around the world, the bush institute focuses on policy areas that were most important during their public lives and one way to continue their service to our nation, and honor to have the president and this is bush here tonight. [applause] >> i want to call your attention to the path to the presidency special exhibit which explores the history of campaigns and elections, lots of interactive things you can do. the exhibit will be open until 9:00 pm. if you didn't have a chance to see it please check it out after the even. really excited about the program tonight. we think you are in for a treat. we begin with the conversation about presidential campaign advertising. we have two experts, award-winning political strategist mark mckinnon, doctor patrick merrick of the

university of oklahoma. mckinnon is a ut guy so we balance out the equation. mark has been chief media advisor and a number of successful campaigns including both of president bush's white house runs. president bush once said i was impressed with his creativity and particularly impressed by his honesty. high praise. these days mark is most famous as the cocreator of and star strategist on the runaway hit political documentary series the circus, good name for it. which chronicles the current campaign action every sunday night on showtime. let's look at a short clip from the circus. >> a story about john kennedy. here is the situation. you have the flu, it is your

bother's deputy the next morning and you are supposed to be at a soup kitchen at 6:00 in the morning. where would you want to go? >> the show is incredible. if you haven't seen it, you can use the showtime anytime apps to get caught up and watch it going forward. really fascinating. also happy to have a former journalist who today heads of the political communications center, of the most comprehensive archive of political advertising anywhere in the world. real campaign on real experts on presidential campaign advertising. the second half of our program, mckinnon will moderate an elite panel of campaign veterans from both parties. we are pleased to have sarah fagan is among other things sarah was senior strategist for president bush's campaign in

2004. and we have former senior advisor strategist on mitt romney's campaign in 2012 and david plus, campaign manager for president obama in 2008, david later served as senior advisor in the white house. let's welcome our three panelists for the second show. [applause] >> also our sincere thanks to karl rove who couldn't be here tonight but was enormously helpful in putting together tonight's program. one quick disclaimer, as a nonprofit the bush center doesn't participate in politics. that doesn't mean we can't have some of the best-known political insiders, join me in welcoming to the stage mark mckinnon and doctor pat merritt. >> we are going to kick this right off. you saw the eisenhower ad.

when i got the great honor of running the advertising for the 2000 campaign, one of the first things i did was due diligence was study the history of advertising presidential campaigns, fascinating exercise because what you see over time is it evolves and the reason it evolves primarily is voters that used to seeing something that is not as effective so we did something different and you can see these different phases, we only have 30 minutes, and the first, political advertising was like selling soap. >> running that eisenhower campaign you saw the jingle. i would add although some things changed other things stay the same and a number of themes run consistently through political advertising from 1952 to today. >> some of the standard introduction ads which is a staple of political advertising. >> these are ads, if you have

humble roots tout them. if you can tie yourself to the american dream, the horatio alger story, you can do it. can you do that? >> out of the heartland of america in kansas, dwight eisenhower. and another, the big question. >> if war comes is this country really ready? >> it is not. the administration spent many billions of dollars for national defense, yet today we have not enough tanks for the fighting in korea. time for a change. >> look to eisenhower. eisenhower knows how to beat the

russians. he has met europe's leaders, has government working with us. elect the number one man for the number one job of our time. and eisenhower. >> i was born three month after my father died. i remember that old two story house where i lived with my grandparents. it was in 1963 that i went to washington and met president kennedy at the boys nation program and i remember thinking what an incredible country this was but somebody like me had no money would be given the opportunity to meet the president. i decided i could do public service because i cared so much about people. anything i could find to work through heiskell. after i graduated i really

didn't care about making a lot of money. i wanted to go home and see if i could make a difference. we worked harder on education and healthcare to create jobs and make real progress it is exhilarating to me to think as president i could change all our people's lives for the better and bring hope to the american dream. >> first and portion -- first impressions were important and these were introductions. i want to tell a quick story about when we introduce president bush at the convention and rush refer and his partner put together a great introduction film. we were shooting it and we interviewed president bush and mrs. bush and there was an exchange about the delivery room when your daughters were born and you completely scrambled it up and we all laughed and it was a funny moment and we went back and reshot it a couple times and so we got it just right. we went into the edit room and started to put in the gridlines and the funny line came out, that is great, so human, let's live it in, it was so you, a very human moment.

