rollcall. [inaudible] with those built packages be enough to address the infrastructure and expert concerns and you have any other thoughts on the pending legislation? >> some of the packages you know. we think there needs to be a lot more focus on the infrastructure issues. things such as permitting timelines, it better. is it enough? we think now is the time to go look at it a little more specifically particularly in light of the lifting of the crude oil export ban. now that we give global opportunities, we think you always have to reassess the infrastructure opportunities for the domestic market in the global market. we are looking at both the house and the senate. chairwoman murkowski indicated day or so ago she hoped some of

that bill in the senate. there's a lot of provisions in it. we are generally supportive of energy policy that again expands opportunity and gives us a chance to compete in the global marketplace. >> just us from energy outlook blog. looking ahead, could you talk a little bit about what the oil and gas street could look like coming out at the current price. when a bus that starts to ramp up again, do you think we will see an even bigger shift and potentially finally the takeoff potentially finally the takeoff of global field developments? >> that is difficult to predict obviously as we look down the road in the next year or two. the fundamental is going back to the marketplace factors of supply and demand are the fundamentals that will continue to drive back. that is why i keep emphasizing we are not looking for government intervention. we are not looking for government handout. we are looking for opportunity.

traders equitably, let us compete globally. the market and capital investment dollars will find their way. the united states is great opportunity because our basins are rich. but at the same time, we at the certainty of the rule of law. there's lots of factors that go into where you invest these dollars. united states has an opportunity to give more of its fair share if the policies are right. when you look at decisions like the keystone xl pipeline, they clearly were driven not by environmental considerations and political considerations associated with the environment. that has a chilling effect on where those dollars go. we need certainty and predictability and eventually the market will sort that out. it is difficult to predict looking ahead gary farber that will go. i do think anyone would've predicted oil is where it is today two years ago yet the market drove up there in that we want a chance to compete. >> a couple questions over here.

[inaudible] i want to know what changes to the u.s. regulatory does d.c. i want advocated in the upcoming election cycle? >> we think there ought to be a serious look at the impact, particularly cost implications and the chilling effect on investment and regulatory activities have. if you look today, for example, we have always argued the always argued that states have historically regulated like hydraulic fracturing. for whatever reason, the federal government decided it had to lay another layer on top of the state. what happened? the federal judge in wyoming has now determined he's not sure the federal government has the authority to do that. you can imagine the chilling effect that has on an industry that is not sure who the regulatory body is or what impact it will have. so we would suggest that all

regulations should he scrutinized on the basis of what is the cost benefit ratio. does it provide value? look at the methane tissue. the industry has led a methane reduction. we are down in real terms. methane reduction is associated with hydraulic fracture wells are down 83% and yet the administration chose to go ahead and regulate it again. unless they are trying to catch up with our success to innovation in technology or what it is, but it is unnecessary. if we are already going on a downed michael and moving those down, therefore reducing carbon impacts, why do we have to need to regulate even more than authority is? i think last year was a record in terms of the number of pages in the federal register regulations. i mentioned the oil and gas base. we are close to 100 pending regulations, new regulations are

that covers upstream, downstream activities, et cetera. we strongly encourage the administration to the close we are what you are doing, why we are doing that and is there a better way to accomplish the stated object is and all of the delay which makes us less competitive and discourages this capital investment dollars to come in the u.s. >> we have time for a few more questions over here. >> i want to ask you about the epa's draft assessment on hydraulic fracturing and drinking water came out in june as you know and now it is going to peer review in many peer-reviewed scientist have raised several questions about the widespread systemic impact on drinking water. first, do you think the signs are settled on drinking water and second, do you think the study now seven out this draft i

sent any kind of scientific or regulatory signal. not just u.s. regulators, the global regulators. >> at inc. what it does as the epa first concluded. that's a perfect example of what the science was concluded in the epa came out saying there was no magic impact. you remember the pavilion in wyoming, for example worked with the state. they've gone back and looked at all the wells that drove some of this discussion announces it has concluded there is no connection between hydraulic fracturing and the potential energy out there. so now we've got two comprehensive studies done by government regulators that there is a handful of people not happy with the outcome. so they continue to drive their agenda and not based on the science. the science has shown its epa concluded a year or so ago after five or six years of study that there was no systematic

widespread impact with all the hydraulic fracturing. so the science should be settled on mac, but there are some who weren't content to have the science titled on it because they have agendas advocating for their particular organization. that is very unfortunate. .. >> expect to do any expansion of that during the election year.

>> good question. i do believe the energy debate is going to be part of the selection, and the reason i say that is for a couple reasons. number one, with the significant changes we've seen in the energy equation in the united states, it has very significant impacts on job creation, consumer costs. consumers, voters are aware of this now. that's a key part of this that will be part of this national debate. the other part of it is you see some very different views as to how to handle the energy equation. clean power plan being one of them. as i understand, a majority of the states in the united states have now sued to overturn the clean power plan. that is significant. there will be discussions about that very issue in all these jurisdictions around the country. so energy will be part of that debate. the fundamentals around oil exports, the fundamentals around lng exports, about producing natural gas and oil. our purpose, again, to

distinguish what the politicians are doing, ours is not driven by political philosophy or individual candidates or political parties. ours is driven by fundamental literacy to have an educated electorate to engage in that dialogue, and that's our purpose of vote for energy, to talk about the facts, to talk about the science, let voters make up their own mind, but to talk about the important role that energy plays throughout our domestic economy. as i mentioned earlier, if you look at the gdp associated with oil and gas in the united states, it's the equivalent of the mexican economy. that's significant. we shouldn't overlook that. it's close to 10% of all that we do in the united states. that should be part of the public discourse, it should be part of this national debate as we go through this election cycle. >> cat -- [inaudible] with tax notes. >> yes. >> thank you for having me. i know api is focused on the science and data, but you also talked about a pro-growth agenda. so i'm curious, what energy tax

policies do you think would gain traction in congress, especially with the new leadership of house ways and means committee member, chair brady from texas and the new speaker, paul ryan? >> well, i expect, you know, there's been a lot of conversation about the need for tax reform, and i expect that will be part of the debate. i think it's a heavy lift to get that done in 2016 because of the election cycle. but i do believe there will be those that will continue to talk about the tax reform approach. our view from a tax standpoint is we want to be treated equitably with everybody else. don't discriminate against individual industries. treat us like you do everybody else in the tax equation. and by doing that, we believe we can compete on a global scale. the united states -- the oil and gas industry are some of the highest effective rate taxpayers in the united states. we contribute millions of dollars a day. i'll have to go back and check the number. it used to be about 70 million a

day. i better go back and check that with my sources here, so don't quote me on that. but we contribute about $70 million a day to the federal treasury. we're major tax players. -- taxpayers. we believe a combination of that associated with the revenues, the royalties we pay for production on federal lands as well as our other investments in things like infrastructure are great for our economy. they generate taxes, local, state, federal taxes. we're anxious to be part of the debate. i don't expect that's going to get done in 2016. >> one last question. >> hi. valerie with reuters. >> yes. >> how concerned is api with current and potentially future investigations by the new york attorney general's office and other, potentially other attorneys general into the climate change disclosures of some of your member companies? is this something that you're concerned about for 2016? >> well, we don't -- those are all handled by the individual

companies, so i wouldn't really comment on that. again, i'm not sure exactly what they're doing or some of those looks. again, i would just encourage folks to look at the data, to look at the science. if you have a political dispute over something, it should be a political dispute. there would be those that would like to change that conversation. the reality is today our companies are lead investors in producing low carbon, zero carbon-emitting technologies. i mentioned earlier in my remarks go back to 2000, go back 15 years ago. we have invested $90 billion to find the solution to the challenge. at the same time, the government has invested $110 billion. so we really take second seat to no one in looking for solutions to these challenges. and that's why i emphasize so much the role of natural gas in dealing with the carbon challenge. we have a case study now. we can show how you can produce energy, you can create good paying jobs, and you can protect the environment at the same

time. we believe that should be part of the discussion. move away from ideology, move away from the pure political discourse, let's look at the science, and let's

