should buy a powerball ticket because i can see the future. it's hard to say when you start writing the book. is it when you write the proposal or turn in the manuscript. i would say five years ago i started writing columns which led me to this book. it was a round the time that sarah palin went rogue. i initially thought i would like her. i thought after the race she got radicalized and changed. i started seeing candidate like christine o'donnell and others who were saying things that i felt uncomfortable with as a conservative.

right mind people of the intellectual history of conservativism. i tell students, you'd be surprised to learn that the rock stars at the manhattan cocktail parties used to be conservative. talk about that rich history. >> there was a time not that long ago when the knock against conservatives was that they were too intellectual. there were two academic who couldn't appeal to the common man. it's completely the opposite today. a lot of people think the intellectual father of conservative is aristotle which puts conservatism in very good intellectual company, but certainly the modern leader or the modern conservative is edmund burke, the british parliamentarian who famously was very supportive of the american cause against the french revolution.

this is a guy who had been incredibly influential and if you look at the sort of battle that he had against thomas paine, you have the birth of the right and left even to this day. burke believed in preserving tradition and western servo playstation didn't just miraculously happen. it was the product of accumulated wisdom. modern conservatives. >> postmodern, right right. >> right, as a reaction to fdr and the new deal. you have brilliant men, mostly men but also women who contributed to that.

people like russell kerr and richard weaver. also the william f buckley and rich tradition that in recent years we've gotten away from it as we've dumbed down conservatism to win votes. >> if you agree there are still contemporary in the movement. thomas stole and others. they seem to be marginalized and they're not getting as much attention as some other folks. why do you think that is. >> i think part of it is the product of our culture. you have the inner attainment wing of the republican party who is really dominating right now. you can then write something really fabulous but a rush limbaugh says something about

the flu or and coulter so something on cable news, what will get the most attention? really, the book, too dumb to fail, the fail, the title harkens to the too big to fail mentality where in the case of too big to fail you obviously had financial institutions who had incentives to take risks that we, the taxpayers, would bail them out. i think there's a similar movement in government. if you have a perverse incentive to say something controversial or provocative even if the conservative movement cumulatively is harmed by it. >> yes, i hear you there. i want to get back to talk radio because i think bringing up rush limbaugh is important. first i want to read from too dumb to fail for a moment. you you write, too many of today's conservatives, deliberately shun academic excellence, experience, to

geishas notice and expertise in politics. many of the people doing so are not as dumb as they pretend to be, even those rare conservatives who possess a wealth of knowledge feel obliged to act. i think that's what you're talking about, this desire desire to put on an aspect of dumbness. when did not become a thing? >> the book is called too dumb to fail and then there's a thing that i believe is called too smart to win where you basically have the same ignorance or this everyman populism. a lot of people who do this are highly intelligent. donald trump is this billionaire who went to an ivy league school who is obviously playing this game, ted cruz hasn't incredible resume and pandering to this popular conservative thing. the really sad part is the candidates who try to do it and

can't. i'll be gentle, a rhodes scholar and incredibly intelligent conservative tried desperately to pander and be every man and just didn't work. walker a very smart and capable governor who really could have been the bridge between the establishment and the grassroots but instead, he decided he had to win iowa, he had to pander to iowa voters then he started to embrace things like birthright citizenship which went against his brand earlier. we have the scenario where basically you have to pretend to be something you're not in the unfortunate part is that in order to pander to republican primary voters in iowa, you have to adopt a persona and style that would actually hurt you when it comes to winning over

millennial's or cosmopolitan americans who i believe actually should be voting conservative but are turned off by the cultural baggage and the stylistic stereotypes of what we think of when we think of conservatives. >> you are not suggesting that populism is all bad. there are some good, i think ronald reagan was able to successfully marry an intellectual conservatism with vigorous populism. >> absolutely. that's one of the things i try to define in the book. what do they mean? one of the many words is populism. if populism means somebody who believes in the american people started the establishment or the gi elite then i might qualify, but unfortunately it often times leads to a pandering and

demagoguery. if you look at some of the modern populist like george wallace, we see there is this pernicious strain that comes along with populism that they basically have to find somebody to blame. it's a philosophy that if you're not careful can do vault into a woe is me, we can't get ahead, those other people are stopping us from being successful. to me that is un-conservative. that's not a rugged individual that believes that if you work hard you can get ahead and achieve the american dream. that is something that i think is not conservative and is actually harmful to the human spirit. >> do you think in some ways all of this in too dumb to fail is a reaction to the liberal secular elite project? i'm thinking mostly in the 2000,