imagine the response we got at the campaign. carlson get that outcome you can't put that in. it was a human moment and we also didn't want to raise the bar of expectation. we are going to -- the ads that are really powerful play on people's what they fear and there security, could be economic security or national security. if i could introduce the most famous in american politics, ask 100 people the greatest -- they may have a different opinion about number 2 but numb 100 will say what would you guess? the daisy. a quick set up, this is brilliant because it is incredible. strategically so powerful because polls came out saying johnson was not only likely to

win but probably going to win big but johnson's campaign realized that is a problem. the problem is the voters got the message this is already done so why come out and vote? we have to raise the stakes and that is the last line of the ad, the stakes are too high to stay home and you see what the potential consequences might be. >> this is picking up on a statement goldwater made talking about possible use of nuclear weapons in vietnam and this was the fear they wanted to pick up on. >> here it is. >> 123456 -- 6 -- 6 -- 8, 9.

>> 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, zero. >> these are the stakes. to make a world in which all god's children can live to go into the darkness. we must either love each other or we must die. >> vote for president johnson on november 3rd. the stakes are too high for you to stay home. >> vote or die, that is pretty compelling. >> visually it is absolutely stunning. there was such an outcry that the ad only aired once but the impact -- >> that is all it had to air. >> great add, great campaigns tell a story.

the second greatest at in the american history is the bear in the woods. if you boil it down in 28 seconds it does a perfect narrative architecture which is it talks about a threat or an opportunity, it establishedes a victim of the threat, a villain imposing the threat, resolution to the threat and a hero, ronald reagan, the great communicator. >> there is a bear in the woods. for some people the bear is easy to see. others don't see it at all. some people say the bear is tame. others say it is vicious and dangerous. since no one can really be sure who is right, isn't it smart to be as strong as the bear? if there is a bear? >> so great, not a waste of

breath. part of my little exercise, the history of this i went and talked to the guy who made the ad, a famous guy obviously, he did the narration too and had lunch with him, smoked a pack of cigarettes, the other thing, ran into the campaign manager for that campaign. i had to rent the bear and it cost $10,000 to rent that bear. if you look at it closely it was a trained bear. we didn't reverse the film, we taught him to back up. there was a good investment of $10,000. >> a really amazing voice. they are often considered negative ads but you don't hear a name, it is all implicit. that is pretty rare, in your

kind of updating of the bear add -- >> we don't leave anything to the imagination. we want to know what we are talking about. setting up the next dad, and effective advertising we do what we call stealing. great ideas we borrow from the best, we did a version of the bear in the woods add, very much the same idea, the same metaphorical reference, instead of russia, the terrorist threat. the interesting thing is as you recall we cut this together very early on in the campaign and tested it and it was so effective and so good that we decided to wait till a critical moment in the campaign to destroy -- deploy the ad. it was very powerful and effective. the power of imagination you see in rules and in earlier iterations, we had the wolves

attacking a carcass, or something that was pretty on the nose and discovered actually if we just let the wolves in the woods creeping in the woods, that worked better. sort of like a horror film if you leave a little to the imagination it has more power. >> in an increasingly dangerous world even after the first terror attack, john kerry and the liberals in congress voted to cut america's intelligence operations by $6 billion. cuts so deep they would have weakened america's defenses. to do america harm. >> i am george w. bush and i approve this message. >> you want to set up the next one? >> i think we can talk a little bit more about some other kinds