. [inaudible conversations] >> as jack gerard wraps up his news conference, you will be able to see it again along with his address on the state of energy that was delivered earlier to the american petroleum institute. it's on our web site, go to

c-span.org. got this from politico for you a short time ago. president obama today formally unveiled a new executive action on gun violence that represents a modest attempt to tighten loopholes in gun laws but will still likely face quick legal challenges and could be vulnerable to reversal by a republican white house. quote: every single year more than 30,000 americans have their lives cut short by guns, 30,000. suicides, domestic violence, gang shootouts, accidents, hundreds of thousands of americans have lost brothers and sisters or buried their own children, the president said. flanked by victims and family members affected by gun violence. you can read more about this at politico.com today. here's a portion of what the president had to say earlier today. >> all of us should be able to work together to find a balance that declares the rest of our rights are also important.

second amendment rights are important, but there are other rights that we care about as well. and we have to be able to balance them. because our right to worship freely and safely -- [applause] that right was denied to christians in charleston, south carolina. [applause] and that was denied jews in kansas city, and that was denied muslims in chapel hill and sikhs in oak creek. they had rights too. [applause] our right to peaceful assembly, that right was robbed from moviegoers in aurora and lafayette. our unalienable right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, those rights were

stripped from college kids in blacksburg and santa barbara and from high schoolers at columbine and from first graders in newtown. first graders. and from every family who never imagined that their loved one would be taken from our lives by a bullet from a gun. every time i think about those kids, it gets me mad. and by the way, it happens on the streets of chicago every day.

[applause] >> president obama earlier today. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has issued a statement which says in part: in the wake of the president's vow to politicize shootings, it's hard to see today's announcement as being about more than politics. the president has overseen a dramatic drop in prosecutions related to the enforcement of gun laws already on the books, and his party recently voted once again to defeat a senate measure to increase those prosecutions. again, that from senate majority leader mitch mcconnell earlier today. and we have been reading your facebook messages and your responses to president obama's executive actions on guns, and here's a brief sampling. ron says: a president cannot make or create laws using executive orders, only congress can create laws. his executive orders are meaningless and will be struck down in court. and this from linda: the president is doing the right thing to try to abate the gun violence that we affect --

violence we can affect, that is. this is not only about mass shoot, but the daily carnage on our streets. and again, we'd like to hear your thoughts on what president obama offered today. go to our facebook page at facebook.com/c-span. well, former agriculture secretary and democratic u.s. congressman dan glickman believes the president's executive orders on guns are not a political move, but an issue that mr. obama believes needs to be addressed immediately. mr. glickman also talked about the nra's role in congress' inability to act following several deadly mass shootings. he spoke yesterday at the washington center. >> titled "in pursuit of thes presidency," and i put in a subtitle, being a traditional professor here, "does conventionalal wisdom matter." let me give you a little bit of background here n. the past 20 years, andea i've been teaching since the fall of 1996, in the past 20 years, we've had six

presidential elections. three of them have had no incumbent, so 2000, 2008 and now 2016. each one of those elections has, will be in the history books anh in the american politicsd textbooks for different reasons. in 2000, just for a little context, in september of 2000, the american political association -- we havet 6,000 political scientists who gather together for four days to assess politics andnd political theory, internationales relations, comparative politics. american political science association had a panel asking if the campaigns mattered. because a number of political scientists had run models forecasting who was going to win, and they all showed -- therean was a new york times article. i can still remember exactly where it was placed. of course, at that time we were still readinghe papers, predictg that al gore was going to win the popular vote.

so the question in the article was does the campaign -- the conference took place over labor day weekend, right? -- do the next two months really matter? well, of course, the models wer, correct. al gore did win the popular t vote. but he didn't win the presidency. i was teaching at west point at the time. it was myy first year there. and i'll never forget on election day, tuesday morning, my students, a student who actually had dozed through much of the fall semester and at west point, if the student falls asleep, you can make them stand up,th so he had spent much of te time standing up. well, he raised his hand and said, well, what happens if george bush wins the popular vote and al gore wins the electoral college vote? what do you think will happen? andd i said it hasn't happened since 1888, we're not -- and these were my famous last words -- we're not going to see that again. it'sis uncommon, it's an aberration in american politicsc i said we will know wednesday morning who the next president

of the united states will be. it didn't happen.- [laughter] and, of course, it was the reverse. i still remember that the four key states, actually, again how history can repeat itself, ohio, pennsylvania, florida and michigan. and, i remember when florida was called, and then pennsylvania was called, i remember my mother calling andni saying, so you sad whoever winsns three of those fr states wins the election. so that means al gore has won. itha looks like that. and then i'm sure you remember -- have read about if you know some, many people here i think do remember what happens when florida changes, waking up in the morning seeing florida as undecided, right in and then the election went into december. shocking. if there had ever been momentum for getting rid of the electoral college, it was after the 2000 election. and i thinkr the national popur vote organization, which you may know about and we'll be talking

about electoral reform later this week, built quite a bit,l had gained some momentum over the next few years. at this point it doesn't seem as though that, those changes areng moving forward, but there are certainly the fair vote organization is talking about other proposals for reform. we'll be discussing that laterr this week. and i think it's very possible in the next bein 20-30 years tht we will see some structural changes in american politics. and we can date that largely back to the 2000 election. moving ahead to 2008, right? because 2004 was an incumbent. 2008. october 2007 i was in washington for a conference, and ae quite-well-known commentator on american politics spoke at the conference and said if everything goes as we expect,sa

then senator clinton will lock in the democratic nomination on super tuesday.pe virtually certain that was february 5, 2008, and the real question will be who wins the republican nomination, all right?n n about -- that was, i think, roughly the middle of october 2007. november 9, 2007, was the iowa jackson-jefferson democratic party dinner. barack obama was one of the last speakers. got up andrapa gave, delivered n address where he talked, quoted martinsp luther king, dr. king talking about the fierce urgency of now and why he was in the race. that speech put the clinton notice that there was a serious challenge, all right? that this was not going to be, this might not be a coronation. and then january 3rd we had the iowa caucuses, and historyy changed. so c 2016, what is historic abot

2016? well, the 2016 elections have made history, and not a single vote has been cast. the number of presidential candidates, right? weti went from 17 republicans ta dozen. some of them highly well-funded candidates, think governor walker from wisconsin, had strong super pac support, dropped out of the race. rick perry from texas, widely seen as a strong contender, dropped out.se some of the lesser tier, lower,e second-tier candidates, if you will, but even those candidates have gotten quite a bit of attention. debates, right?en the democratic side, five candidates down to three. it looks as though the democratic race, the nomination, the path to the nomination is clear, but after 2008 surprise no one, i think, will ever in the next couple of decades at

least say, suggest the coronation again. so the number of candidates, the number of outsiders, right? donald trump, ben carson, carly fiorina. one of -- some commentators describe bernie sanders as an outsider. of course, he is in congress so not quite the same, butno certainly presenting a very different- political policy perspective, policy perspective within the democratic party. it's's not just the number of i outsiders that are new many 2016 -- in 2016, it's their staying power. firstis republican primary debae was on thursday, august 6th. and everyone was wondering, there were so manyt questions. what is donald trump going to do? is he going to storm off the stage? is he goingnge to get into, ise going to get into an argument with one of the questioners, with one of the moderators? well, he stayed. he stayed through three hours of