what's the matter with kansas? that project where liberals looked at the flyover states and said you are not voting your interests, you're just clean to guns and religion. consider conservatism says okay we will take care of you guys. we will be your voice. i imagine that's a good impulse but it happened wrong. >> what i would say is that i think if conservatives are saying, how do i put this. i think there's a mistake when you let the other side define who you are. i think so often conservatism has been defined as whatever obama is for we are against. on the rare zero occasion that he's for something good like free trade, we must be against it. the problem with that is when you allow the other guy, if you have a knee-jerk reaction to be

against whatever he is for, i think that's an unfortunate result. this weird phenomenon, there are many factors that are leading us to where we are. i think some of it is barack obama's presidency which i don't think has been helpful for the country and i think it has led to a lot of americans to feel disillusioned, but i also think there trends like globalization, industrial, if you're bernie sanders and you're an outsider, but there's automation, globalization and all sorts of things that are feeding into this. i do fully appreciate that there are a lot of americans who are angry, upset and frustrated. i think at least some of that desire is understandable and i can certainly identify with it. >> talk about the role of evangelicals, because that's been a huge part of modern conservatism and modern

republican coalition and you argue that attempting to win voters has been a little bit damaging. >> a little bit. so, the book, basically the premise is that conservatism is started out as a thoughtful philosophy and the last part is how we can get it back and restore it. in a way, look backward to restore the good thing about it as an intellectual force but also look forward and make it appeal to 21st-century americans. along along the way i'm telling that story, i document how the dumbing down happen. part of how it happened as we have what is immigrants.

political parties and movements, we always always want new people to be joining our cause and be assimilated and if they're not you wake up and don't recognize the party you are. conservatism over the years has had different waves of immigrants who have come into the republican party. some of them were evangelicals who helped ronald reagan win the election but they also brought in some less than positive attributes. i actually am an evangelical. i write about in the book that i believe it's important that people are involved in politics. i think there are example of how people of faith can be involved in politics and really make a positive difference. unfortunately in america, if you you look at the modern history of evangelical evangelicalism

and the post world war i era, it's hard to estimate the impact it had on people. unfortunately we had a situation where basically, you had to make a choice. you were either going to be an intellectual or you were going to be an evangelical. the two were really, it was a false choice false choice but they were seen as mutually exclusive. you can sort of extrapolate that forward for about 50 years and you basically have a situation where a lot of people who were joining the conservative movement to help ronald reagan were actually at the intellectual. they were very skeptical of anything that can be said perceived as intellectual. while there were good things come from that, were paying the price of republicans being the stupid party. >> so how do you, obviously conservatives in the republican party still want to be the home

for people of rigorous faith. how do you suggest the party reach out to evangelicals like you while not sounding anti-science? >> the good news is, in recent years i think evangelicals have made great strides at marrying their thoughtful understanding and appreciation of science and popular culture with a devout phase. there's no longer this decision where you have to either believe in the virgin birth or be taken seriously. >> this is much more in keeping with the modern young evangelical movement. it's very different from what we saw with the cultural wars, silent majority era so it's less

righteous indignation, less ultra warrior stuff but still people of devout faith and they have these interesting new position where they simultaneously can't believe that god used evolution and that the earth could be billions of years old and they can believe in creed and that god put it created the universe and they believe in the resurrection. were eliminating that false choice which i believe played dust for so long. let's talk about millennial's. there are 80 million millennial's. they been taken for granted by liberals. they've been virtually ignored by conservatives as a voting block. millennial's today have a deep distrust of government. is now the perfect opportunity

for conservatives to reach out to young people, maybe have them for life and how do we do that? >> i couldn't agree more. as much as my book lays out a lot of problems that conservatives face, there's a huge opportunity right now because, in a way if you think of it, hillary clinton's version of libertarianism as a model of government. it's a top-down antiquated version of government, assembly-line government. if you compare compare it to, i always talk about this, if you're a young lady living in a city and you order over on your smart phone and then you get on the phone and you order a concert to ticket on stub hub, your liberal. your entrepreneurial by