of strategies and negative ads the sense that negative ads, negativity in campaigns is a brand-new thing that only started in 1988 or something like that. >> in the 1952 campaign, hartley. >> to break union. america wants no lot like this and neither do i. >> how is that again? >> might be used for unions. >> one more promise, during four years in office the general does nothing about changing unionbusting features of pat harvey but the national labor

relations board, another thing, under republicans, up numb 113% although the workers and come up only 14%. let's make it through, and vote democratic. >> he was a natural. and presidential politics on television, and bernie sanders would like that graph. >> go ahead. >> we will move ahead in 1972 and the next couple ads are going to show a kind of ad that deals with the flip-flop, this was one that was attacking the

governor. we will run both of these. >> this is a classic kind of campaign ad where you show your opponent saying something different than what he had, and this is a great add called the windsurfer ad against john kerry in 1984. we discover we got some video that john kerry had been windsurfing, not a lot of people in america windsurf, he is wearing this outrageous purple shorts, doing this out near some yachts and so rush came up with this brilliant ad with great music and it proved very effective and is called the windsurfer ad. >> in 1967, senator george mcgovern said he was not an advocate of the unilateral withdrawal of our troops from

vietnam. now he is. last year the senator suggested regulating marijuana along the same lines as alcohol. now he is against legalizing it and says he always has been. last january senator mcgovern suggested a welfare plan that would give a $1,000 bill to every man, woman and child, now he says the figure isn't right. throughout the year he proposed unconditional amnesty for all draft dodgers. now his running mate claims he proposed no such thing. in florida he was pro-bussing. in oregon he said he would support the anti-bussing bill in congress. last year, this year. the question is, what about next year? >> i am george w. bush and i approve this message. >> in which direction would john kerry be? he voted for iraq. supported it.

now opposes it again. he voted for the $87 billion to support our troops. he voted for education reform and now opposes it. he claims he is against medicare premiums voted five times to do so. john kerry, whichever way the wind blows. [applause] >> i want to spend a second on that because there is an interesting strategic set up for that. we had completely different strategic challenges in both elections. in 1999 we were in a period of relative economic prosperity is the country felt pretty good about the direction of the country and the usual dynamics of what we call change election or status quo election it looked like a status quo election, people agreed with al gore on most issues, a good environment for democrats to run. thanks to a great candidate with a clear vision we changed the

context of the election and overcame that strategic challenge. flashforward four years, to change the status quo in 2000, in 2004, we were arguing in a time when people were not happy about our for an engagement, this was a status quo election and we were arguing to keep it the same when people wanted change. and with status quo it was a difficult strategic challenge, we are blessed by our opposition and john kerry, and a critical moment in the campaign when john kerry after having pledged earlier to support the troops in battle flipped on that pledge and we are able to take advantage of that ad and that and the fact we have a candidate that even if people agreed more with john kerry on the issues,

they liked president bush because he was clear and compelling, core convictions, and was steady and consistent which was the opposite of john kerry, and that was how the election turned out. >> the advantage of the flip-flop approach is you have an attack on the policy, whichever side someone is on the policy by pointing out this candidate is been on either side you arrange everybody. then you point out there is a lack of consistency whichever way the wind blows and the visual. >> one of the differences in the campaign in recent years is the evolution of pacs and separate committees that run advertising on your behalf supposedly, supposed to be legal preparation, it creates a lot of dissonance with the campaign

because these organizations are doing things that are counter to what you are saying but you legally can't control them. you can't say anything legally. in 2004, and effort on our behalf, in ohio, a critical battleground state in the midst of a lot of negative campaigning, this is a great add called the ashley ad that goes back to a story, narrative architecture about it and it was a sweet and compelling ad with a powerful positive message got into the train about who is going to keep you safe which was the fundamental message of the 2004 campaign. >> they closed up the motion, president george w. bush went to see him.