the cnn debate, continued toon endure. we've seennd other candidates le dr. carson rise, now fall in the polls. senator rubio who was seen as someone who initially in probably the spring of 2015,ub someone who was going to make kind after -- kind of a trial run, right? maybe looking ahead to 2020, now perhaps is seen as the establishment republican party's best hope for a viable candidate i. remains to be h seen. the surprising fall of the insiders. governor bush of florida, right? all of thehe articles now are talking about what a has gone wrong. i don't want to say what went wrong. not past tense, all right? but what has gone wrong in the bush campaign. and an important question for us to consider is to what degree do we see that is that the influence or the difficulties of the individual, and to what

degree is that candidate in particular, jeb bush, saddled by history, family and two bush presidencies? i'm not sure. it's very easy to point out flaws in that campaign, i think, but i'm not sure that a flawless campaign could overcome the burden of dynasty and a particularly controversial dynasty. but something for us tode discu. so this d is what's new in 2016, the candidates, the types of campaigns, the interest in thesi campaigns. if you t look at the -- i'm sure you've seen the numbers on how many people are watching the presidentiall debates. these are exciting, right? anywhere from a low for the republican debates of 13 million to a high of 25 million people viewing the first debate. even the undercard debates, the last one i think for republicans

had close to 6 million total viewers. right? this isst big news, this is exciting. it's kind of almost like netflix and downloading.. you almost wish you could see the full dozen of them all at once, right? and binge on the debates. the money. donald trump is now saying he's going to spend $2 million a week to run this television ad. that's reallyly the first big financial investment made in the campaign. this is the change. butng what's same in 2016 -- what's the same in 2016? well, what's the same is less exciting. but it's going to increasingly become our focus, i think, over the next ten months. 2015 i would say pretty much from june -- or spring, april, if you will, when the candidates started announcing, 2015 was about what would be new in this

election.nc 2016 is about the process. and the process remains the same.s the candidates have to go througham the invisible primari, that'so largely what we've been seeing through now. we're starting the nominating contests into the conventions and into the s general election. and that, of course, is what this seminar will focus on; the process, the politics, what's unique with the candidates and their campaigns and the policies. the path to the white house still depends on 270 electoral college votes. many of you have probably seen the web site 270 to win. if you are, you're interested in math or even if you're not, because it's not even high-level math, right? it's just addition. what's path to victory in the white house?

well, of the 270 electoral college votes, as of today, january 4th, about 217 of those are viewed as safely democratic. 217. so that means that the democratic candidate, right? needs to get 53 more votes. yes. to win. now, if you think, well, those safe states could change, let me tell you what the safe states are, all right? and the republicans, by the way, 191. but for the democrats, california -- 55 votes. i think we can safely say the democrats will win california. new yorkrn state, 29 votes. illinois, 200 votes. michigan, 16. new jersey, 14. washington, 12. massachusetts, 11.1. minnesota, 10. maryland, 10. of oregon, 7, connecticut, 7.

that gets us to 391. 191. and then you add in maine, 4. won't split their vote, almost certainly. vermont, 3. rhode island, 4. delaware, 3. new mexico, 5. washington, d.c., 3. and hawaii, 4. and that's another 26 votes. so once you get to 217, how do you get to 270? well, ohio, pennsylvania is 20 votes. florida is the big prize, 29. ohio is 18. from 217 a candidate could take two of those three states and just needs to peel off north carolina or virginia or aor combination of iowa, colorado, iowa/newon hampshire, wisconsino win the race. that's the ground game rightam

now. that's the -- well, let me say that again. that's the long-term game. a lot can happen on that road to 270. but i would, i did a radio interview right before the holidays when someone was asking about the clinton campaign, and some of the comments that made aboutlinton had foreign policy and and isis. and i said, well, all she has to do is get 270 votes. i said, no one has said that. but political insiders know that's what ultimately matters. it wasas actually at the washington center's january 2001 seminar that a former chairman of the republican nationalch committee spoke and said, and this was, ofmm course, after the 2000 election, that is what every political party, what every campaign chair and what every campaign managerca is thinking about, how do you get to 270.

you don't need a mandate. a70 mandate is nice. you don't need to get, draw out new voters. you need to get to 270 electoral collegeo votes and whatever is the leanest, most efficient way to do that is way to win. now, let me be very clear though. i'me not saying this election's been decided. those final 50, or on the republican side 80 votes, 79 votes to be found are going to be hard votes to fight for. and this raises some questions about, again, the structure of our political system.uc in 2016 we're not going to hear a lot of discussion aboutti political reform, but we asm, students who are really engaged in the political process need to think about that. have some chances to do that thisti week, right? does theav electoral college stl make sense in american politics.

in the aftermath of the citizens united decision, do we need toma rethink campaign spending? and if so, how? if a a candidate, a celebrity candidate is able to benefit from free advertising in media and barely even focus on campaign fund raising, right?el and is now able to use largelyis his own funds to bankroll and campaign, right? how significant are these concerns? do we -- what do we, should we try to encourage voter turnout? what is healthy turnout in american democracy? in 1996 when bill clinton ran for re-election against senator bob dole, by october expectation of victory for clinton was to clear, and this was, of course, after the democrats lost control of congress for theq first time in '94 for the first time for the house t in 40 years, virtuay

for the senate except for six years in the're 80s. president clinton went on to recover from that, win the political standoff with the government shutdown by a republican congress, and by october of '96 the republican party was advising -- the republican national committee was advising members of theirs party to campaign in congress on the platform of not giving bill clinton a blank check.bi they had virtually conceded the race. voter turnout there was just under 60%, about 58%. that was kind of the low in the last two decades. in 2004, 2008, turnout was closer to 64, excuse me, 64%. about 62% in 2012. right? do -- what's the ideal voter turnout? and how, what responsibilities doan we have as a society to encourage voter turnout and toto make voter turnout more

feasible? there's been a lot of debate over the past few years. i know young students have spent some timest looking at this with the voter id laws and the challenges, right, that these laws place on getting people to the polls. are those laws unduly burdensome? this is something that's being dealt with in the courts. the, after the butterfly ballot in 2000, right?e and congress passing the help america vote act. what -- we've had other efforts to increase voter turnout. the motor voter law from 1993, that you can register to vote when you renew your driver's license. but are there larger structural changes that we can make? does election day have to be the tuesday following the first monday in november? could we have weekend t voting? could we have early voting? that's an issue that's come under controversy in certain states that have limited early

voting which is known for bringing out, for expanding turnout. do you have to go to the polls?o oregon, of course, has 100% mail-in voting now. are there other changes that we can make to encourage voterut turnout? and what's on optimum in a democracy? do we want 100% voter turnout? saddam hussein had 100% vote or turnout in 2002. not necessarily the model we want to see in american politics. but what is healthy turnout in presidential elections? be we have, we'll talk about midterm elections, obviously, turnout falls. but in this yearct it's a good time to discuss what is acceptable, what we want to achieve. we need to talk about the importance, though not the t decisiveness, of some traditional parts of campaigns like funding, campaign finance. party endorsements.

on the democratic side, hillary clintone, has pretty much securd the, is so far ahead of her major opponent, if you will, primary opponent, senator sanders, m that it's not reallyi clear that the endorsements will make a difference. though, again, let me be careful here. the sanders campaign just announced over the weekend that they are putting, they are assigning 100 paid staff members in iowa to draw support in each of the nearly 1700 precincts. that ground game matters, right? about the electoral college and getting to 270. right now, all right, the concern for the candidates is getting to 50% plus 1, right? so for the republicans that's 1236 delegates, for the

democrats, 2250 delegates. donald trump, for all of his coverage, publicity, approval , donald trump's campaign manager promised in the fall that the trump campaign would have a leader for each precinct in iowa by december. when they did a training session about sixde weeks ago, they had0 people, and i think it was another roughly 50 people online who were participating. all right? what kind of a difference will that make? right now the latest polls from right before the holidays ted, senator cruz was leading in iowa. donald trump was close behind.ld marco rubio after that but significant dropoff. and then carson campaign and, fifth place, jeb bush.

