of the women who go the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency, from martha washington to michelle obama sunday at 8 p.m. eastern on american history tv, on c-span3. >> republican presidential candidate and businessman donald trump is goes to host nbc's "saturday night live" this weekend which is getting criticism including from california congresswoman loretta sanchez. here are some of the remarks from the house floor. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to encourage "saturday night live" to disinvite donald trump from

hosting the show this weekend. many may believe mr. trump is causing controversy so he can get media attention but his divisive and racist rhetoric is very troubling and real world consequences. many businesses and individuals have severed ties with mr. trump, and even as he knows owner nbc universal stated that at nbc respect dignity for all people are cornerstones of our values come and ended the relationship with mr. trump. perhaps this blunder happened because currently there is no latino cast them on snl. and there have only been to in the entire history of snl. i hope sound that lies producers, writers investments will consider how donald trump hosting aston villa, to the integrity of their show. having mr. trump degrade the qualities of snl's humor because racism isn't funny. it's lazy and it's cheap.

no, has the power to highlight hypocrisy in society and rebuild important social truths, and political commentary. as an has achieved that and the pastor i hope it returns. spend donald trump holds a news conference to discuss his new book, "crippled america: how to make america great again." he added reporters questions and talked about the latest polls, the debates and his rivals. this is just over 35 minutes. >> thank you. i appreciate it very much but it's a great honor to allah to thank simon and schuster, one of the most magnificent publishers for years and years. i've heard about simon and schuster as being a fabulous, is going to say the rolls-royce cars going to say the harvard or the yale but they really are a great one and want to thank you very much.

you have given us such tremendous support and we do this quickly and we think we did a very effectively. it's been an incredible experience. we've wrote a book, the title, "crippled america" is very tough but, unfortunately, we have to do what we have to do. one of the reason we been doing so well in the campaign is because we tell it like it is. we tell the truth. and america is grateful. we of 17 and the 18th and that was actually very soon going to be $19 trillion in debt. we have a military that doesn't have proper instruction from leadership that we don't know what we are doing it we are losing all over the world with trade deals come every country. no matter what country you talk about, you can just pick a name out of a hat, they are beating us in trade. we can go on like this any longer. it's impossible to go i like this any longer. i always mention an example

sergeant bird dog, a trader. we get sacha burdock, they get five other people they wanted and they want badly. dustup which going to work anymore. we write about in the book. we do lots of different stories of lots of different things and if it's going to be very instruction, report to me what the structure provided the art of the deal i think one of the reasons it was so successful is that it was largely instructional but even today when i speak so many people hold up the book the art of the deal and other books we have done. so this is one that probably not since the art of the deal i have to tell this to the weeds and simon & schuster ho having workd so hard on able to get within a confined to a tighter we wanted to get it out really, really quickly so that it pertained to what's going on right now. it is a moment of time. we got it done. david a fantastic job. what is david? is easier?

david eck event has to get job at all of my people did a great job. they helped me so much because we're doing a couple of other things right now so this was not easy getting this and. but we see by the line aligns the data park avenue. they been forming since last night and i'm going to be signing books starting at 12:00. would to a couple of interviews and then we're signing books starting at 12:00 and that will be very exciting for me. but we fans that i bought the book and they just bought it, and some of them in laying down for 12 and 14 hours. i do know how they're doing this but they do it. they find a way some looking forward to getting to the signees. does anybody have any questions, please? that's all, just about 30 questions? yes, go ahead. [inaudible] spent i think it's a difficult if we just the polls come out today from iowa where i believe he saw the new poll fro from io.

is often new poll in new hampshire where i am leading big. i poll just came out in florida while i am leading big. georgia, texas. all over the place. and i think, you know look, we are doing well and if you add ben and myself would be everybody by a law. that seems to be the big story that we are, they call it the establishment. it's called really the failed establishment because the establishment has let us down, but i don't know. i really don't know how this book is doing. [inaudible] >> i think my book is very hard-hitting. his is a different kind of a book and he's a different kind of a person. my book is very hard-hitting. it says it like it is. and they somewhat simon and schuster just told me it's selling like hotcakes so we will see. [inaudible] we are very different people. we have very different qualities and we are extremely different and i'm different from all of the other candidates. look, nobody can negotiate trade deals like me.

we are going to take the 400 billion a year were losing with china, that's going to be turned around. the $75 billion a year that we are short on with japan, the $50 billion a year that we lose to mexico, and that's why, there will be a wall built. it will be built and people come into the country legally. i much different, look at marco review. very, very week on illegal immigration. you look at ben carson, he's very weak on immigration and he wants to get rid of medicare. he wants to give it a medicare. you can't get me to medicare it would be horrible thing. it works. you get rid of the fraud, waste, and abuse, it works. so when a man is weak on immigration was to get rid of medicare, i don't know how he stays there. go ahead, tom. [inaudible] know, i think that really marco is overrated, and, frankly, had

bush been a better messenger he has the better message. if that was me delivering that message it would've been a much different story. marco dawson show up to the united states and. these represent the people of florida which by the way that poll just came out today and i'm way up in florida over everybody. but marco is a sitting senator if he doesn't show up for the people of florida. i don't think he should be doing that. bush gave a weak message, i agree with it. it was ported delivered by the facts are on bush's side and ultimate i think arco will be hurt very badly. if you look at mr. singer, you have to see where mr. singh is coming from and when you see where he's coming from i think about going to see we didn't know that. but look at marco's stance on illegal immigration. it's really trouble for and i don't see how he can win. okay, yes. [inaudible]

>> marco rubio's personal finances are a discredit? obvious to do is card. i think i'm easy disaster with his credit card. i'll tell you what, i love florida but i'm in florida all the time. and for years i've been hearing that his credit card or a disaster. i would think we take a look at it you'll find that. but his credit card debt and his problems with credit card and what he did when he was running the party apparatus with credit cards, i've heard about it for years to you will have to find out. [inaudible] welcome he has a very bad record of finances if you look at what happened with his houses, with his comedy certainly lives above his means, there's no question about that. [inaudible] >> welcome were going to look, i'll tell you what, other debates is a very interesting because i don't really care that much. i want a room, i want a podium and let's get going to get i don't care that much.

but a lot of the people that are candidates who i respect many of them, not all of them but i respect many of them they felt it was very unfair because hillary clinton was given all softballs. she wasn't asked one tough question. they didn't talk about her foundation. they didn't talk about any of the problems. they didn't talk about the e-mails. would be no problem came up, bernie sanders lost his whole campaign. what he did was so stupid from his standpoint. in order to get a one minute sound bite of some applause he gave up the e-mails. that was the end of this campaign. first of all people are not going to his rallies anymore. these finish. so unless something happens to her with respect to the e-mails, she will easily be the candidate. but i will say this. she only got softballs to that's all she got. and if you look at the way we were treated, it wasn't the same way. i don't really care. yes? [inaudible] >> your name is? [inaudible]

>> well, i think republicans actually are doing a pretty good job overall. they coalesced at that last debate. it really started with me. a guy asked me a question. i think hardwood is finished as a credible reporter. is a disaster and it was such a horribly put question and so obvious, and the republicans coalesced around each other. it was actually pretty beautiful when you think about it. all we want to do is be treated fairly. but with me i don't care that much, just give me a podium. what i would say is this. the networks have made a fortune because of me. not because of anybody else. they were saying that the last cycle, they had 2,000,001,000,000 people at the networks you want to broadcast because nobody watched. nobody wanted to watch. now they had 25 million people, 24 million people, 23 million people and 16 million people. give me a break. so somebody said, how did they

get the? and actually variety and hollywood reporter to report this stuff pretty well, much better than the political press, they said sally for one reason, trunk. i'll take the credit. but i would say also what about. i think wounded warriors and our veterans should be given some of the enormous profits being made on these debates, enormous profits. by the way, beyond anything they ever envisioned. cnn was going to get $2000 for a 30-second after they ended up getting 250. they went from 2000, to $250,000 for a 30-second after the networks and cable are making a fortune that i think they should get some of the profits to the wounded warriors and the veterans. that's what i want. [inaudible] >> i'm giving them away. i'm giving the profits of my book, i'm giving them away to a

lot of, including the vets, okay? [inaudible] >> who are you with? [inaudible] okay, good. a new form of reporting the people they but what do you to come up with cameras. he comes up with a cell phone. speak fast, go ahead. [inaudible] >> i have been amazing with respect to the hiring of women. this building was built as the head person it was fantastic by a woman, and i was at a time when you didn't see the end of instructions which. i mean, it was total unique. i have many, many executives upstairs and a different buildings that i have that are women. many, it reported that is close to 50%, it might even be over

50% of my analyze. and they get paid a lot of money, in many cases more than men do the same job. so women have always appreciated that about me. in terms of employment, really a standout and i've been honored for doing so well with women. yes. [inaudible] french television or are you going to be voting? i don't think so, so let's -- >> we don't have to worry about the french right now. go ahead. [inaudible] what jeb bush was in at the last debate, i do not what he didn't say it will. what is your question? go ahead, behind you. automatic spend your with telemundo. welcome. welcome to trump tower. i like telemundo by the way. i like it better than univision. i'm assuming univision for 500 million. [inaudible] go ahead.