>> this young lady, and -- >> turned around and came back, are you all right? >> took ashley in his arms and embraced her and at that moment we saw ashley's i said with tears. >> and that is okay. >> in the heart and the soul, the country. [applause] >> still terrifies through that. the other evolution of advertising is we control that.

and we try, because of the online capabilities in social media not just committees but anybody out there can make an ad and if it is good enough it will power up. one of my favorite of all time is the great apple ad that was produced on behalf of barack obama but not by the campaign. you probably know more back story and we will get you to tell but technically not an ad at all. >> never aired on television, it was a viral video. we stretched the definition of political ads when we start cluding these, but they are clearly persuasive. >> it was pretty early on to set the dynamic up of clinton and obama and change versus more of the same. very powerful.

let's run that. >> so far we haven't done nothing and that is good. i intend to keep telling you exactly where i stand on all the issues. >> you and other people who are hard-working like you and how serious people are, we all need to be part of the discussion and part of the solution. i don't want people who already agree with me. i want honest, hard-working, patriotic people, want to be part of a team, the american team. i hope you learned a little more about what i am believing and trying to do and help this conversation about our country. i hope to keep the conversation going, 2008.

>> before the primaries even began. that is brilliant. that is brilliant. great stuff. and their supporters just do a competition to put together an ad. here is an example. bernie sanders has some great ads this cycle. an example of somebody, a supporter made an ad for him and it is fantastic, as good as any advertising you see from an agency. >> our job is not to divide. our job is to bring people together. if we do not allow them to divide us up by race, by sexual orientation, by gender, by not allowing them to divide us up by whether we were born in america or whether we are immigrants, we

stand together, white, black, hispanic, gay, straight, woman and man. when we stand together and demand that this country work for all of us rather than the few, we will transform america and that is what this campaign is about, bringing people together. >> they had a series of ads from supporters and great examples, great power of the community, crowd source your advertising and come up with great ads like this. >> one consistent thing about political advertising is great is great. there is evolutions and phases

but great advertising is great advertising and the greatest political messages are those that have vision and hope. hope is such a powerful motivator, we talk about hope and fear but the great candidates communicate a vision, a hopeful sign that things are going to be better, you have a message of change, improve society and make things better but at the end of the day, lots of different approaches and concepts, powerful great political advertising campaigns, inspirational messages, just want to close this section of the program. >> the standard book on how to build a campaign is start with the introductory ads, then move to platform ads, attack ads but you don't want to leave a bad

taste in people's mouth by going all negative, so you close with vision ads. these, technically, may not have come in that phase of the election. the obama ad that we are going to see aired in 2007. this was one of the first ads that aired for obama. it laid out his vision by way of introducing himself and divining himself. i am not sure when morning in america aired, but it is a textbook example of laying out a vision. >> when i saw this obama ad, you see a clear and compelling message and was going to be a contender. the last line of this ad is maybe my favorite ad, political advertising line of all time. >> every time i think about my

help for america, washington roles their eyes. they don't believe we can change politics and bring an end to decades of deadlock. they don't believe we can limit the lobbyists. we can trust the american people with the truth. you hear the same promises every four years. my experience tells me something very different. in 20 years of public service i have brought democrats and republicans together. solved problems that touched the lives of everyday people. taken on the drug and insurance companies and won. defied the politics of the moment and pooled it before it began. this is barack obama. i approve this message to ask you to believe not just in my ability to bring about real change in washington, i am asking you to believe in yours. >> that became the slogan on

their website, asking you to believe not in my power to change but your power, and there was nothing fancy. just a talking head, a little walking and talking but very powerful message and clear rationale. at the bottom of any great campaign is clear rationale. failed campaigns have lack of rationale. let's close this out with the great morning in america, ronald reagan, the great communicator, this might be midnight in america, this campaign. this is a time we had morning in america. >> it is morning again in america. today more men and women will go to work than ever before in our country's history. with interest rates at half of the record highs of 1980, nearly 2,000 families will buy new homes, lower than at any time in the last four years.