what will the -- how -- one of j the -- what will stay the same, the importance of these early contests andwh the difference tt they could t make. i don't think that a difference in a loss in iowa for the clinton campaign won't begn decisive. a win in iowa on the republican side may not be decisive but could turn campaign. if we hi back again to 2008 -- think back againin to 2008, davd plouffe, has said everyone looke back at the campaign and says you can seede how it developed. for them it was win iowa or be out of race. they won iowa, lost new hampshire, but made enough of aa showing to go ahead in south carolina. and forre them it was each one, win this or we're out. there was a small window there, and the obama campaign saw that window and was able to turn that

into a path. a rough but, nevertheless, a pathin to victory. so as we pursue that ground game in iowa and then in new hampshire, campaign funding matters, right in but not decisive.g party endorsements matter, and it's clear that there will be no coronation on neither party will be willing to do that. policies, we spend a lot of time talking about politics and numbers, but policies matter too. and over the course of the week, we'll be talking about tax policy, environmental policy, national security policiment i moderated -- policy. i moderated a panel on november 5th on u.s. foreign policy and the presidential elections where we spent much of time discussing the lack of attention that the campaigns were paying to national security.

well, after the terrorist attacks in paris on novemberal 13th, national security has become front and center. and it is clear that a competitive presidential candidate will have so to show fluency in national security,ç expertise.ç maybe not expertise, but fluency in understanding theñr issues tt are at stake. i'll leave it at that for now, and we can talk about what fluency means. becausese it doesn't, i don't think that in 2016 fluency necessarily means expertise. traditionally what do we know about how do policies matter?ll well, traditionally the incumbent's party, if you've studied, if you've taken a course on voting, you know about retrospective voting.e most voters look back on the last four years. they look back on the last four years. if the economy's done well, you tend to vote with the incumbent or the incumbent's party. if the economy's doing badly,

you vote the incumbent out. now, unemployment is as of lateo 2015 was about 5%, all right? president obama in the past, during the obama presidency -- whether you credit the obama white house or not -- unemployment has been cut in half, right? it was 10% in the fall of 2009. 5% now. gdp growth was about 2.5% which is roughly when you adjust for inflation, roughly close to the historical average. so that suggests that retrospective voting, what we know, the conventional wisdom might help the democrats. however, most economists will say that what matters is the state of the economy six months before the election. if we think back to 1992, george bush 41 -- well, at the time he

wasn't 41, but by the time the november '92 elections took place, the united states was coming out of the recession, bun the perception was still that we were in economic difficulty and that the president was not best suited to lead us out. and that was the path to victory for bill clinton in a three-way race with ross perot. so it may be too early to say. it seems as though retrospective voting would favor the incumbent party. but, again, a lot can happen in the next six months. there are some analyses that suggest thatth the democrats cod be favored for 2016, but then that would be amo problem for 2020. but f that's a little far away. we have enough to think about with 2016 right now. just on the polls. in iowa the sanders campaign is mounting a strong push, as i'vei said, a strong offensive. but the clinton -- hillary clinton is about 13 points ahead

in the polls.po clinton campaign is taking no chances. you've probably seen the former president clinton is campaignino heavily for hillary's campaign. howard dean, former presidential candidate, former chairman of the democratic national committee, will be speaking to us later this week, said on msnbc yesterday that bill clinton is the best politician that the united states has seen since franklin delano roosevelt and that whatever is being thrown at bill clinton, the criticisms, the personalei criticisms, political criticisms, that the clinton machine is prepared to take those on. will any of that matter? you may have seen in new hampshire yesterday a republican state legislator tried to disrupt -- well, diddies result result -- did disrupt a town hall meeting with hillary

clinton just raising issues about bill clinton, and she wouldn't take the question. now, does that turn into anything? is this a concern for the front runner on the democratic ticket? difficult to say. at this point iowa seems i wouldn't say safe, but strong for the clinton campaign. neway hampshire, of course, senator sanderscl is ahead by about six percentage points right now.at on the republican -- so very much remains to be seen how that plays out for the democratic party. and what that means, it seems very premature to be talking about vice presidentialse candidates. but what that means for not just who's at the top of the ticket, but who's in second place. that is especially significant on the republican side. and on the republican side, as t mentioned earlier, senator cruz is ahead in iowa. he's going through -- actually, senator cruz has been getting some criticism from his party

opponents for not spending a lot of time in iowa. they're doing the six-day cruz through iowa, thatat was the campaign slogan, not me. but they are, they're making a strong push there. donald trump, though, less than three points behind. so you have the large game and you have ground game. and it's very difficult to tello in iowa you have to declare on february 1st which caucus you're going to be in. you can't stay on the democratic side and move to the republican, but you can wait until february 1st to decide. so there are a lot of voters upa for grabs.de marco rubio, as i said, is at 12% in iowa. in new hampshire trump, 26%. senator rubio, 12%. chris. christie, new jersey governor, 11.5%. got a major endorsement a few weeks ago.by governor kasich of ohio, 9% in new hampshire, ahead of former governor jeb bush.

what does this mean? how do we interpret what's happening? i want to take questions here, and these are topics we're going to talk about, but let me just say very quickly when we talk about the issues, and when we talky about the road to the whe house, right, how do we explain thee unexpected? why has governor bush been so disappointing? is it really fair to say it's low energy? that's kind of reducing some very, i think, some much bigger issues and particularly, again, the burden of two previous presidencies of the same name. hillary clinton only has one, and that makes it a little easier. and bill was a two o the-term. what about the -- two-term. what about the themes? what are the issues that areue going to matter? we've talked about national

security, the economy, right? who are the voters? what are the -- who are the voters in the swinge states, in pennsylvania, in ohio that need toat be reached? in florida? there was a column in "the new york times" just over the weekend. i underestimated trump. and one of the, and he cites a t recent argue about how blue collar white voters who are registered democrats are saying they like donald trump.ay now, will they opportunity to to vote for him? -- turn out to vote for him? remains to be seen. but wills a theme here. trump's themes of populism, nationalism, a sense that government doesn't care about the middle class, those themes are resonating with voters. and how candidates play those out now that the debates areil still continuing but in their

campaigning, in going through meeting with voters, town halls, getting out the vote, appealing state by state and then nationally as we head to the conventions will be a big part of determining whether conventional wisdom still matters. it still matters, but how much conventional wisdom can teach us in 2016. those are some of the issues we'll be exploring this week. i didn't even get to talk about theho possibility of a brokered convention, but i think we'll be discussing that later this week with the committee chairs, and why don'ty we take a little bic of time before secretaryit glickman comes to talk about some of these issues. i've kept the focus largely on the c elections here. we will be talking about governance with the state of the union message, and it's important to keep governance, right? we have tote address both of th, as obama famously said in 2008, right? you have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. but what that means as far as

how that shapes the election and the campaign will be an important part of thean discussion. so questions? how do we want to do this? >> preference is come to the mic. state your name and university -- [inaudible] >> my name's colin hoffman from quinnipiac university. a. >> a polling school. >> yeah, exactly. i know guys like rubio and bush and carson and i guess even o'malley are still in it -- >> yeah, right? >> now that we're in 2016, we're 11 months away, would you say,n like, to put it in simple terms, that we're at the point where we're at a final four with clinton, sanders, trump and ted cruz? >> that is a great question.