[inaudible] because the country is doing so poorly that it's a very accurate title, because the country is do so in -- is doing so poorly. go ahead. [inaudible] >> that's good. they're going to have some demonstrations. good, because it will get even higher ratings if they do that. i think it's fine. look, i think they should demonstrate. ratings will go even higher than the going to be. it's going to be one of the highest rated shows ever. and they are very excited about it. at adequate relationship, as you know, from telemundo with the hispanic. you treated me actually very good that won the pole in nevada. what other polls and in nevada i think i got 37% and leading everybody. so i got a great relationship with the hispanics. i have working for me thousands right now thousands of hispanics. i that tens of thousands of people over the years working for me.

i'm a job machine to on the job machine. and one of the things that does come out and every and every single survey is that nobody for the economy to nobody is even close. i am two, three, and you see beckham two, three, four, five times greater than anybody else. the almost say like it's about the jobs, it's about the economy, and how is anybody going to beat trump come in all fairness? had a great relationship with workers. i've adequate relationship with the jobs and i've an amazing relationship with the hispanics. and i predict that i'm going to win the hispanic vote. i think i'm going to win the hispanic vote. i predicted, yeah, i think i'm going to get the nomination and i will win the white house to i think beating another clinton is going to be easy because our record is so bad. okay. go ahead. [inaudible]

that's the question i like. how am i would prefer as eloquent i meeting with lorne michaels in a while. we're going to sign i guess thousands of people in line. but we're going to sign it in later on this evening i meeting with lorne michaels and whole step and we will start the preparation. we will pick our skits. am i nervous? not too nervous. not to notice. we will do a good job and we will have a fantastic show. we are all going to have a lot of fun. [inaudible] spend my jeb bush impression? know. i don't like showing a person sleeping at a podium. [inaudible] >> thomas asking, can he make a comeback? i think all be very hard. it's not about money. i just think, i came up with the energy i just think we need tremendous energy because we need a person that has tremendous personal energy to get us back on track. yoyou can't do that when you dot have that. i think margot is highly

overrated, highly overrated all you have to do is look at his stance on things. jeb, he lacks the quality that you need. we are talking everybody in the world is ripping us off. you need a very strong person with tremendous energy. thank you very much, folks. i'll take the job. but, and it's so important. and by the way, ben carson does not have that energy. we need somebody with tremendous energy to straighten out the military, to straighten out isis come to straighten out our horrible trade deals, determinate obamacare and come up with something far better for far less money. you need somebody with tremendous personal energy as president we have a president right now that doesn't have energy. you think obama has energy? he has no energy and he's been a horrible president. we need somebody with great personal energy as a leader so that we can make great deals

with other countries and do well in every other respect. and certainly jeb does not have the energy, in my opinion. [inaudible] >> you are where? automatic from "the guardian." they treated very nicely in scotland. go ahead. [inaudible] good, thank you. [inaudible] >> well, we just went over that of, honestly. it's only going to make it hotter. okay, another question. go ahead. [inaudible] say it again. [inaudible] you're going to see what we're going to do. you're going to see. by the whole thing with anchor babies i turned out to be right. a person has a baby, lives in mexico or lives in asia or lives in many different places, as a

baby, walks across the border, has the baby here. that we are responsible for the person for the next 85 years. i don't think so. and by the way, i was right, they were wrong. the 14th amendment does that give them on the. and if you wanted to do that in mexico or if you wanted to do that in almost any other country where you have a baby in that country and that country has that person for 85 years, including all of the costs of that person, they would laugh you right out of the country the you would get laughed out of the country so fast, so that turned out, i was 100% right. we will have to worry about that. we are going to take care of it and it will be done in a very humane way but we're going to bring back our country and we will have a wall in mexico is going to pay for the wall. you know why they're going to pay? i have great relationship with mexico and phenomenal relationships with the mexican people, phenomenal. they buy apartments from the. they work for me by the

thousands, by the thousands. phenomenal relationships but let me just tell you. we lose so much money with mexico in terms of trade imbalance. $45 billion last year. plus we give mexico billions and billions of dollars. they will pay for the wall and it would be very interesting. do you know what? people will come into this country but they're going to come in legally. yeah, go ahead. [inaudible] italian daily news. [inaudible] can you talk louder? nobody came here. [inaudible] -- nobody can hear. spent a lot of european countries are going to build walls to stop the immigration. well, walls work. all you have to do is ask

israel. walls work if it is properly constructed. not the walls these characters, this politician we're running our country for a disgrace all talk no action politician. they build a wall this big. they drive a car right through it. walls were. all you have to do is go and see israel. they wil would take the walls w. okay, go ahead. go ahead. [inaudible] we need pomp and circumstance, good question actually. our country has no spirit. our country has no gravitas. our country doesn't feel good about itself, and the primary reason is where the victories. where have we had a big trick with where have we had a victory in trade? where have we had a victory as an example this horrible bill that was signed with iran where giving $150 billion we lose

everything. we lose everything. it's a laughingstock. worse deal, wills contract i've ever seen drawn. we have the victories. we need some pomp and circumstance. we need spirit. we need a cheerleader. i thought seven years ago when obama get elected, the one thing i thought that he would be a great cheerleader for the country. is not. he's been a great divider for the country. he has been on the great dividers of all time. i'm not saying threats. it has nothing to do with address but it has to do with the fact that what he says is very divisive. he's been a great divider for this country, and that should not have happened. okay. yes? [inaudible] i will go anyway to will go anyway the one. i don't care too much about the debate. look, i'm the one who gets all the nasty questions anyway. no one gets the really nasty questions. in a certain way maybe they are

defending the although i will tell you they're not doing it for that reason. i think it's a relevant. i like the debates. i've had the debates. i've done well in the debates. as you know every single that i won all three debates. i don't know if i did or not but i certainly didn't do badly. badly. every single poll, even cnbc's paul said i want the debates. so i like the debates. i think they are good for me. but we have to be treated a little bit fairly as an example hillary clinton, no tough questions. i mean, why didn't they ask about bill ask why didn't they ask about all of the different things? no tough questions. now, that was staged by the democrats and, frankly, they did a very smart thing and the way they staged it. we are going to state something properly also. but as far as i'm concerned i really don't care that much. i just want a debate. it's a good thing, healthy, descending into the open. you don't want people like

harwood the road the question, he thought he was such, his career, and wiping his career is probably ruined or certainly threatened. you can ask about anything you want. i mean, you have to ask about anything you want. hillary had only softballs all night long did it was like this. here, get this one over the park. [inaudible] >> go ahead. [inaudible] are you from russia? all right. i think i relationship with russia will be very good. vladimir putin was on 60 minutes with me three weeks ago, right? who. and they have what i think they've had in a long time. i'm going to give them total credit. but we will have a very good relationship. i think with russia. maybe we won't but i believe we will have a very good relationship with russia. i believe that i will have a very good relationship with

putin. go ahead. [inaudible] sounds okay to me. yeah, go ahead. [inaudible] well, i think there a lot of economic issues. we didn't talk about trade we didn't talk about the valuations come right? we didn't talk about corporate inversions which by the way none of the other candidates, they don't even know what it means. but we didn't talk about corporate inversions where companies are leaving our country, massive companies, because they can't get the money back and because they get lower taxes elsewhere. so they are leaving and taking their jobs within. the corporate inversions centered is a very important thing to be talking about. e be lking about. these are all things that were not talked about at the debate but instead they talk about fantasy football. it was a big question from fantasy football. what about corporate inversions? $2.5 trillion at least.