definition by virtue of what you're doing. you're not going to want the government to return your fun when you're managing your stock market portfolio on your smart phone. you ought to be a conservative and you probably are but you don't know it. if your view of what conservative 'tis as a means is that you have to look like boss hog and ride around with confederate flag in your truck, you're not going to be a conservative. that's when optimistic because there are people like marco rubio and paul ryan who are really legitimate conservative candidates but also have the potential to tap into and sell conservatism to a 21st century american audience that would be different than the coalition that we are used too. >> you think it's possible that republicans in the near future can win over millennial's or is this a very long-term project

for you? >> i think you always have to go into anything with the assumption that it's a long-term project but i really think were at a crossroads right now. the party of marco rubio and paul ryan sends a different message, maybe for a different generation than the party of donald trump. >> we don't know what direction we are going to go as a movement or a party, but it could send a very different direction. >> i would say, donald trump's philosophy's philosophy of sort of doubling down on working-class white, older, rule southern married voters is in the short term not a crazy idea but it's sort of like getting a reverse mortgage. i think in the long term it's probably not the best move if you want to win the future. not to say that we should sell out the current conservative base. either way, i think trump is

basically arguing, were going to appeal to these new people, these democrats who haven't been voting who have been staying home who either direction involves bringing in new people into the coalition. it's just a matter of which people are actually growing in terms of a demographic population. >> i want to talk more about trump later, but doesn't he have a point of the democrats have been bleeding older, white, blue-collar men. they're all know blue dogs anymore. isn't donald trump right that somebody like him could finally get those people who have been staying home not to vote for hillary clinton or bernie sanders but to vote for him? >> i think it's possible and i think it could work in the short-term. i believe believe the real problem with him is a long-term problem it's a long term mathematical problem i'm not one of those people that leave it's crazy in the short-term.

i actually think it's feasible that donald trump could change the game and pick up voters who feel like they've been left behind. absolutely. >> so let's shift for a moment. this is always bothered me. why do conservatives want to make every whack job the standardbearer of the movement? i'm thinking of bundy, davis, zimmerman we see a crazy person so they should run for president. >> it's one thing to defend principles and sometimes there's something there to defend, but how do we stop and bracing people who make us look bad? >> it's not even crazy people. i don't think ben carson is crazy but we sort of thrust him into a presidential race when he shouldn't be doing that. >> he should be a doctor. i hear he's a really good doctor. >> that too. if you really can care about the

conservative cause, who's more valuable a guy who runs for president among 17 people or a guy who is a leading neurosurgeon whose african-american and who is for life and talks about culture of life. i think he was more valuable before he ran for president. >> especially now that this race has damaged himself. >> absolutely but everybody wants to start at the top. i think the conservatives have some weird things happening. there's also a sense that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. as soon as the politically correct liberal thought police went after him, we defend him. why just because he is the victim of these horrible people doesn't mean he's a little

edmund burke or something. i think another issue that happens, ironically, were always talking about weird on the left coast but we are the biggest fan boys for celebrities. usually it's never a list celebrities who decide. it's usually like how people find jesus in prison. people discover their conservative only after their career has flamed out in hollywood. we'll just welcome them with an open arm. it's so weird. i document that in the book. this trend that i think is part of the dumbing down. through on a cable new show. i don't want to hear the duct dynasties guys talking policy. i don't think a nascar driver is necessarily the best person to talk to me about eminent domain being good policy, but that's what were getting in a lot of political commentary.

>> is and it also, isn't it also that. >> i don't mind of tony stewart has a political opinion. he's in title to it as much as i can. isn't the bigger problem the hypocrisy on our side that we completely dismiss hollywood and celebrities as irrelevant and stupid and unimportant until one comes out for our side. then it's clint eastwood is coming to the convention and he's going to talk to an empty chair, that's fantastic. >> i think you're right. it's a lot of hypocrisy and we just write off the culture mistakenly, we write off hollywood in the entertainment world except when it suits us. >> i have this long-running debate with andrew before he's passed about whether, and we disagreed, whether we wanted to court a hollywood artistic

celebrity kind of culture and play in that space to make conservative projects and conservative movies or if we just wanted to be really good at being conservative. i don't think you can do both. it gets very tricky as we are discussing. what's your opinion question but. >> i think i probably agree with andrew. i believe politics is just downstream from culture and i think people need to have a conservative worldview and become more involved in the arts. i think it's different than trotting them out to talk about politics. they actually shouldn't be talking about politics. it should be people who are conservative with a conservative worldview who happen to be