i hesitate a little because when you put cruz, rubio and governor o'malley in the same sentence, that justt doesn't seem fair, right? i think on the democratic side this is hillary clinton's nomination to lose. right? i think the sanders campaign could have ano very strong influence, may -- and already has influenced, right, some of her policy positions.e. but the nomination getting to the delegates is going to beom hard. on the republican side, the conventional wisdom of now, iton wasn't last spring, is that this is a three-person race, senator. cruz, senator rubio and donald trump. governor gilmore of virginia, ii believe, is still in the race. he's polling so low, he's not even showing up. p governor pa pataki just suspendd

his campaign, governor jindal dropped out. the road to the white house book -- i have it in my bag -- it has the bobby jindal campaign button at the top. already that's history. but just to address your question, i -- it looks like it's going to be a three-person race, but the republican front runner from last spring, jeb bush, i don't think is going to drop out easily.f so that remains to be seen, what the bush campaign does. > [inaudible] >> then we'll go to you. >> why do you think ben carson, why do you think he justso plummeted right out of nowhere? because he was right up there with trump. it was trump and carson and then cruz. >> i think i would say the question with dr. carson is less why havewi his numbers dropped d more whybu did they go up in the same place? and i don't mean that rudely, but when you n look at dr. carson's campaign manager and i think it was the chief communications director, right? both quit just over the

weekend -- yesterday, right? this is a campaign in trouble dr. carson, all right, is a renowned doctor. a physician. right? no expertise in politics and particular i think when you look at the lastx weeks, when you have members of campaign talking about the lack of fluency, not necessarily on the job expertise but lack of fluency on the issues, that, i think, is -- explains dr. carson's drop in the polls. i think when we look at what is interesting is why dr. carson was doing so well in the fall. and, again, this points to this ethos and, i think -- this outsider ethos and the frustration with the process. and i think that's what both nominees will have to address. but we're a long way from there.

great question. >> [inaudible] i'm sorry, i'm john from harvard university. looking ahead after the primaries, on the democratic side, the two front runners are both substantial in age. and perhaps that's what you were alluding to when you mentioned that it may be a problem -- >> no, i wasn't, actually. >> both those candidates would be 70 in 2020, for example. >> that's the new 50. >> i couldn't see having a vice president and a president whose mean or total age is 130. i don't know when the last time we had -- [laughter] at that age. i think it's an interesting subject. but do you think that -- or how do you see that being a liability or not necessarily a liability, but a pro for the candidates coming, following the primary? do you think that's where they're going to be attacked? >> well, that's a great question. when i was talking about 2020, i wasn't actually talking about age but more about the issues,

right in that the incumbent's party, it's very -- it's unusual. when george bush won, a sitting vice president, highly unusual. that's why people were hoping on the democratic side if vice president biden ran, could he mount a serious challenge. so 2020 was referring more to party, not age of the candidate. i could give kind of the quick answer is ronald reagan to mondale, right? in 1984 at the second debate, president reagan said in the debate that he wasn't going to make his opponent's youth or inexperience an issue in the -- age an issue in the campaign. he wasn't going to hold his opponent's youth and inexperience against him, right? i mean, ronald reagan, when he became president in 1981, was the -- became the oldest president. before that it had been dwight d. eisenhower. but if i move -- and i do think it's also true, this is a larger

question in american politics, but people in certain jobs are working longer, and you can work longer, right? we've had senators into their +100, right? so i'm not sure when i say that, you know, kind of 70 is the new 50, right? that's, it's not an entirely a joke. but i do think there is a question here about the future of the party. and this is where senator rubio, i think, is drawing a lot of appeal because this new, fresh face on the republican side could have some crossover appeal for voters that the republicans have been struggling to bring in, right? particularly the minority. demographics matter. chris christie, who's also very young, was seen as that, but i think the political liabilities that governor christie brings are not to be underestimated.

on the democratic side, i think that's a real question about what the next generation is, right? who among the millennials will stand out. i mean, who in this room, who said 2032? right over here. oh, you're there already. these are good questions. there are a lot of democrats at state level, harris in california is being talked about as a possibility down the road. but i think there are, we immediate to see more of that rising -- we need to see more of that rising, and that's why i said the vice presidential spot, while that's really not the focus now, will be important. why sarah palin was so important, frankly n2008, right? really that the wow factor there, but there was really a sense that she would been, that this could be the future of the republican party. hasn't turned out that way, but kind of interesting to see the role she continues to play more from the sidelines now. so a lot more to discuss. go ahead. mr. future president. >> my name's justin, i'm a

student from suffolk university and also 2032 presidential candidate. [laughter] so my question is, and it's kind of a compound question. from the last republican debate, donald trump and jeb bush got into argument where donald trump said to bush you're 3%, you're going to fall off the side of the debate stage, and jeb bush retorted with it doesn't matter. so if someone's so low in the polls, do they still see the popular vote doesn't matter when it comes to percentages, and what makes them stay if they're so low, below a 10%? >> you know, that -- there are a few answers there. there are a few questions. why did -- let me start with the last one. why do they stay? why is jeb bush still in there? because as of last spring, he was widely expected to be the nominee. at that point governor walker,

governor perry, right? these were seen as viable candidacies. governor kasich, who's still in the race. but i think that -- and last spring there were a lot of articles written about how jeb bush had mastered the fundraising, right? he could do four one-hour fundraising sessions in a row, that he was able to bridge the divide in the republican party, right? i think jeb bush at this point is the only person, candidate i know who -- i heard defend common core, right? everyone kicks on common core. it's so easy to tear apart the problems with common core in education, right? jeb bush continues to defend it. so i think that -- while pointing out problems with it. i think that was seen for the republican establishment, if you will, that they, that former governor bush would be able to bring in some democrats, right? his views on immigration, right, were more open, someone who

maybe, though he's not even the label, fit compassionate conservativism, right? what his brother had proposed. well, now that that hasn't happened, there's still a lag though between -- there's a lag for good reason between what the polls are saying and what republican party leaders are saying. and commentators, right? if you look at all the commentary, the criticisms of donald trump that have come out over the past few months -- he doesn't know anything about foreign policy, he's rude, he's racist, he's this, he's that -- there's really been, i think, a concerted effort by establishment figures to minimize trump, right? in the sense of kind of anyone but trump, right? not quite anyone but trump, but i think that's why jeb bush -- and we can talk about why that's happening, but to address the numbers, well, not a single

vote's been cast yet. i grant entirely, i'm the one who brought up these poll numbers. he's behind ben carson in iowa. he's behind john kasich in new hampshire. this is a significant problem. and if you just go to "the washington post," you can see the articles that are being written about everything jeb bush is doing wrong. it's so easy, right? it would be harder to write a story about what he's doing right. i mean, someone should try doing that, what he's done right and why it might not be enough. but that's why i think he's staying in, to see what the votes are. and i think there's a hope. there would be a big problem and, actually, on the republican side it wouldn't even happen with trying to anoint someone who doesn't get the popular vote, but i think the hope is he'll still build momentum especially once we move beyond iowa and new hampshire. right now the numbers aren't in his favor. >> thank you. >> go ahead. >> hi. i'm brandy from buena vista

university in iowa? >> which university? >> buena vista university -- >> oh k okay. >> small university. >> so if bernie sanders and donald trump don't win the nomination, do you think we could see them run as third party candidates? >> i would say -- i feel confident saying that senator sanders would not do a that. donald trump has said he wouldn't do that, and i don't think he would because that is, that is a surefire route to victory for the democrats. i mean, that's kind of -- not comparing donald trump to teddy roosevelt, but roosevelt in 1912 ran on his own to, regretted saying he wouldn't runt in 191908, kept his -- 1908, kept his promise, tried to run in 2012. woodrow wilson won both elections with less than 50% of the vote n. '92 and '96 bill clinton won both times, 49% in '96. finish so i think it would be, i