i think it's probably twice that number is, in other countries wanting to come back and because our system is so corrupt and terrible, they can't get the money back to invest in this country. so they don't talk about corporate inversions at the debates. they talk about fantasy football. those are a few. go ahead, sarah. [inaudible] you have to talk loud enough. [inaudible] i was against the war in iraq, yes, very early on. i'll give it to you yeah, i have it upstairs. [inaudible] i don't know. i will give it to you upstairs. [inaudible] well, you know, coming up to understand i was a developer. a lot of people didn't care about my view into how thousand three, 2004 but there was a reuters article taken from a magazine about my stance in 2004, i believe in july of 2004, and i talked about my stance on

how i felt about iraq. and i said very strongly exactly what happened or i said he would destabilize the middle east, and when you destabilize the middle east iran will take over iraq. that's exactly what's happening. it will take over the oil reserves which are among the largest in the world. in addition other bad things will happen. the other bad things are crisis. i said that in 2004 and that was an article that was taken from a magazine which was previous to that. i felt that for a long time. [inaudible] spent it's a great, boucher this question that you've ever asked me, sarah. final you're asking me this great question. sitter from cnn, terrific person -- sera from cnn. do i think it's time for some of the other republicans in the race that are registering zero in a couple of cases they have zero with an arrow pointing left which assume is a mistake because that is less than zero but i assume that's not happening.

do i think it's kind of some of the other republican candidates drop out? yes. .. he saw it wasn't happening, wasn't going to happen and he just got out quickly. he was favored, don't forget, you know? that was before trump was going to happen, right? but he was favored for a period of time. he was favored, walker, governor walker. they thought he was going to

win. what happened he got out. i think way he got out was great. i think he did a really smart thing for himself. frankly other people should get out, i would like to personally have more time to talk about the problems of the united states and more importantly, how to solve the problems because we can solve the problems. so it is a great question. people should get out, yes. [inaudible] ivanka, said one of the biggest applause lines, it is true, when i get to talk about my daughter ivanka. she was "fortune" magazine woman of the year which is a great. just say hello, okay? by ivanka will be involved and melania will be involved very soon. ivanka are is going to iowa.

when are you going? very soon. mark, good question. >> [inaudible] >> i would say, i don't see threats. i mean, whatever it is i have to do. mark is saying, what are the top threats, let's say to your candidacy? who knows. you're in crazy world of politics. people change their minds. i will make america great again. nobody else will be able to do that. i'm going to do it. i'm going to make it in my opinion, better than ever before. and i think that's awfully tough to compete with and one of the reasons in my book i actually put financials in there. i show some of the developments, i have many, many more. you can only, simon & schuster you kept me to eight or nine-pages right? there are four or five on a page. i show you some of the great developments that i have done so successful and so incredible and so financially good, i show my financial statement from year-and-a-half, two years ago. now it is even better.

but we didn't have that certified yet. i do that not in braggadocios way. i do that, because that is the kind of thinking our country needs right now. we are run by people that are incompetent. we are run by people in some words, i hate to use the word stupid but you have to use that word unless they have bad intentions which i don't believe they do. but we are run by incompetent people. we have incompetent leadership. there are some things. i mentioned corporate inversion. the democrats want the money to come back. who doesn't? the republicans want the money to come back. for three years the democrats have said we want the money to come back. for three years the democrats and the republicans agree, 100%. you have a vast majority, maybe everybody. for three years. guess what? they haven't done anything, right? they can't even get along when they agree. so here's the thing. we can take trillions of dollars, bring it back into this

country, rebuild big parts of our country with it. companies can spend the money in our country. we have everybody agrees it should be done for years and they can't do it. that's part of the problem. >> [inaudible] >> well, you're going do look. a lot of controversy with, a lot of controversy with mr. singer. those people probably wouldn't want him to back but we'll see. i will talk to you. go ahead. >> [inaudible]. >> they'll agree. they just didn't want to go through unfair questions because they weren't questions. they were statements. you see they were asking, they were giving statements in a sar casttic, disgusting way. and by the i think becky is terrific. i think carl is terrific but i think john harwood is not very good at what he does. i think becky quick is terrific person. i think carl is a terrific person. but i will tell you john harwood was a disgrace to cnbc.

go ahead, tom. >> [inaudible] >> well, the, it's really an interesting question, actually. the question is, should the fed raise rates? they are not raising them because obama has asked them not to raise them, in my opinion he wants to get out of office, because we are in a bubble, and when those rates are raised, a lot of bad things are going to happen or potentially going to happen. in my opinion janet yellen is highly political and she is not raising rates for a very specific reason. because obama told her not to because he wants to be out playing golf in a year from now and he wants to be doing other things. and he doesn't want to see a big bubble burst during his administration. janet yellen should have raised the rates. she is not doing it because the obama administration and the president doesn't want her to. and if she does it, you see what

happens, every time there is even thought of raising them just a little bit. one of the one of the problems we have our currency right now is not come competitive with other currencies. look at devaluations of china, of japan, many other countries make it impossible for our countries to compete with them. we don't have leaders who know how to say to china, don't do that, don't do that, because if you do that we'll put a big ftt tax on you. you know what they wouldn't do that if you had the right message. all right. one question. howie, you have another question. howie kurtz i love him he treats me so nice. who? yes, yes. really focused on one very big election, important election. i'm not watching any of them in particular. i watch them on tuesday night. i will be out there, we'll be out voting. but the election that i'm watching is the election for the

presidency of the united states. that is going to be, in my opinion, this will be truly one of the most important elections we've ever had in this country. we're so far behind. we can not go another four years with incompetent leadership. good question. >> [inaudible]. >> fine. >> [inaudible]. >> okay. what else? one more question. go, go ahead. >> [inaudible]. >> that's a good question. okay. so simon & schuster came up to me. they wanted to do a book. they wanted it to do on success and how do you do this and how do you build it. that's what the book is largely about but we talk so much about the country. i said i'll do it but we have to talk about the country. what happened is they sent this incredible photographer up to do a book cover, to do a picture. he did some great, almost as good as you, my friend over here. did some great photos.

i'm smiling. i'm happy. i look good. everything was fine. then he took one where i wasn't like really thinking about a photo. and it turned out to be a nasty picture. then the book was written. and, the title was given. and the only really terrible picture i had was that one. it is a terrible, horrible, nasty picture. but when you're talking about crippled america and you're talking about all of the problems we have, i can't have a big smiley face up there. so that is how we picked it. we picked the worst photo taken of me. i would have loved to have a beautiful smiling picture but somehow that doesn't go with title of the book or frankly the contents of the book. and actually simon & schuster agreed with me. okay? >> [inaudible] >> let me have it. say it again? what? >> [inaudible] >> are the other republicans afraid to debate? well, some of them should be.

thank you very much, everybody. thank you. simon & schuster. thank you. louise, thank you. [applause] come on up. stand over here. [no audio]

>> just a moment with donald trump. more live road to the white house coverage with a look at 2016 elections. michael barone and norm orenstein and other analysts discuss latest poll numbers in the election contest. live from the american enterprise institute. >> the program first began in 1982. i like to begin with thanking aei conference team. special thank to our my assistants and our assistants who have been extremely important preparing handouts that you all have and getting this conference organized. we invite you to join the conversation on twitter, using event hashtag, aei2016. follow her handle at aei paul, for more insights to the 2016 elections. if the tradition continues, in 367 days, 15 hours, and 16 minutes the voters in dixville,

notch, new hampshire go to the polls to vote at midnight. we'll tell you what we're watching at early stage of 2016 campaign and why. it's a pleasure to have my colleagues, aei colleagues, norm or ren teen and michael barone on the panel. we're delighted to be joined by john fortier, and eppc's senior fellow henry ol'en you're here. >> i snuck in. >> good. after my introduction i will pose a question to each of the panelists they will have five minutes for initial remarks. we'll try to start a lightning round where any of them can answer any questions. last but not least we'll turn to your questions. let me say a few words about the polls to begin. like all of you i read them but i think we should treat what we're seeing now with substantial skepticism. here's why. according to political sign it, robert erickson, polls conducted

even 300 days before an election have virtually no predictive value. that is one of many reasons polls should not be used as standard for debate participation. they're predictive power comes much later in the campaign, usually around 100 day mark. another reason for caution at this stage of the campaign is that polls can not simulate the electorate because of arcane rules for awarding delegates each party has. most important finding in the new "quinnepiac poll" among republicans not that trump and carson were tied for the lead, but rather that 35% of republicans or people who said they leaned to the gop said their minds were made up. in the "nbc news-wall street journal poll" released on tuesday, only 28% of republicans said they definitely had decided. in the new monmouth poll of republicans in new hampshire released on monday, only 20% of republicans said that they had definitely decided. democrats, especially hillary's backers are more sure of their choices but a substantial number

of them say they could still change their minds. interest diggal poll something beset by problems. all of the final polls in kentucky gubernatorial contest showed democrat ahead by some two to five percentage points. the republican matt bevin won by 8.7 percentage points. even bevin's own poll showed democrat jack conway winning. response rates for most polls today are below 10% even best designed surveys. thus far this year, gallup and pew, two of the best in the business have been sitting on sidelines in terms of trial heats. in 2007, between january and november gallup asked over 50 questions about the election. looking at candidates. and we of course all know about the miscalls in great britain and israel and argentina just to name a few. i'm not sure that election polling as we have known it has a future. polling remains important of course. already hillary clinton has spent more than a million dollars on polling.