really good at making movies or telling jokes or cooking and being a chef. whatever it is in the culture. i think it's a mistake when we politicize them. then you have what happened to doctor carson. he was in much better staying out of the political arena and weighing in on the edges to create. >> okay, so i want names. who are among the worst people perpetuating this too dumb to fail impulse in modern contemporary conservativism? >> i think for me to name them is also in a sense a complement because the people who are the worst are the people who are notable. there are people who have made an impact. the worst person in the world, nobody knows who they are and they're sitting at home so take this as a badge of honor. i would say, let me throw one name out to name you've talked about before which is rush limbaugh. i have an interesting relationship with him. not that i know him, but my dad

who was a prison guard turned me on to listen to his show when he went national and i probably wouldn't be talking about him, but he really helped inspire me. over the years, i do feel like he has advocated this responsibility. i think a classic example is donald trump. you have a lot of hosts who have learnt lately turned on trump, but for a long time they provided him cover and they helped this mobster grow to a point where they couldn't stop him. they can say what i'm just an entertainer or whatever the copout is, but i do miss the days when you had somebody like william f buckley who accepted the leadership and the responsibility. it's really hard now. there aren't a lot of gatekeepers left who have the

juice to police the right and say no, you've gone too far and you're hurting the cause. i think rush is one of the few people left who actually had people to have the moral authority on the right and say no he's not a conservative. i think rush missed that opportunity. i don't know if it's because he goes and hangs out with trump where he just likes the fact that trump was taking on the politically correct whatever, or if it was because we thought he was a stocking horse for ted cruz or whatever the reason being, i was a little disappointed. >> as you know, know, i have run into rush. i near it merely suggested, not long ago that once in a while conservatives should feel free to disagree with people like

rush limbaugh. you would think i had set on the pope. he's almost untouchable. it takes a lot of courage to call out people like rush. >> i name names in the book. and coulter is one of the names i name. >> have you gotten backlash? i know i do i do that. it's hard because you felt welcome in this community for so long and then all the sudden your sacrilege. >> i have to say, i've been i've been stunned at the positive reception this book has taught me. i think it's because we've arrived at a point where conservatives are fed up with people who exploit the movement and people who hurt the movement i've had people like eric erickson tweet positive things about this book. he's a good talk radio's host himself in a conservative blogger. the weekly standard had a great review.

i just spoke at the leadership institute at the wake up breakfast. their conservative organization where i used work. i'm telling you, so so many people, so many people. >> i feel like donald trump, but so many people came up to me about the book. when i first started writing columns five years ago i got it on of pushback. if i dared to say anything bad i was a rino and a sellout and a squish. i think the timing of this is right in so many ways including the fact that people are fed up. when she says i don't care if he performs abortions in the white house as long as he has this hard-core anti- immigration policy, i think people are finally waking up and a lot of conservatives who were hesitant to engage, or this criticism

there finally like yeah it's time. >> somebody needs to look under the hood. >> do you think, all of these very successful and talented faces of the party for the past ten, 20 years like russian and, are they on their way out or are they are we going to have to all live together for the next decade or so? >> that's a good question. i wonder if are not in the mist of a reordering where you have a conservative movement that i would be a part of that believes in small government and free trade and free market and help humans reach their potential and a more populous nativist party

movement for protection wants to build walls and essentially becomes a white european-style party. >> that's what i'm really hoping we don't get to. i fear that we could be headed to a direction where our politics have no longer been decided based on ideas or philosophy. it becomes essentially, what tribe are you up? if you are a college graduate or minority, you just automatically are assigned a democratic card and if you're a working-class white person you just reflectively become republican. we should have this vigorous debate about ideas and identity politics should not define, your identity identity should not define your political positions. >> that's what liberalism sets.

>> i know and that's the sad part that in many ways. >> there's a conservative argument that always says will they do it two or we have to fight fire with fire. i reject that. why should we try to emulate the worst characteristics of conservatives. >> you say motter eyes not moderate. modernize not moderate. >> right. >> what does that look like for you? >> that's very important point. so many, many people who have written books about how to fix the republican party or the conservative movement, their recipe is just to become more liberal. >> stop talking about abortion so much. >> right, exactly. i was i was at a book party recently, a swanky nice affair and i don't do a lot of the cocktail part parties but

somebody said to me, what do you think about john kasich. i said, he seems like what liberals think would be the perfect idea of republican party. don't get me wrong i know he's a good governor and popular governor but for me he was a nonstarter and he doesn't appeal to me. but to a certain type of liberal. >> to a person, every democrat i talk to says john kasich is your best chance. >> i like you guys are so out of it. but, that is not what i'm advocating. i think marco rubio and ted cruz are sort of the two guys who i think best embody true movement conservatism. i think rubio taps more into the modernize don't moderate thing. i think he could appeal to the 21st century and may be the millennial voters in a way that cruz couldn't.