think there would be significant party pressure. and i think it's probably pretty clear at this point. donald trump is, i mean, his staying power demonstrates he is taking this very seriously. the question you're raising brings up some very big issues about kind of the structure of our political system. but, you know, there are structural reasons why we have a two-party system in the united states, and the road to the white house is through one of the parties. so good question. we can talk about it more. thanks, brandy. over here. >> [inaudible] i'm julia from -- [inaudible] in pennsylvania, and my question actually kind of dovetails. i was wondering if you could comment on the potential of bernie sanders to fill the role of a third party candidate without meaning to,ing and what

i mean by that is when you were speaking about the 2000 election -- and correct me if i'm wrong -- i know that some pundits attributed al gore's inability to win the white house to third party candidates like ralph nader who maybe detracted from some of the democratic vote. and i similarly heard different commentators posit that there are voters who would see bernie as a good potential second choice who are currently committed to hillary, but the reverse is not true. and i wondered about your opinion on that, the idea that even if there were not a sanders nomination for the democrats, could sanders cost hillary the white house in the general election? be do you think that's -- do you think that's possible? >> i think that is such a significant question and really, i think, gets to the crux of the issue, the challenge for the clinton campaign, is hillary clinton's likability factor, right? and is there, is that -- would

democratic voters decide, who were disaffected with the party establishment who don't want to see hillary clinton run, would they stay home. i think it's too early to tell. first of all, i think there are a number of positives that secretary clinton has as well and, i mean, this would be if she wins, right, a historical election in the united states. .. which will talk about on wednesday from emily's love, i think it will bring out a lot of the older democratic voters. it seems to be less significant underunger voters 35-years-old. but since they vote less, that

is not much of an issue for her. i think, unless some scandal or which i'm notp, suggesting there's anything there but there is always the unexpected, right? it would be very unlikely to see, you are not seeing the frustration. while democrats, some democrats may not like hillary, i don't think you are seeing the same frustration or the sense that to anyone but hillary, even a republican. it is interesting there is that if donald trump got the nomination, what republicans would do. the think you're more likely to see it on the other side but i will concede it is too early to be seen. i do not want to at all minimize the sanders critiquof because i think it will be a force to be reckoned with. if not for the nomination in the end but with the clinton

campaign stands for. >> my question is regarding the outside initiative and i wonder whether or not the average voter or someone who doesn't have the strongest political education sees them as having a beneficial side as real-world experience or if it is a setback and they don't have political experience. >> i think this question is where the conventional wisdom is not helpful. this is what is new and i think what we are trying to understand and that is still a work in progress but i would say the strong support that donald trump and ben carson have.

it seems clear that there is a strong sentiment in american politics that are processed. there may be a big gulp between -- i will even leave aside some of the question of the policies if you look at that ad and what he is talking about. he's promising results and there's a big disconnect between promising and what's actually probable because the president isn't a dictator.

but i think there is a sentiment here this is a person who isn't just saying yes to the system as it is. that ties into a lot of why he had his party turned against him. is paul ryan doing anything substantively differently, and know that there is a perception he is listening more at least that is what some of the members have said. how do we break through the politics as usual. there's more to it than that. what will the 21st century the again and i think there is a a

reluctance to appreciate the importance of the politics process that takes a long time. you mentioned structural changes and i wonder what changes you anticipate this to be. the electoral college will still be functioning in the next couple of decades. it's what the national movement is about to the states passed laws.

none of the big states at this point signed on to do that if you got to the total of about 270. i think that is the biggest question. there doesn't appear to be a lot of momentum for that now but the most momentum i think was right after 2000 but the 9/11 the focus shifted to national security and not the process. it's hard to say what might have been different otherwise. but i think that the movement to the question of the relevance of the electoral college is one that is simmering under the surface i think that is the big one and questions about campaign finance and voting. campaign finance seems unlikely after citizens united in the coming years but with the voter id i think that is more state-by-state and in the court. but the big question i was referring to is the electoral

college. >> just going back to the subject of the structural changes, my question is on campaign finance and you did mention previously that there are so many celebrity candidates in this race and i feel like they haven't really had to put much effort into the campaign fund-raising. do you think that is the nature of this race and that they will warrant provisions in the decisions needed? >> that is a big question. what's interesting, campaign finance has gone through such an evolution over the past 40 years from when we have public financing and we still have public financing that it's pretty much george w. bush

declined it for the nominating contest. barack obama declined it for the general election in 2008. the book that you will be meeting next week about the 2012 election talks about that. and at this point, one of the top candidates on the republican side said any money that has come in is people wanting to give them money but he doesn't need it and he spent what little of his own money today so than their become. and there's a healthy tension in american politics about how money and free speech. and there are some people when you equally to that is just infuriating and for others it is a first amendment citizens united essentially guarantees that. but we have seen -- i don't want to oversimplify the rise of the

super pack and the paper exercising more control over how the funds are used into there was an article talking about how they've now put in positions of the candidates they support ultimately ends their candidacy but the money goes back to them so i think the question right now is not so much. it's not the change from a political institution but from the funder and while will do to build a public institution change it remains to be seen. >> you were talking about different issues that might make or break the 2016 presidential

election. >> i think national security and the economy goes are the two areas you have the greatest unknown concerns of what could change. right now as we mentioned earlier the economy numbers seem to favor the incumbent party. but again ten months before the election it's risky. it would be risky for any democratic candidate to campaign on the theme of its morning in america again. the method is still there is work to be done. with national security that's why i think trump is ending with

the message what's make america great again. with national security, i would say the challenge for all of the candidates is to convey the leadership quality without boxing themselves into policy positions that could change that could happen in the middle east in particular but also with climate change especially after the summit as a national security issue immigration is and just domestic policy. i think with national security the challenge for the candidates is to demonstrate the quality

and understanding of the issues at stake and that's where i think the cost of the campaign has fallen short. my question goes along with the previous question and i know that national security is very much in the mind of the american brothers especially in paris but which candidate would you say has been really successful at steering the debate and setting the agenda? >> that remains to be seen. that is a tough question.

>> it's actually been senator paul whether you agree with him or not. he taken a pretty hard line against intervention thing against the establishment and his party. it's raised fundamental questions about the role in the world and i think whether not endorsing his position but these questions about what the goals are and how we pursue them with money, troops, alliances, foreign aid, diplomacy goes are tough questions i don't think we've gotten into the specifics. they've pointed out where she sees shortfalls and jeb bush of

course has been signing either by iraq and how to defend the positions of the bush 43 administration while still holding true to policies that are in a significant portion of the party and it is obviously a personal connection so i think a lot of candidates are trying to, they are taking stances where they know there's quite a bit of room for discussion or the critiques of the deal on the republican side are very strong. president obama is likely to make an announcement on guantánamo bay in the coming weeks. what will that mean. i will i will leave it at terrorism without getting into any labels and what could we

make as a country those bigger questions are not easy to address and they haven't been addressed yet but i think that is to come. we are delighted to welcome the secretary goodman back to the washington center. i have so many titles for you with a long distinguished career in american politics. he represented the district as a member of the house agricultural committee and chair of the federal foreign policy for six years. he also served on the house judiciary committee and was the

chairman of the club committee on intelligence and is an expert on aviation policy. a representative left house at the agriculture department from march 1995 to january, 2001 during his tenure at the department of agriculture department modernized to conservation programs to safety regulations and developing trade agreements for expanding u.s. markets and expanding the commitment to fairness and equality and civil rights. after leaving the department of agriculture the secretaries to beat conservatives to chairman of the motion picture association of america and also spent time at the harvard institute of politics at the kennedy school and as a is a

partner and senior adviser in the law firm and currently as executive director of the aspen institute program. it's like the washington seminar for the legislators. they cochaired a commission on the political reform and the prevention initiative. he's here to talk about the 2016 e. election. we were talking about political reform earlier so perhaps he will give your thoughts not just on what we have now but what could change in the future. please join me in welcoming secretary glickman. [applause] good morning everybody if you listen to my biography is a sample of life if you can't keep a job you can keep moving

upwards. in fact my son i don't how this happened in my life that my son is a legitimate film producer in los angeles. it's exciting for me to be here january 4, 2016 the first day of the presidential congressional election season here during exciting times i know folks come from all over the country there's a fair amount of people from new hampshire is that correct? anybody here from kansas? you have to be kidding. where are you from? that was my congressional district before you were born.