last week bernie sanders hired a pollster. we saw another change in the polling business again in part because of problems with the business overall. 48 years ago in 1968, cbs news conducted the first exit poll of voters leaving the polls in kentucky in that governor's race. it has become harder for exit polls consortium of ap and five networks to conduct exit poll around 1/3 of us vote early or absentee. on tuesday, in kentucky and mississippi the associated press moved forward with an experiment to reinvent the exit poll by conducting an online voter poll. in the 2014 election, they did online polling in georgia and illinois. their estimates were more accurate than the exit polls. i spoke to david pace yesterday of the ap and unfortunately they have not fully analyzed new results from either kentucky or mississippi. unlike the exit polls, online surveys of the kind ap has

conducted this week can't guaranty the people they actually surveyed have voted but ap is working with the national opinion research center, one of the best polling outfits in the country, to explore possibility of using gps tracking on cell phones of online participants with their permission to verify that they voted before asking them to participate in the online polls. candidates with high name recognition and star quality usually do better early and then the fundamentals kick in. let me say a quick word about the fundamentals. the jobs report this morning was very encouraging. the economy added far more jobs than had been predicted, 271,000, the unemployment rate ticked down to 5%. in part because the 2008 crash was such a powerful event in public opinion, americans have still not fully recovered. they aren't confident that the financial system has been fixed. second, while we have focused in recent weeks on divisions among

republicans, dissatisfaction with both parties in washington runs deep. although the republicans lag behind the democrats in terms of party favorability in virtually every survey, a new cnn opinion research poll shows that slightly more than half, 52%, say they are angry with the way both parties have been dealing with the country's problems. only a quarter said they were angry at neither. adding to the sour mood, many americans share donald trump's critiques that america isn't great anymore. while americans are generally oriented to the future, this nostalgia impulse is powerful current of public opinion today. finally, and this will be a major topic in our december political report, aei political report, virtually every question on one of the central issues in every modern election there is chasm between democrats and republicans on the proper role of government. what does all of this mean? nbc news and

"the wall street journal" asked adults six times since december whether better for the country to have democrat or republican as president. in each question, evenly divided, never separated by more than two percentage points. they conduct ad another poll in late october n that poll they asked a separate question and 41% said a democrat and 40% said a republican, with slightly different wording. once again the country was evenly divided. when that question wassed is in november of 2007 before our last open contest, people preferred a democrat by 10 percentage points. since 1960, we have had five of the eight closest elections in our nation's history. now we'll turn to the panelists. i will begin with michael barone. michael is one of the original authors of this 2,000-page volume, one of original founders, i believe the 1972 edition was the first. >> that's 1972. >> 1972. he has introductory, one of the introductory essays in the

volume this year. and in that essay, michael, you say that our politics is stuck in a rut. explain. >> thank you, karolyn. yes, you already explained it. we have had five of the closest elections in american history since 1960. growing back one of the other one was 188 0 nobody remembers that in washington anymore now that strom thurmond is not around. as i look back over the last few years, last half century, what i see is that we have been in an extended period of static partisan alignments going back really to the middle 1990s. it persisted about as long as any such period in american history. voter attitudes, voter choices, seem to be linked primarily more on cultural attitudes than on

economic status. demographic factor most highly correlated with voting behavior is religion or degree of religiosity. that resulted in certain amount of polarization in period when we have increasing numbers of people who on one hand identify as secular and non-religious, and other hand people identify as evangelical and strongly religious. this has been reflected in the degree of political polarization and attitudes. if you look back at the last six presidential elections, and for the 1990s allocate the perot vote according to second choices, when you find both democrats and republican candidates have run, won between 46 and 53% of the vote. that's a pretty narrow range. and certainly in historical things. we haven't seen anybody win anything like the landslide victories that went to candidates that were perceived

as bringing peace and prosperity that we saw for both parties in 1936, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1984. that hasn't happened. highest percentage since 1984 in presidential election went to george h.w. bush in 1988, nearly equaled by barack obama in 2008. rounded off to 53%. you've had elections where the easiest way to predict which party will carry the state's electoral votes look at the last map. 2004, only three states switched between parties. from 2000, four years before. only two states switched between parties between 2008 and 2012. even between 2004 and 2008, which was the biggest swing, partisan swing during the period, you get nine states out

of 50 changing parties. we see the same thing in house elections. popular vote for house of representatives, nine of 11 elections starting with 1994 when, a period when, i think i was first one to write that there was serious chance the republican was win the house of the article appeared in the july of election year. nobody, almost nobody had any idea this was going to happen but we have had static numbers. republicans winning between 48 and 52%. democrats, 44 rand 49%. nearly overlapping numbers. two exceptions, 2006, 2008, when george w. bush's numbers plummet. then you have got democrats winning 53, 54%. republicans in the mid to low 40s. in 2010, we swung back to the 1994, 2004 range, we have ever been since in the house popular

vote. this is accompanied increased straight ticket voting. i can remember political scientist produce ad book called the ticket splitter in the late '60s. ticket splitters were key to elections that was then. this is now. it's you know, in 2012 we only had 26 of 435 congressional districts voted for president one party, congressman of another. that is lowest number since 1920. warren g. harding was elected in a landslide. despite this, we have divided government. even though closely divided electorate and partisan, straight ticket voting, you have divided government 2/3 of the time since, in the last 20 years. 2/3 of the time since 1968. for different reasons than earlier period. and part of reason for that is demographics. democratic voters tend to be clustered in central cities,

sympathetic suburbs and university towns. very high percentage democratic in those types of constituencies. helps them in the electoral college. hurts them in the, when you go to equal population districts. so far i've been looking for changes. we've seen huge viewership increases in, particularly the republican debates, maybe in the democratic debates but as i look at results of 2015 governor races and things, i see the same numbers. louisiana, governor race, democrats, it was, it was 56-42. president last time, 57-411. sounds similar. >> sounds similar indeed. >> very low-tech gong we have, remind all of us ben, our late colleague introduced this to the election watch series to try to keep panelists on time.

we remember him fondly. he passed away early this year. michael, quick question for you. this is is centennial of new hampshire primary. when did it become important? >> 1952. it existed, the results were not really associated with candidates. you're just electing delegates. 52 eisenhower backers in republican party and truman opponents in democratic party. people rebelling against what is seen as party establishments, decided to put candidates on ballot. that becomes sort of a referendum. we see iowa caucuses new wine in old skins things, antiwar democrats started in 1970's to emphasize caucuses that had been perfunctory before. >> thank you, michael. we'll turn to henry olsen. you tend to think of gop contest not in terms of insiders or outsiders but in title of your

forthcoming book, four faces for the republican party, fight for 2016 presidential nomination. it is available for preorder on amazon. published by pellgrave mcmillan. henry, can you explain your theory of the republican party? >> sure. if you look at exit polls going back through the 1996 republican nomination contest, you find that basically what i call four faces or four factions of the republican party. they are roughly the same in terms of what type of candidates they prefer, what type of issues they prioritize. and roughly the same where they're concentrated in strength and weakness. four factions are moderates and liberals in northeast and strong in midwest and california. nationally they're about a quarter to 30% of the national electorate but they're well over 35%, some cases up to 50% in the states i just mentioned. there's the evangelical

conservatives who are extremely conservative as one would expect. they dominate in the south and midwestern caucus states like iowa. there's the fiscal conservative who is secular, sort of person who thought steve forbes ought to be the next president. they're about 10% of the electorate nationwide. and then the group that always wins is the group that no one pays much attention to. and that's what, in the polls they say they are somewhat conservative. i think best way of thinking about them in washington terms is they're the sort of conservative that think that john boehner is just fine. they're about 35 to 40% of the republican party. they exist in equal numbers in virtually every state in the union. and both at state level and national level. they always back the winner. track this group and you know who the next nominee is going to be. insiders versus outsiders has not been a theme of very much

importance throughout last few republican cycles. that would be the idea a lot of media representatives are pushing right now based on a couple of polls saying that republicans prefer somebody without elected experience. i think they're using that to interpret why ben carson or why donald trump are rising in the national polls but i would say two things about that. one as karolyn said polls out this far do not have predictive, and below the top lines aggregate numbers, cross tabs support among different subgroups you find factional theory i advance explains every bit as well what the is going on, insider versus outsider. i think what is going to happen the same factors that have affected republican nominations going past 20 years will affect same ones here.