this afternoon, 6500 young men and women will be married and with inflation at less than half of what it was four years ago, they can move forward with confidence to the future. it is morning again in america, and under the leadership of president reagan our country is prouder and stronger and better. why would we ever want to return to where we were less than four short years ago? >> great stuff. we will talk about it in our next panel. one thing we want to focus on and maybe close, you look at this election, the return on paid advertising has been limited to say the least, the power and effectiveness of

advertising in general has evolved and changed, this gets the notion that voters are skeptical, they know it is paid for and the power of free media and someone like donald trump comes along and has a different purpose. >> and spent almost no money on advertising. >> donald trump laid out a vision for a campaign run exclusively on free media and people said you can't do that and he said watch me. so far he has received almost $2 billion in free media which is astonishing. >> and so. [laughter] >> put me out of business. talk about the old days. thank you for this segment of the show. [applause]

>> i think we will shift some chairs out now. bring my colleagues up here. we have three guests that i am bringing up some old friends, some new friends, folks i have been well aware of for a long time. these are three of the best political minds and operatives in the country period. i had the opportunity to work with sarah fagan and rush should refer in both of the bush campaigns and they are the best, the kinds of people that don't dance in the end zone, they just get it done. i got a lot of credit for a lot of work rush did and a lot of work sarah did.

david is well known for being the architect for president obama's campaign and i was with a number of operatives the other day doing the show, the hillary clinton campaign, a number of the people were people you had worked against at some point and to a person they said david is the best in the business they had ever seen. high praise from people you would run over with a truck a couple times. sarah was really in charge of research and analytics and has gone on to do amazing things through companies that she started that look at analytics and research and any time in the campaign when we want to know what is going on, sarah was the go to woman who understood demographics and where the advertising should go, how to be most effective and the creative genius who produced most of the great advertising for the

campaign and not on the bush campaign but the romney campaign, hundreds of congressional incentives, these are the masters of the political universe and so much to talk about. i will sneak my notes but we are going to talk about, break this down into the past, present and future and talk about what is happening. i wanted to start off by one thing i wanted to say in the intro, the weird thing about political consulting is there is no license or degree required. it doesn't always attract the best and brightest but these are the best and brightest and they let me in. >> as evidenced by the news today. >> in fact you had a great line, you tweeted out today donald trump's campaign manager has

been arrested. what did you say? >> a presidential campaign manager's job is to manage the circus, not become the circus. >> exactly right. i wanted to ask, do you remember your first campaign, your favorite campaign? either one of those questions? >> first campaign i just graduated from high school, and the guy down the street was running for congress and i thought i was going to be a lawyer so i had gotten a job that summer in a legal office but i was also working on the campaign. hated the law firm. it was the worst thing in the world, but loved the campaign. in terms of favorite campaign. >> it can't be bush or obama. that is your real favorite. >> can it be any bush?

because my favorite campaign was 1988 for president george hw bush, a wonderful campaign, a lot of fun. >> my first campaign i was in college, i had done one summer cleaning knives, one cleaning chimneys and one teaching tennis. my father said you want to do something, some application in the future. back then we had newspapers, college newspapers and there was this ad saying come work on the u.s. senate race, senator bill ross, very famous senator, primary replacement, worked on longshot campaign. i went door-to-door and tried to get people to support this candidate and volunteer and give money. we were down 18 points, great ads and we won, the balloons

came down. such an exhilarating moment. it turns out monday morning in one of the precincts, you catch this today, they had given us 28 votes instead of 28 votes. we were up three and lost the recount by 70. brought my classes monday morning. if that hadn't happened i would have been out of politics and gone to high school. any of us could have worked harder and found 72 votes. at a very young age, taught me the value of hard work and you can make an impact in politics. >> my first campaign was in 1994, working for governor brandt's dad and his previous iteration of governor of iowa, longest-serving governor in american history now. i was in college like david and