and what a pretty name, pretty prairie prairie that is like any classic game. i'm interested in what you have to say so let me mention a couple things. i ran for office ten times and i 19 and won the last one. they did a lot of great things, food safety, farm and agricultural products in come in and the forest forest service in fact some of you are watching this for controversy in oregon right now with perhaps a class on different views of government who think the land belongs to them and maybe not the federal government and it reminds me of my old days because they were under the department of

agriculture they had some of the same related issues and. one was in washington and does a lot of different things that i'm involved with trying to bring members of congress together to educate them on issues of the day mostly foreign policy and national security global policy issues in a bipartisan way. the general partisanship leads once they come together in a quiet way with no media, no political consultants and they talk about the substantive issues and quite productive. senator dole, senator baker, democrats, senator daschle and

senator mitchell to see what we could do to recognize the partisanship isn't a bad. it's a clash of ideas to be partisan but at the end of the day we also want to do something for the country to work to find solutions to some of these problems and partisanship is supposed to produce kind of thinking and intellectually stimulating environment you can come to constructive ideas on foreign policy. let's look at today for a moment and where we are because i know you have a whole group of great speakers coming up and i really want to hear your thoughts about our political system and especially of people who are.

whether they see politics and government as a worthwhile venture and worthwhile operation in this country anymore so let's look at some of the general themes. that was historically the foundation of the bottom-line of american politics. people believe they have a future in the economic future and while overall the national economy is generally pretty good, the unemployment rate is at a fairly low figure right now although there are a lot of people who are not accounted for in that rate but generally speaking the economy is better today than it was five years ago or ten years ago at the same time there's a huge amount of anxiety, loss of middle-class

jobs, manufacturing jobs. if you are educated and have a coach to create and you are technically savvy and things are open and positive and if you had been in a manufacturing kind of opportunity that has the classic impact but it's that it's had in the past so economic uncertainty , lack of middle-class jobs involve the issues surrounding terrorism and international conflicts have created an environment where there's a high level of anxiety in america and all of these actions. political campaigns.

the political system is constantly man biting dog. there is very little policy discussion on issues. it's not particularly interesting on television. it's driving the discussion of the primary reason. more on the republican side and the democratic side because the conflict is on the republican side. secretary clinton is leading this discussion although certainly senator sanders has been a formidable opponent this extensive money in politics almost unlimited campaign

spending now and so every issue is driven by this catalyst just money which creates way more media attention, way more online attention, way more social media attention than we ever had before in before in the post have before him post his own conduct and not on policy because that is what tends to drive the voters and the attention has all been pretty much exclusively based on presidential politics and nothing on congress so far. it's worthwhile mentioning the founding fathers were pretty smart and they said article line was that congress, not the president. so, i am a student of both the congressional ranks and the congressional branch but i always felt that all branches of government were equal but one was slightly more equal than others and that is the congress that he would never know it today from the media attention our coverage.

for the one-party rule and allow different when i ran from congress in pretty prairie congress might district was i would call it moderately conservative leaning republican yet high try as a democrat was able to win nine times in the district. if i went back today and ran maybe i could get 100 votes, maybe that's not very many more than that. it's a whole different world than it used to be which means you tend to vote with your voters are so they tend to vote on the extreme and so people are pretty smart to appeal on the other side if that's what what being of the voters are going to be and many of the districts have low turnout.

there is a fairly extensive lack of trust in major institutions. trust is a big factor. the american political system depends on trust in our leaders and institutions, so when you look at government, media, corporate world, academia and if you look at congress in particular there is enormous amount of trust -- lack of trust in these institutions. if you think you are not a victim of 2016 about 100 years ago mark twain said said of said of his one true criminal class in america and that's congress and he said just after the first world war. a totalitarian systems don't prevent the natural distrust and alex got into the point where an

awful lot of people don't trust anybody any time, time coming, anyplace, anywhere and that's not healthy for the long-term democratic situation. in the same way there's also little trust in leadership anywhere. they encourage distrust and when you hear all the negative things being said about barack obama today or said about george w. bush in the previous administration, you think these people were thought her i had a full time and it's not true so this kind of rhetoric and this disenchanted rhetoric about leaders and others.

in fact. it creates this kind of internal conflict. i'm reminded harry truman the former congress farmer congress president of the united states once said i'm proud i'm a politician. a statesman as a politician that has been dead for 15 years. it takes a working politician to be a good leader in politics.

i ran for congress in 1976. i didn't always have the nicest things to say about president ford about they weren't personal things because their personal lives to try to destroy them. [and republicans were guilty of this on the other side of these ad hominem attacks on people. one of the things people try to do at the bipartisan policy center is to bring people together in a different perspective and partisans who

respect themselves as human beings and try to see what they can work out and sometimes they can and sometimes they can't put the respect tries to create a system of civil discourse which i think is important for the country to operate. mind you that we operate as a country of checks and balances. they have equal branches and the goal was to have 1 foot on the brake the break and wanted on the accelerator at all times. they wanted that. they didn't want a system you get stuff done right of a wanted it to be almost impossible to get things done and the only thing that would keep people from falling apart is civil discourse and mutual respect and then you can grease the wheels to get stuff done. it's not like a parliamentary

system so if people are not respectful to each other it is more difficult to get things to work then it would be otherwise what we want to see. and you know, most americans are kind of in the middle of the road between the 40-yard line and the 4-yard line and most primary voters are at either side and the media doesn't encourage the discussion beyond. i'm reminded of as an agricultural commissioner who had a famous line as a populist and he said the only thing in the middle of the road is a yellow stripe and a dead armadillo and the idea is the middle-of-the-road and that is where most policy decisions are made. unfortunately it isn't where good politics is and they can't

excite people very well. so yeah politics tries to move in that direction in terms of running for office. then you have to move into that area. but civil discourse is important for the political system and above partisanship, excessive partisanship. you can close the door and move to a happier time we would all love each other and try to get things done, but if you campaign in the trail and hate, it's hard to get people back together again. it doesn't work in a marriage very easily your family is very easily imagine how it works in the country as a whole. so that is why we are doing our best. i very much respect to the speaker of house the house paul

ryan. he's doing his best to reduce the vitriolic and the rhetoric and the people working together on both sides and they need to do this and in march 1892 there were news reports about the speaker of the house thomas reed who had to define the statesmen in america. of course that's what i've been trying to to doing our jobs and he said a statement is a successful politician who is dead and that prompted a response by a boston man who sent speaker read a telegram saying why don't you die. so it's tricky being a statesman in the modern world. i give you all of that in context because i think it is an exciting time and the country is very resilient and the opportunity unlike any other in the world where we are in our political and economic system and its it's thriving and still the envy of the world. nobody comes close to it even

with all the problems i'm talking about but they are serious and they could impact our ability to continue to lead. looking at the political system right now this is where i'm interested in where you are. do you still see politics as a way to influence the world. as a people that so people that are younger and entering the fray do you see politics as an avenue for change or do you see public service more writ large as an opportunity for change like going to work at a chair of the organization is that organization is the more interesting than working in the political system. does it help you to decide that there is an overall whole opening for you to go into politics or doesn't close the door and say i can't get anything done in the system is there a difference between local, state and national issues when you look at this stuff.