the very conservative factions of the republican party prefer people who are highly idealogical and highly active in their rhetoric. the 2/3 of the republican party that is either establishment conservative or moderate and liberal do not want those things. what is typically happened is that the the moderates and liberals, establishment conservatives back somebody conservative enough. they win the nomination. the only time that didn't happen when john mccain broke through. there you saw the opposite. which inflammatory candidate came from the left and not from the right. the establishment conservatives lined up behind george w. bush, who was heavy favorite of very conservative group. right now does not look like the candidate who is likely to come through as very conservative favorite, somebody like ted cruz, will have much support outside of that group. that suggests whoever consolidates the two larger

factions is going to be the nominee. only reason ben carson is running well right now because unlike every other candidate who has profiled highly to the right in last 20 years he also appeals to the gop center. when you see somebody who is basically extremely low-key and extremely self-assured on it. have, that's sort of personal characteristics that the boehner conservative likes, unlike ted cruz or mike huckabee, rick santorum, who is much more valuable, much more idealogical he is much more low-key. i don't think this is going to last. i think somebody who thinks pyramids built by joseph to conserve grain, too many of these things out there. other thing we know about establishment conservatives they like stability. the way we know, you take a look when financial markets are in meltdown, people, investors flock to 30-year bond. when political markets are in melt down, median republican voter flocks to stable candidate who is conservative enough,

looks like somebody who could actually govern. i don't think ben carson will be able to stand up under that scrutiny. i don't think ted cruz's appeal will appeal to center, winner of rubio bush contest will be the nominee. >> thank you very much, henry. one more quick question for you. are there any lessons in scott walker and rick rick perrs demise for other candidates? >> yeah. rick perry whose sell by date was november of 2011. scott walker, scott walker i think there is a lot of lessons. one, don't run as somebody that you aren't. scott walker is not a valuable tea party sort of person. he ran as a, he ran as tea party candidate. what became really clear in the debates, i think why he has, had a unprecedented collapse in support was that what he, what his supporters were being sold

as was not who he was. that came very clearly. this is not somebody who is a ted cruz, who can win. so i'd say the first lesson from scott walker, don't run as somebody that you're not, when you're trying to run for national office. the other thing though i think you can learn from scott walker is that, what worked for scott walker in the general election in wisconsin was a uncanny ability to mobilize people who generally support democrats to support him on what might be called a reform conservative platform. nobody is trying to do that in the republican electorate right now. none of the republican candidates are really trying to mobilize rerepublicans in a way that present that for the general election of the thing that made scott walker an attractive candidate was something, for whatever reason they decided was not sailable in the republican party. -- saleable. i think that speaks poorly for the republican party's chance to

win the general election. >> thanks so much, henry. norm, this is the peak recruitment season, democrats and republicans going around the country to get democrats to run. democrats have done really well in key house contests. is there any chance they can gain the house? realistically how many seats do you think they can pick up? >> thanks, karolyn. let me say, i do miss rick perry. my favorite moment from the 2012 campaign when he was asked what he would do about the west bank. he said he would bring back free checking. i want to offer a moment of silence for george pataki and lindsey graham who didn't even make the kiddie debate next time. for jim webb and lincoln chafee. i really feel for lincoln chafee. he tried to become alternative to hillary clinton. bernie sanders had slogan, feel

the bern he tried, feel the chafe. [laughing] just didn't work. of course for chris christie and mike huckabee who are now off the main stage, and on to the undercard, christie said he would cross that bridge when he comes to it. [laughter] so, on to your question, karolyn. democrats have had a pretty good recruiting season but i think it is also important to realize there is a bigger, longer term problem for democrats. below the presidential level. they have really done poorly. the last two midterm contests were disasters for them, not just in congress but the at state level. and the farm team, democrats in particular look to state legislators, and in some cases people who have been in other

public offices, to recruit, move on up. it is very thin team looking down the road. they have to hope they can turn that around. while they have a good class this time, and they will have some resources, winning the house would require a whole set of circumstances that go way beyond the candidates they have. the micro level campaigning. it would probably take a republican presidential candidate who would make some republicans yearn for the success of barry goldwater. it would take, a complete wipeout at the presidential level. that could happen in couple of ways. one way is, and here, you know, i think henry's analysis is really terrific. i have a couple of cautions. i do previous that the anger level out there for substantial number of republicans, we know, among other things that anger is driving the electorate more than

we've seen before, anger more at the other party, more than support for one's own party but on republican side there is a lot of anger at the party's own establishment. some of that is being driven by a lot of people making a lot of money by fueling that anger. if you end up with nomination process a significant number of evangelical conservatives or even fiscal conservatives believe was stolen yet again, ted cruz theory they keep having defeat snatched from the jaws of victory by nominating nice person who is just another democrat, we may see a turnout that is not quite as robust as we've had before. the same thing obviously would happen if you ended up with a ted cruz or, donald trump or a ben carson winning a nomination. and i'm not so sure that it is going to move inexorably in

another direction but that's another topic for another day. otherwise, democrats can pick up seats this time. if you look at sheets look how different the electorate for presidential year compared to midterm election year. that is becoming more distinct. categories in presidential election year that bork to the advantage of democrats. that includes people who are not married. it includes having more women. it includes a larger share of minorities and a larger share of younger voters, that works to the advantage of democrats. that can help in some districts but the structure of house districts is such that if democrats manage to pick up 10 seats that under most circumstances now would be seen as big victory. the senate on the surface is great chance for democrats to win back a majority. 24 seats held by republicans. only 10 held by democrats. seven of the republican seats held in state has obama won.

and increasingly, as we see number of swing voters decline. as we see red and blue states divide much more distinctly, as we saw with kentucky results which reflected the fact that you're not seeing swing voters so much anymore. it is red state and votes red. and you know, for matt bevin, who was an outsider in that party, to win handily, that really tells you something. but for democrats to win the senate they will have to win the white house and probably win it by a significant enough margin that, a lot of races that are now very marginal would go in their direction and they don't lose states of their own like nevada, open seat that also toss-ups. >> thank you, norm. just five minutes. perfect. second question for you i know paul ryan is friend of yours. clearly a friend of aeis. what is his great strengths and

weaknesses? >> ryan started out very well, right now john boehner gave him two big gifts, parting gifts on boehner's part. the first was negotiating this broad deal that took us past a debt ceiling debacle that could easily have resulted in disaster. but also, added enough money to the budget accounts that money itself is not going to be the big driver in confrontations in the days and weeks ahead. by doing that, it also left it open for another bill that boehner had helped negotiate and that was the transportation, infrastructure bill, which has to be done by november 20th or the highway trust fund basically is unable to operate. and, what ryan did, bringing it up, which they couldn't do until they resolved at least basics of budget bill was to epup process

a little bit more and have significant number amendments. surprisingly 100 amendments allowed and he pushed it through expeditiously. don is here and knows how rules committee operates and dangers opening up process even more. whether ryan can continue bring up bills over with a lot of amendments maintain control over what happens on floor and over thosements can do what the freedom caucus wants, which is regular order. what they really want regular lard order applies to them not to democrats or moderate republicans with amendments. is a challenge ahead. he is very smart and artful. other thing he wants to do, is bring up substantive legislation that can pass and go on to the president for for signature or veto. infrastructure bill is one that will go for signature. most of the other things may not make it through the senate. and he has a real challenge, because he is promised among

other things to bring up alternative to obamacare. we've been promised an alternative to obamacare since obamacare was enacted. we don't have a bill that is actually been introduced that can be scored by the congressional budget office because it is very tough to do without being eviscerated. can he manage to do that? we have by december 11th, will freedom caucus members demand having voted for ryan, taking incoming from the right being squishy on that front, will demand he confront defunding of planned parenthood and adding riders that black obama executive actions in the environment and other areas that could lead to at least one or more partial shut downs? if he can make his way through that, then i think he has relatively smooth territory through the rest of this congress.