but they're smart i think donald trump is advocating becoming more liberal. he just seems to be conservative because we can inflate toughness and anger with conservatism. if you were to be on the list and have a litmus test of the things i believe in and compared to donald trump and and coulter, i would would be more conservative on almost every one. >> i'm strongly pro-life, whatever it is, but i'll go back to my story about uber as an example of what i'm talking about modernizing not moderating it's about having a party and a movement that doesn't literally turn off people who are conservative. they just don't know it yet.

>> so is that an issue of talking differently or is it an issue of voting differently? how do we get there. how do we modernize right now? >> so there's a lot to it, but i think some of it could be, i hate to subscribe to the great man theory of politics, but having the right nominee really can make a difference. just symbolically speaking, donald trump nominee is very different than marco rubio. marco rubio president for four or eight years speaking spanish for fluently and talking about his father being a bartender and that line he has, that journey from behind the bar to the behind the podium is the essence of the american dream, that goes along way. way. i think movements need to have think tanks, they need to actually try to identify, reach reach crew train in place future leaders to help train.

so there's a lot of things that happen that i think opinion leaders and intellectuals can nudge the world a little bit so to speak in the right direction, but this is, we didn't get into this mess overnight and is not to be fixed overnight either. >> so let's really get into the selection because it's not just away, but this book really does talk directly to the time we live in. i know you wrote it before a lot of this happen because that's how long it takes to write a good book. >> thankfully i hadn't turned it in yet. every draft got more more troubling. >> some one even running when i started writing. >> i had actually seen these trends that started bubbling up but i didn't know trump would be the vessel that they manifest. >> amazing.

>> do you think that this current election is just a trump problem or if he had run with someone else, would he be giving us the same kind of face on the party because that's where we just are at right now? >> no i think, because i started writing the book before trump started running, i think this would've manifested another way. it might've been so many like ted cruz or another third-party, maybe ben carson catches fire and doesn't flameout. he was for a while doing pretty well. i think this is not solely a trump phenomenon. i think donald trump was uniquely able to identify this moment in a way that nobody else did. i think he was able to demagogue the issues in a way that very few people would've been capable of based on his pr ability. he saw this coming, he sought as a business business opportunity.

i think he really exploited it in a way that i don't know other candidates could have fully gone full populace to the degree that he did. >> what they have? this group of people that he is appealing to, they've always existed. at times, they found democrats more appealing and at times they found republicans more appealing. this group of people who are very angry and afraid and looking for people to blame always there. he's just the first candidate running for president who publicly identified them. :

>> >>. >> because they are conservative to a certain degree. but they nibbled around the edges but before they were fully exploited in a way that almost uniquely. >> of they learned that diwans is no longer a thoughtful commodity for someone like rand paul for example, the has a very nuanced position and i am very grateful from the point of view even when i disagreed to be the oxygen

for people that have those views. do we get that back? >> because in some ways it is cyclical we always had the right populist candidate also leading between intellectual and populism for example, you have people like andrew jackson that john f. kennedy so throughout history the we also think it is cyclical as politics is gradually getting aggressively dumb down.

but however it is disproportionate and the democrats already have their time in the wilderness. as they give up that limousine liberal michael dukakis as a southern governor they had to lose three presidential elections and right now democrats are more disciplined but republicans are now in the wilderness searching so they are more susceptible to the winds that are happening out there and trying to find who they are.

and one example is our technology has changed things not that long ago that political party bosses decided who was the nominee. noone wasn't that long ago with 24/7 in the cable news could donald trump happen? i don't know the answer to that debt is unique for that moment as so many are culminating i'm sure you have seen the it the autocracies. >> a field of your living that. >> is very similar to trump's saying i am winning in the polls.

in fact, i can remember that there was that early idea. >> not to give the impression they are smarter than conservatives. >> i also led to a community college. i am sure donald trump is be virtually looking for my s.a.t. scores. cannot in any way advocating our world ruled by the best and brightest. not at all but part of the reason i'm so angry and turned off with the trump phenomenon is i feel he exploits people like me and where i come from and i feel

he is manipulating those good folks and it happens in the best of families. i have taken some heat for suggesting even if that meant republicans was the white house because of the damage is done and we made some great inroads in that feelke feels like hha a lot of that. in that truck strategy and coalition he doesn't care the health of the party.