does the presidential race have an impact on your decision or do you think that maybe that happens or your communities. he's one of the most unusual people that i've ever seen in our political system. some you may remember a man named h. ross perot, he was kind of guy donald trump of the last generation and he talked about a giant sucking sound that happened so he had some of the same kind of rhetoric although not nearly as volatile and extravagant as donald trump has. but what do you think about

that, do you think that is good or bad that you like it because he has strong views even if you find his views often said or maybe some people don't find his views offensive. the truth is a lot of that a lot of these hot button issues like immigration, guns, the social issues have as much resonance. the question is the presidential campaign able to address any of those things and if not, why not and what would you like to see out of the presidential campaign to get the candidates to focus a bit more on these issues that you care about? democrats have not the same level of intensity largely because there are far fewer candidates and the perceived

frontrunner and they are personally not trying to kill each other all the time like on the republican side of the so bernie sanders is a provocative guy that has a very strong point of view on economic issues dot so engaged on the international front. secretary clinton has a long record on a lot of these issues and while there are certainly some volatility is on the site of the aisle, it is nothing compared to what we see on the republican side. i work for president bill clinton for six years we were at a cabinet meeting and and he's had remembered this. strong and wrong will usually give each week and write. strong and wrong will defeat week and right. we kind of see that now in this presidential campaign.

i think it does speak to some of the issues that we certainly see now in the primary race and i would just end by a quote from the former speaker who once said that any person can kick down a door but it takes a carpenter to build one and i think the country does need a few more carpenters right now on both sides of the aisle. and hopefully that will come from people through grassroots who can prevail on our elected officials to appeal to the common good a little bit more than they have been in the past. i will stop right now and i would like to hear your views and open up for questions and comments anybody may have and tell us where you're from.

>> you want to hear my view on the political process i don't really have a money problem with it being spent. in the campaigning a lot of the money has been going into -- we can spend a million dollars on the media and such. not many countries can do that and i don't think that there is that much problem with it personally. my concern is with how i view the political system right now that there are two main parties democrats and republicans and she mentioned that there are not more than that i didn't grow up in the traditional study but

they aren't all the way right and you mentioned the middleground aspect to show that the democratic party says we need to be in the role of or with the republican party says we need and i don't like that. i have seen more and i wonder how the congressman sees how they are going to do their job if we are at the terms of the way so people will attack and say things and so that's kind of money opinion on my opinion on it. >> it's more china waste into that comes from the grassroots not the politicians. that's what they are hearing when they go to the town hall meetings where they are hearing at home. they would never intend to be

like the parties were in europe or asia. in fact the political parties are not in the constitution of the united states and many people believe that the founding fathers would be extremely nervous if they knew what was happening to our political parties but it's like a convenient organizing force for people. an equal number show themselves as independent but the problem is that the system encourages people on the edges and discourages people from the center, but is ultimately going to encourage the government on the edges and that will invariably weaken america because it will be hard to compromise and reach a consensus in the government. all politics is supposed to do is produce political leaders have tried to do their best to make the country a better place in terms of all the issues people care about. sometimes you look at the campaigns and think the country

comes second and the policies come second so that's where you have to be active forces to encourage political leaders to focus on the substantive policy issues and the media also has to do a much better job. the last debate i thought it did a better job than some of the earlier debates i have seen in that kind of thing i don't think the system is hopeless but a lot of people think it's hopeless and then they tune out and that is troubling to me. >> to appeal to the agricultural side of things, that is about the federal and the national debate should end up under the ama is >> this is not an issue that i prepared for today.

i once was on a tv show called the craig kilborn show. the first question he asked me is why don't you just make it legal and i said next question. so i don't know. the public has has = changes on health care, certainly i think medical marijuana is something that people who are very sick ought to be entitled to take advantage of. beyond that, i'm going to pass the question. okay. >> i'm from the university and a bring your question back up about the politics to create change and i wanted to just oppose the idea may idea maybe politics isn't seen as a way to create change by a lot of people

who don't specialize in politics because they are not educated and ethics. so, my question is how can we better educate the populace in politics and how do we make it available for the nonpoliticians? >> there is the need for much more specific education specifically at the elementary and secondary schools. you may remember the jay leno show and he would do this jaywalking and interview people on the street and they would say who's say who was the president of the united states, abraham lincoln, thomas jefferson, and i don't believe it was a staged answer because i can't be beat people for that the people are that stupid. but the truth of the matter is that we don't emphasize civic education. i don't just mean history. i mean how things get done, how you organize and participate not just in government but other kinds of activities which influence public policy choices.

so, there are areas the university of arizona has been involved and others as well in terms of developing interest in civics and the constitution and that's probably the best thing we can do. but also the politicians ought to lead by example. and you know, i think that they have a lot of work to do. they have to realize that what they say and what they do is get picked up by people and so the people have to demand it as well. >> dc is being reflected in the common core? my knowledge is somewhat limited. i think we've gone a little bit overboard on the education and there's nothing wrong with it but learning to read and write about learning language and how to the language and how to participate in the society is also very, very important so i just think there needs to be good thoughtful balance.

>> thank you mr. secretary. i had a question with regards to the intersection of your career hollywood and politics and i happened to have the honor of hosting the week of cohosting the screen actors guild award in the convention of 2008 and the amount of funding that he has for the politicians. can you help us understand why that's important to him or the intersection is between the two industries? >> people in the business have historically always taken a more active role in their government generally. now, historically, there've been left of center although now more and more people in the world are becoming interested in politics on the right of center side of

the picture, not the extreme right but more conservatives and republicans in the world and so let me divide it further. if you are in the talent side of the road, so if you are an actor or writer, you'll tend to you will tend to be active more on the democratic side. if you are on this side of the world or the business side of the entertainment companies, you probably would tend to be slightly more conservative as well. the public has a love affair with entertainers and musicians and actors and so it's no secret he gives you star power and everything else. then you have the entertainment into politics and not a lot of people because it isn't an easy

transition to make but i think that it is a good thing. i don't think it's bad at all. i would like to see more people at other sectors of society who stayed out of the system to come back into it as much as possible to encourage the companies and folks from alliances like the screen actors guild. they are interested in a lot of things and on the social issues and the economic issues they are not. so that was my goal. >> i'm from new york university. i have a question for you.

so, today president obama is meeting with loretta lynch about possible executive action on the gun control and thursday will be doing the town hall with cnn on the issue and in response to that i read ted cruz is rattling off a shotgun with his campaign logo described on the gun. now as a young voter that scares me so i am pushed left and partisan because that is scary to see. i think that it's immature, disrespectful, and that is actually occurring in a presidential election. that said, my question is by president obama taking an executive action is he exacerbating the problem and saying i'm giving up bipartisan here. i need to do this on my own, do you think that he has no choice over do you think that he is

exacerbating the problem with executive orders? >> very good and extremely complicated question. let's. what's because it's politically both sides are playing politically to their base. for ted cruz has a primary battle with trump and already made a statement against the executive order and he's got everybody on the republican side and of jumping over themselves. it's kind of a tacky thing to put your logo on this kind of a clever idea.

on the no-fly list and other kinds of things so if the congress isn't going to move i think the president needs to make a stand whether it is partially political because the base needs to know. whether the courts uphold or not i don't know. what you like to know as politicians are doing things they believe in.

it's a good thing to do i don't disagree that ted cruz may not believe in what he's doing either. they are acting not on the basis of belief but on the basis of a political calculation. and there's going to be those in everybody's eyes. nobody will do things just for one reason or another. but like bernie sanders, all the stuff he's done on income inequality and taxation and everything else i know he believes in it but they've also done a lot of polling to show that it's good politics with respect to the base. and i will give you one thing. i was a congressman and -- sorry, i have to pick on you. and so i voted in 1994 for the vertical gun control lg