>> thank you, norm. last but not least, john fortier. john has been looking very closely at the fundamentals in the senate contests. seems to me the republicans haven't had kind of recruiting season they hoped to for senate candidacies. john, can you go down the senate races for us. >> great, thank you. i would like to thank all of you and look forward to henry's book. is it ready for christmas where we have it in our stockings? or putting too much pressure on you it will be ready for christmas but not necessarily in your stocking. >> we created a new insult. instead of being two faced you can be four-faced. i think lesson two or three old familiar faces are enough to win. but i will let you follow up on that. the senate, so normal lewded to this a bit. we have of course different classes of senate. they have very different characteristics. we've gone through a phase last election where republicans had many more seats that they could

challenge. in addition to the number of seats, complete total seats out there, republicans did very well last election picking up extremely red states that had democratic senators. if you recall, there were six states, alaska, arkansas, louisiana, montana, west virginia, south dakota, these are rock red republican states in presidential election. some of them had incumbents. some were open seats. republicans picked up all of them, plus north carolina, leaning republican state and few swings states as well. those are prime targets in world that michael describes as being basically well-aligned where republicans are holding republican seats. democrats are holding democrat seats. what does this election look like? on the surface again, just big numbers are, there are 20 four republicans up for election while only 10 democrats or seats of that party. just looking ahead, if you look to the 2018, class in the

opposite direction with only eight republicans. 23, if you count independents who caulk with us with the democrats, 25 democrats. you can imagine the fundamentals are very different in these types of elections. one thing i think that is different about this election coming up is that there is one seat that looks like those very red seats that republicans won last time for the democrats and that is in illinois. a state that democrats should win, will win at presidential election, i will put money on it. mark kirk is in very difficult atmosphere because of character of the state. the other opportunities for democrats are swing states. some of them democratic leaning swing states, some they have chances. the list is relatively long. if it were to be very good win for presidential candidate, if there were to be democratic wave you could imagine a big win sweeping in but those states are more, more competitive. so republicans will win some and lose some, at least at this point looking ahead. those states are wisconsin. probably the most other than

illinois, the most epr endangered for republicans with ron johnson facing off against russ feingold looking to come back to the senate. and then, roughly in order, new hampshire where you have a couple of very strong candidates, one on each side. kelly ayote incumbent. and the governor maggie hassan. florida, which is open seat in the sense both primaries are quite interesting. we don't know who will come out of this, but potentially very, both sides have better and worse candidates i would say in their primaries. ohio where rob portman is also facing a good recruit on the democratic side. democrats have done well recruiting in the senate. that is governor ted strickland, who has won statewide. really probably the only a-list candidate democrats could have recruited. he will be 75 years old but he is still a very formidable force. and then, looking down to other states that are competitive but probably candidates aren't there

to pull out the races at this point, pennsylvania, north carolina, eye because, places like that. on democratic side, nevada is one place democrats have to watch. colorado is another swing state but doesn't look like michael bennet will get a serious challenge. if you look at race what democrats need four seats to win if they, get the senate, if they win presidency or five seats. i think bottom line we are looking at senate that is more democratic, is closer to 50/50. but at this time very hard to tell how close we will be to 50/50. >> john is country's leading expert on early and absentee voting. i wonder what changes we've seen since the 2012 elections that might impact 2016? >> a couple things i will mention. certainly trend over time, i wrote a book on this not so long ago, 10 years ago i said, numbers have started to go up and up and up since then as they

had been before. so they, the direction certainly is more rather than less of both voting by mail and voting in person. the numbers were roughly 40% or so in the midterm election, at least according to surveys. probably be will be that or slightly higher this time. you see couple trends. states like oregon and washington state, voting 100% by mail. we have now the state of colorado which is more or less that way. they send ballot out to everyone. 95% of the people vote by mail. a few people choose to come to a polling places but essentially a vote by mail state. you have states like massachusetts moving in that direction. so i think you will see more early voting. more absentee voting. one other having development we're at cusp of, states moving to new modes of registration, in particular automatic registration. this is cause the left is excited about i think, democrats are excited about. in oregon, it will happen in

2016. it will be implemented. with we will see people who go to their dmv. don't interact with anybody about the voting process. automatically get put on rolls. could opt out if they wanted to. california which adopted this practice but will not be quite red to go in 2016. could be significant changes in registrations of these states. may lead to earth states adopting this. >> thank you very much. all of our panelists kept to initial five minutes. i'm turning to what i call the lightning round. interesting no one mentioned hillary clinton yet on panel. i thought we would start there with a question about bernie sanders. sort of upping his compare and contrast attacks. with questions designed to raise her honesty an integrity. how serious a problem for hillary clinton is this.

>> honesty and integrity is serious problem for hillary clinton, most voters don't think she has those qualities. whatever you want to say about her, that is not positive running for president in general election. i think it is interesting that bernie sanders has taken this tack since that in first debate, i believe october 13 he took the position that he will not ask questions about emails and so forth. he is dealing with democratic electorate has universal opinions about hillary clinton and very little appetite that she might not be honest and trustworthy. they're pretty much loyal down the line. i don't see a real path forward for bernie sanders. one of his problems obviously is that, in a democratic primary democratic primaries 20, to 25% of voters are black.

hillary clinton will do well against bernie sanders. bernie sanders is not the kind of candidate black voters vote for. they tend to be unanimous in democratic primaries as they have been in general elections. so, you know, i don't see this as a game-changer. >> interestingly in the polls donald trump and hillary clinton are the two can diets who have the highest negative numbers on honesty and integrity. virtually identical and have been for quite a while. norm, do you want to add anything? >> for bernie sanders he has chances in iowa and new hampshire ham. once you get past that his support just craters. look at numbers in south carolina where he is losing by almost 70 points. you also have to wonder, in iowa, the caucuses require people not just to go into a polling place and vote, you have to go to a site and stay there for several hours. it is a complicated process.

in 2008 hillary clinton's campaign did not dot groundwork required, sophisticated work to get their people understanding how the caucuses worked and obama people just cleaned them there. this time she has a much better team. for sanders whose support tends to tilt very young, dealing with lot of people likely never been to caucus, likely not having as much staying power. if hillary wins iowa it is pretty much over at that point. if she doesn't, loses iowa and new hampshire then i think there is still no path for anybody else. and we're likely to see a democratic contest that is effectively over very early on. and republican contest even if you get a few more candidates dropping out, will have more candidates than we usually see and extending beyond what we usually have. whether it works out the way

that karl rove suggested the other day, and i had written a piece why this time might be different, that this goes on perhaps even to the convention, or at least much more into april or may remains to be seen. but it's a draining process. you can see right now that as candidates are looking for traction, they go after each other. my guess as sanders begins to decline a little bit more, he will turn away from attacks on clinton and move much more backs into substantive roll, to pull her more towards populist left. >> thanks, norm. one of the things obama did in 2008, considerably expand size of iowa caucus electorate and bringing in many, many young people and that was key to victory. was all done subrosa. in the clear we'll see that same thing for bernie sanders in this campaign. let's turn to the primary calendar.

henry, we'll start with you. who does it advantage? i wonder if you talk a little bit about byzantine delegate nominating rules. >> republican nomination is significantly influenced by rules. republicans decided that any contest between march 1st and march 15th must award their delegates in some manner proportionality. republicans being republicans they have loser definition than democrats where national standard applies to all of the contests. so, what that first means, is that if you're republican voter, in a state that votes during that period, your vote count less than a state that votes afterwards, just because your vote to delegate ratio is going to be lower. secondly, for some reason the very conservative states of the south and midwest have all decided to lockstep vote in that

proportionality window. so what that means is, when you read the polls about ted cruz gaining and ted cruz telling you how he will all unite aspects of. mo, simple facts of rules means he will walk out of all his key states, assuming carson drops and cruz is beneficiary, with much smaller delegate lead. and then the states more heavily influenced by moderates, particularly those in midwest and northeast, vote later and are very likely, and have adopted much more winner-take-all approaches. somebody who wins new jersey will win 51 delegates. you have to win four deep southern states by a large margin to get 51-delegate lead. what that means, if there is a candidate who is favored by establishment and moderates, not fatally wounded by march 15th, that person is

highly likely to win the nomination but will have to wait until april to show, by winning enough states to make it clear to the other candidate that the other candidate will drop out. >> one thing we should point out in those march 1 to 15 contests, eight of those states have threshold of 20%. so the delegates could be awarded only after that. five, 15% and 1:30 teen% overall. >> let me just add to that. couple interesting things to keep in mind, more moderate, they're not moderate, some of these establishment candidates may do very poorly in first four, five or six contests. marco rubio is likely to finish, fourth, fifth or worse in iowa. he is third in new hampshire now. hard to imagine him doing much better than that unless things change. . .