>> but i don't think that damage yet. but i still thank you could end up with the republican party like the marco rubio or paul ryan and optimistic solutions oriented and that is incredibly appealing going up against hillary clinton and rubio said a candidate from yesterday to becoming a bridge to the pastor to the future. >> in my ideal world marco rubio wins the nomination in

a lot more adept air reaching out to these groups where does donald trump go? where did increase supporters go? where does that anger go? with that reality they are still out there without completely writing off. >> i have no idea where she goes. and what kind of damage could he do? to be a good soldier but he could cause a lot of trouble so that is a wild card i don't know. but i do know they have to find a way to to bring those supporters into the fold.

so they are good americans are sincerely is angry and frustrated we have not lived up to the promise of the american dream bases that happening were i am from. those days are gone. it is unfortunate and it is sad for people. even my parents' generation they even owned their own home so how do we bring them into the fold? as a surgical strike to take out trump but not go after the people and besmirch the people i hope some of these problems fix themselves if we get of president hughes stops isis in turn drove the

economy than we could look back to me a moment in history where people wanted to take up the pitchforks and then drinking lattes. and recall be happy end coexist. >> but ted cruz deservedly got some slack forebear hugging trump as long as he did it looks like he is successfully collecting although we learned someone to marco rubio but how do you say trump is wrong? and he is not the right messenger for the party but

i am the guy for you? >> we talk about how he can unite the party and how he can appeal to a lot of americans. >> that is not what they want to hear. >> but he can make the electability argument in the best candidate to go up against hillary. and for that party to go backwards to racially it is difficult. democrats have problems to. and coming from a political party to go backwards and that is what democrats will have to do injustice blast

screen picture to have the young kennedy looked about him. >> or bernie sanders. [laughter] and a grandfather he would be a stark contrast. >> so let's talk briefly about the democrats i think marco rubio would be the best contrast but you know, what she will say that he is an experienced in she is painting every republican candidate so how does he survived that? >> one is the last time somebody won by arguing they were the more experienced candidate? if voters really cared about

experience and then bush would have beaten clinton and bob dole certainly would have won. so the notion that she will destroy him because she has experience i don't buy that notion. that is part of it.

and we have not done well without popular vote. what do you see as the answer or the reason why we're so good with the state and local elections? >> they deserve credit and those attorneys general below the radar positions that are incredibly powerful. but the fact that republicans do better with low turnout. it to have a paradigm. and then becomes the party of congress.

talk about executive orders that were unconstitutional it is seem incredibly important if you go down this pathway to concede these elections it is like the obama years. >> talk about gridlock in partisanship and divisiveness that has all the faults of the republicans but hill is best to make that change? conservatives seem to gravitate to people like ted cruz to just be a thorn in the side and many republicans as well. do you want to start reaching across the eye again?

or do we want to do again or feet? >> i talk about compromise. >> is a dirty word but not if for compromise with jefferson so the legend goes to work out a deal where surgeons states would pay debt from the revolutionary war so the country begins with compromises it is bad when you compromise your value but where will we go to dinner tonight? i am cool with that. [laughter] but what has happened is obama has poisoned the well in the situation in that people have negotiated in bad faith.

and to become a vicious cycle. interestingly someone like donald trump to say they would prefer donald trump over ted cruz because he could know how to cut deals if maybe will like bad but that is the argument for trump. >> and he doesn't come in with the baggage that they have had over the past eight years. >> he takes pride in the. morally and philosophically. >> give me your predictions. >> that is a good question.

i will go with rubio. for both. it is a gutsy call. i don't know what odds vegas is giving me right now. >> i like it.

>> thank you very much. i want to talk about this book everything you need to know end every four years

people who have voted and give voters scratched their head to say where did this crazy system come from? because it comes from history as well as presidential candidates over the years. every once in awhile this system breaks down with an old-fashioned contested primary. and i will read you the beginning of the books because it is an illustration of that. >> senator clinton walked into the small conference room on capitol hill wearing a her signature pantsuit. navy blue silks.