who could win some of these winner-take-all states just by getting 22% spend what if no candidate gets more than 19% and a 20% threshold state? >> let me build on this. i think henry's analysis is broadly right. there is a question of which part of the electorate consolidates first? you have i think a lot of people thinking ben carson may fade in

ted cruz me take that boat. as henrietta get a lot of the earlier states will be favorable to him. if that happened early that gives ted cruz a lot of momentum. the other candidates i've established inside may be more divided. i do think the big question is donald trump. at what point do we say he is a conservative but he's not a social conservative. or he does reasonable and a moderate conservative parts of the party in polling. fantasy become the alternative were the one who can last? >> just very quickly, i'm assuming that ben carson is going to fade. that ben carson's polling right now if you were to sustain that through it would be quite clear that ben carson would be the nominee. because ben carson is running first among all of the ideological factions, particularly to evangelicals who dominate in the early voting states on march 1 or march 15, and issuing force or second

among the establishment conservatives. if that were to continue ben carson through march 15 he will be the nominee. i don't think it will last and then the question is who drops off of ben carson prior to his right as he tended to or other evangelical candidate than an establishment candidate. if they are the first ones off, where do they look at? if they were going to be for trump they would already be for trump. if they're going to be for ted cruz come everything we know about ted cruz suggests, there's one question, to ask what would you prefer in a candidate? the mosthe most conservative are someone who can win. a little under 40% of republicans say the most conservative and he is running third right now. a little over a majority choose to win and he 2%. right now those people are going to carson when they drop off they won't look to ted cruz. if they were for trump they would already be for trump and then the question is who else gets to vote? i think you see a late rise by

will be a. i think will finish second or third in iowa. i think he will finish second or maybe win in new hampshire because as carson goes down those people will switch to somebody looks more like a candidate they are backing now than the other alternatives. and right now because of jeb bush implosion that looks like margarita. >> i am cautious about predicting who's going to come second, third or fourth inning of these primaries. just ask president from me for advice on that one, making predictions. -- president romney. there's a couple numbers that make me cautious and those are 24 million, 23 million. that's the number of people that were viewers of the first two republican debates. the third republican debate on the world series night got 14 million. previous record for a republican debate was 8 million. 8 million, 24 million, triple. you have verizon democratic debate viewership below so.

the one debate so far 13 million viewed. their previous record was 10 million. that's a 30% jump. not insignificant but not anything like what we some other public and so. the republican caucus and primary electorate could be vastly expanded. norm mentioned the democrats turned out in iowa 2008, but 240,000 people voted in the democratic caucuses. and in democratic primaries and caucuses over all, 37 million voted versus 21 million in the republican caucuses and primaries in '08 cycle. iowa, '08, republicans would be getting 140,000 in their caucus. they tend to tilt elderly, the most evangelical republican electorate outside the south. those numbers could change.

there's 800,000 people who vote republican and chairman elections in iowa, republicans and democrats pretty even in a state. but democrats are getting twice the caucus turnout. you know, obviously some of the increase in that debate performance, a lot of it, most of it was celebrity valley of donald trump. -- celebrity value. as i look at this, the static political climate that i talk about and then i look at the possibilities of large numbers of people participating in stages when they haven' happened before, i'm pretty cautious about prediction. >> let's change the focus a little bit how big of a factor do you think obama will be? one of the interesting things elizabeth wilner at "the cook political report" wrote was that chris christie seems to be the only gop candidate who is taking obama on in his abs.

>> and in a quiet car on amtrak as well. book, i think incumbent president is always essential on the ballot even in an open race. if you want to just throw away all the details and look at political science models and say how's the president doing what you people think of his job approval, how's the economy doing, there is measures, that geisha good sense of the playing field for the race, how it will be. the president now is kind of in the middle. the president's numbers are up from the midterm but they are not great, sort of in the '40s -- 47% range. so the economy is kind of in the middle. this points to a neutral playing field for the general election but that could change. we are still early enough that things could get much better. we could be looking back and saying these are bad economic times, much better in the summer of 2016 or they could get worse in the presence matter -- the president number so matter for

hillary clinton. >> how about you think the comparison is? >> first on the particular question, this is one area where she keep a close eye on paul ryan. the dissatisfaction and anger so much of it focused on john boehner much of it now will be focused on mcconnell, was in large part i think i sense that the republican establishment leaders were letting obama just kill them over and over and over again. and, of course, it's part of a reality that if you look at lame-duck presidents, two-term president in the final two years, the results are usually pretty pathetic compared to earlier periods. for a whole host of reasons. you are tapped out with ideas. you have many, many fewer members of your own party in congress. you start to leisure people in your own administration and you can't replace them very easily. your parties usually divided over who the successor will be.

and people don't want to do big things because the next person may well move in a different direction. obama has broken that mold, and a part of it is because in a polarized world instead of having a united congress taken on a president who use of executive authority, you've democrats in congress signing with the president over the republicans. and that's frustrated the hell out of republicans. will paul ryan be able to change that and bridges that frustration level? if not then obama becomes i think a bigger factor by a factor because he looms over it all and as to the traction for outsiders, i believe that look at what these insiders is doing, that's nothing. a part of the problem ryan will have which is the same problem john boehner had is he may well be able to mobilize house republicans to pass some things that conservatives will like. they are going nowhere in the senate where mitch mcconnell

has to try to protect kelly ayotte, mark kirk and pat toomey and others running in lieu states from both over and over again that are too extreme for those states. so if ryan can navigate to that they will make it much easier for the establishment republican party and to reduce the role that obama place. and otherwise obama plays a role just because he's presided over an economy, what happened with that economy and what are we really get close to the election. is still goin going to be come content as rss and an as an open contest after two-term president you want more of the same 41 change? the president's successor in his own party has a difficult time saying i'm actually real change without alienating members of his or her own party spent obama-rubio, anyone? henry? >> i sort of agree with both

john and norms recent remarks. i would just add that the policies which obama -- the most important policies domestic and foreign of his initiation, obamacare and nuclear deal, both polled under 50%. they are not popular. we haven't heard the democratic candidates in so far as we've heard them trumpeting those policies at all. to listen to the rhetoric in the democratic debate you might suppose we been having a reaction the republican president for the last seven years. so yes, obama is a factor. >> we want to turn to your questions and we will ask you to identify yourself. if you could wait for the mic that will be very important while you are thinking, i want to go to act as you ask the panel is a clear in purging thing or will this be a mishmash of the economy and other things? >> i feel much more confident in predicting possible moves in the

electorate 60 days from now, then i do a year from now. michael is right, american politics has been pretty much elect orally divided in the same patterns in the same distributions since the 1994 gingrich revolution. going back to the present levels of the 1992 race of israel right now that suggests to me the issues will do anything else but mobilize the existing consistencies and move on the margins the few remaining swing voters that we have. >> first question right here. if you could identify yourself and wait for the mic. >> i am tom with the foreign policy discussion group. i wonder if the panel would talk about what foreign policy issues are likely to be featured in the presidential race?

[inaudible] -- and continue to make the argument across the board president obama doesn't want to lead from younger he wants to lead america from the other i think you'll see some measure of that depending on the foreign policy chops of the candidate. marco rubio i think would make it front and center. ben carson would probably soft-pedal it more. but that's what republican activist billy. is what intellectual republicans generally believe and i think you'll see that sort of attack across the board. iran would imagine as an example of that, shrinking military would be an example, failure to draw the red line in syria of the an example, what's going on a rush would be an example of those are all examples. the only thing i think an issue would come up is if there were a negative development in the world that would force people to debate that. but that i think republicans will make the argument where we

could and we were seven years ago and if you like hillary or bernie sanders it would more of the same. >> the foreign policy numbers, the overall numbers of the present job approval it up and down. but foreign policy number that changed medically. he was more popular than on domestic issues in his first term, maybe obvious reasons, things are going better. not so much never it hasn't affected his overall number dramatically. i think of course republicans and the debate will focus around malaise or weak leadership were all sorts of problems. one thing that did seem to move the numbers and could be more specifically moving things is if terrorism directly comes out. when we saw the beheadings of isis that's what number soared to move in bold and people woke up more there rather than just a this is a weak leader, that this is something you might change your vote on. >> it will be event driven, but i've been amused. there are two main lines of attack by republicans against obama.

what is the as feckless and weak on foreign policy and it gets pushed around by putin, by isis and others to get others he's like sherman racing through georgia back at home while the republicans get rolled over repeatedly. it's kind of hard to reconcile those things, but what's also the case is about is a substantial fatigue even among conservatives over boots on the ground and more wars. and so we may see an interesting contrast. it may well be that there's a desire for stronger leadership. i think the notion of drop a, you know, anybody taps me on the wrist, i will cut the legs off and i will do that to isis and i would do that to putin, and here he is now taken over the debate negotiations as well, that may play just as a general matter. but we may end up with the republican nominee who's eager to move into more aggressive military actions. and that could create some divisions or waves inside the

nominating process. >> i think the key moment in this second obama term in terms of public opinion of foreign policy was the execution of the american journalist james foley i believe in august 2014. before that rand paul seem to be a real threat, or possibility, in the republican race. he hasn't seen that since. before that republicans are willing to accept the sequestration cuts in defense or hold down in defense spending but after that as we've seen recently, they were not. if americans think the world is spinning out of control as they thought in 1979, a become as they thought in 2007-2008, that's a problem for a candidate who might happen to been formally secretary of state. >> question from this side of the room. anyone here? have answered all your questions? can you wait for the mic?

it's coming from back there. >> the mic is leading from behind. >> and identify yourself please spent my name is joshua. i wanted to ask mr. olson's theory somewhat consumers will decide the republican nomination. that seems like it explains who has won the nomination. what stock to put in ted cruz theory that it has to produce a nominee that when student election? it seems like the panel is operating under the assumption that donald trump will be a round and be a factor for a while and it seems like a lot of the other candidates operate under the assumption he will fade at some point collapse altogether and will cease to be a factor. do you think they do feel that way, is that correct? >> taking the first question, ted cruz's problem is that it's penalties working in common core math. he thinks a lot to produce the wrong answers.

[laughter] there is not a majority of people who agree with them within the republican party, much less the country as a whole. so the problem by republicans to win is not because they've been nominating people who are not conservative enough. it's because they have been nominated people who don't appeal to the few remaining swing voters that they have. there is no pool of movement conservative voters who have not voted into the 2008 and 2012 because the candidate was not nominated, was not conservative enough. that is simply not true. there is no argument that any degree of statistical validity or has any sort of support that says that somebody like ted cruz is the person, i is a person who can summon people from the deep and cause them to come out and vote. the reason republicans don't win is because they don't understand

the modern electric. they don't understand what the swing voters and a modern electric want and to make too beholden, they do not move people the way they did when they were like issues in 1980. when republican party decides to stop trying to run the 1980 campaign, which is effectively what romney did, just that without much charisma or detail, and start to a campaign that reflects real issues today, and i think you can see a candidate that comes out of somewhat conservative wing, when agenda election. but unless and until that happens it's not going to happen in ted cruz is so flat wrong, it's really shocking that he continues to get, that that theory continues to get seriously played about. >> i can make an argument in the other direction. i'm not sure i agree with you but i can make an argument. [laughter] we're in a. of declining turnout. the image a lot of people give us is there's this huge surge of

people to vote for obama. that was in the debris act a way of looking down has matured since. turnout has been down into 112 from away. turnout was down 14 from 10. it's declining turnout i look at the 2015 elections and what i see as democratic turnout record lows in these governor races since the 1960s or '70s in kentucky, louisiana, mississippi, admittedly republican states now. the tom cruise at very might work if you get your voters -- the crew's theory might work. 2012 numbers. obama's down 3.59 from away. romney's boat up 1 million from john mccain. reverse those numbers and the republicans win. that would be my defense to the cruz argument. >> i want to take on the second question about top and whether

he will fade. most people look at trump would have thought, a number of the things he has said would cause them to implode and fall apart and he hasn't. i guess the big difference between him and a ben carson is ben carson has very high positive, very low negatives partly because people haven't figured him out. a lot of that support starts to pull away. i would not be shocked if some of donald trump would implode but he does have a record a lot of people don't like it would cancel the people who like them after be known and after having these gaffes. i think that's an argument is likely to stick around at least at some level for a while. >> just quickly on the trump thing. trump draws very much like blue-collar protest candidates do in europe. which is to say he ha gets lotsf people to click and i education background who strongly strong dislike him but he is very passionate support. i don't think trump is going to collapse or i could easily see from being someone happened to him what happened to the uk

party in the general election in britain where their polling 16-20% in the fall before but when actual became a serious note, a number of those people decide to open those and vote for the tories. i could see trump right now is .23-25 go down to 15-20% range national and perhaps less than that in iowa it all the cards play right. he will not implement but he could very well a drop. >> remember trump is putting money into organization in early states. he has a campaign now, and cars and as we have seen a lot of the money and there's huge amounts of money going in is going to carson allies are making a fortune out of this campaign and it doesn't seem to be much infrastructure. maybe the changes but it's getting late to build that kind of infrastructure. there's no infrastructure, there is no there there. covers building there. i play the angry level at the

establishment is not enough. my guess is it's worth digging into the conservatives more as well. people are reading the same things and doing the same things from their neighbors that support for outsiders may be a little bit more persistent than we have seen before. >> the post reported that cruz at 77,000 volunteers come and 6000 in the first four states the organization could be imported. >> bryan harvey, i' uninformed american political science association congressional fellow. add to your look at the press coverage on both sides, do you think a different lens is being used when you look at the candidates? on the republican side donald trump, dr. carson are seen as almost not really serious candidates were as on the democratic side ernie sandys has been billed as the progressive alternative to hillary clinton and, of course, folks who know him from his days as a socialist

mayor of burlington in the economically depressed and how burlington didn't really drive under his leadership. so my question to you is do you think there is a disconnect on a different standard used? the second part is why do you think folks are so quick to write off jeb bush, who for many people, what is the most thoughtful candidate and his was the most presidential? when will the season be over and we have a bush-clinton race that many of us are looking forward to? >> on the first question, bernie sanders was a mayor and has been a senator, and a member of the house before that and is actually have some legislation in the veterans areas but to go through in a bipartisan way. donald trump and ben carson that's never served in office say they will look at the negative away. when you're looking at one side

with our two main candidates and the other with are a bunch of others come you're going to get different lenses that are used. but i would say for donald trump, you can change the name of cnn to tnn. that's the trump news network and all of the others have focused on 50 than a billion dollars worth of free publicity. it's a different standard and under other candidates would say please judge me by that standard. as for bush i do think we'll see, this is altered to some degree by pressing their district a lot of americans are the deathwatch. but they love death watch narrative. antonym of the resurrection narrative. we are into the resurrection narrative now. this becomes crucial because if bush can stay alive through early contests, we are going to get to a super tuesday, a contest window john kasich come if he's there, is going to win ohio and when all of those delegates. and may very well do that in

some of these midwestern states. if bush and rubio a knock each other out in florida, that completely alters the context of this race. for rubio is now facing scrutiny that comes when you begin to move to an upper tier, and that's a danger because little early. he didn't want this happening. you know, it becomes a very different matter if you have several establishment candidates shooting at each other. mitt romney got away with having no point in that category basically. >> others? >> jeb bush, i think he has been running camping but it's a tactical thing. michael dukakis had the fish rots from the head down, and this is a guy who basically has been retired from politics for a decade. the american political scene has changed dramatically in tone and substance since the last time jeb bush was involved, and he

hasn't adapted to. now is trying to adapt to it. you can see he says he needs to show passion, some shouting into microphones. this is a guy who i think is more likely to be this cycle's john connally, which is a spending tons and tons of money getting very few delegates despite having a lot of media and an associate of saudi ministers candidate and someone who can come back. if you look at polls and they have shown a third of the republican party calls themselves for a conservative, load jeb bush. when you start with a third of the party literally over anybody but you, that's a problem. is the only candidate that when ppp asks one on one trial heat with donald trump is only candidate who regularly gets pasted no matter what stage ask for no matter what, whether it's national or in state. this is a guy is deeply unpopular wit with a third of te party as income the other two-thirds of the party much to

hang their hat on spent maybe can go further with bush. i think he is paid himself, agreed with henry genovese paid himself not only as a candidate who might have a foot in the little part of the republican party and establish a conservative. he is only the in the liberal and most far left part of the party. duplicate polling, marco rubio some support among, and that more left wing, and it's hard to get out of debt. he was a conservative government in many ways but it does seem to emphasize. he doesn't grab that. that about once a out of being seen as not just establishment but kind of the most can only be into the most left for republican primary is a very hard thing to get out. >> are there any questions back and as part of the rehnquist there's one right here, this gentleman right here in the middle. then unfortunately have to shut this down. this gentleman right here if you make a brief we'll have a few

minutes. [inaudible] >> it's not on. can you speak loudly? it's not on, unfortunately. spent fulbright scholar, johns hopkins. last week i attended book launch talking about the american political amnesty from athens to clinton. i have a question. suppose there are two candidates who are -- capacity and experience. one is from a known family, the other rom we say family with same political dynasty. which one would america's prefer? >> it's very large countries that are electoral democracies have had dynastic leaders, elected in. we see japan come together current prime minister, pictures of him with his grandfather, the

prime minister. correia, taiwan -- korea, taiwan, philippines, indonesia, india and so forth. my interpretation of that is that people in a very large country don't know the candidate for stancu don't know anybody that does. so they're trying to assess character, it helps if you know the family. on the other hand, vis-à-vis jeb bush, back in '80s when his father was when for president i went down to midland, texas, and drove by, odessa, go buy the houses the bushes had lived in. i got the addresses. and the nicest was a little modest little ranch house. the idea that three presidents of the future presidency of the united states were living there in the 1950s somehow strikes me as really weird. and that's, i think that's a problem. obviously, if the republicans were to nominate jeb bush, t