hired as youth director and i felt love and fell in love with politics and campaign and had the geographic advantage of being in iowa and went to work for phil gramm after that when he was getting his presidential campaign started. i worked for lots of texans. my favorite campaign is the first bush campaign. there is nothing to compare, your first winning presidential campaign. >> no question about it. i will ask you to tell me your funniest campaign anecdote or toughest challenge like charlie wilson, a lot of people know charlie wilson, the great colorful congressman always in trouble because of drugs, drinking, or women, some combination of that. always number one on the congressional hit list but a

great character and colorful and fun to write campaigns with so went for his last campaign, all the same troubles, was down 20 points, the first campaign, there were new rumors, don't worry, it is going to be fine, just want to tell you i met a young baptist girl, she saying to the church and she doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, has been really good for me and i think we are going to settle down and get married just as soon as she gets out of high school. [laughter] >> here we go again. here we go again. funny moments. not bad. >> it was fun to watch you

because i distantly recall testing that add and having to hold the admaker which was alex, asked if he would have been down there, another great admaker, part of the bush team. one of the focus groups we were testing this ad, a couple participants were having a difficult time getting the ad and i had to tell him if he went into the focus group room and started talking to participants, i was going to recommend he be fired and he wanted to explain that add to them because they didn't get it and it was a funny moment. they don't like focus groups, we do learn a lot from them. another favorite moment from the 2004 campaign, the second time i heard in a focus group that a

participant in a different city on a different night said that john kerry reminded them of an undertaker. that is a fascinating finding and it sticks with you as someone in politics because voters are much more sophisticated than people give them credit for. these particular voters had a gut level reaction, john kerry is an accomplished public servant but politics is about a connection and making connections with voters is something our candidates did very well, he had struggled with. >> 20 years ago i managed -- not appropriate for c-span but

showtime. >> new hampshire stories from 2008, this is before the new hampshire primary, and early and waiting and behind the hotel, got the motorcade, the advance people surprised us with coffee and donuts. i am sitting with david axelrod and he is sitting in back of the van in the middle and he goes ohs and a word donald trump would say on tv but i won't say here. i hear david say this 20 times a day. what is a? bad story? no. i am meeting a glazed donut and got the track will of the blackberry and the blackberry is

broken. blackberry, done for the whole day. >> the hardest thing i was involved in was the night we lost the new hampshire primary, you went through that in 2000 but hillary clinton was a strong front runner, we thought we had to win iowa, new hampshire, just happened, it was up 14, and lose by three. that was the hardest thing. the biggest challenge to barack obama, the main reason we got through this was to convince young kids that we had a chance. even myself i wasn't convinced. a nationwide conference call to convince everybody we didn't see this coming but we have a plan to get through that. that was the toughest in my professional life. >> i will interject on that because you were there.

i remember the morning in new hampshire, and 19 points as the front runner and i remember we got called over, i expect a whipping, one of the most powerful compelling moments of the entire campaign to see president bush, we got the core campaign together and there was an ounce of criticism or blame, no looking back, it was just like this is on me, you guys did a great job, we are going to walk out with our heads held high and look like we won that race. i remember peggy noonan saying she watched your concession speech that night, and thought it was a victory speech. it was a great moment, talk

about a challenge. >> the night we lost, barack obama or michelle obama, we said there are six so we assume they are off a little bit and we been by both of that. didn't spend a lot of time watching cnn and they are just having dinner. they become the white house press secretary, got to tell them and we go up nationally from the bunker come a knock on the door and say he lost and he just excelled, four years later, not sure you remember this, the night before the 2012 election we did our last event in iowa, give axelrod the cabin and he walked in and walked out towards the cabin where the first lady is and says what i don't want to

3 slbs at my door tomorrow night like you were invited. it scared the living daylights out of me. >> absolutely right. i tell that story often. i don't want anybody pointing fingers or getting on anybody else, and i will be the next president of the united states and you are coming with me. in that room at that moment that was the biggest vote of confidence that allowed everybody to go out there and feel like you won. we were always trying to figure out in south carolina, may be things would turn out

differently but the hardest thing in any campaign, we talk about consultants and people in the campaign business you talk about your wins and it is a different one. anyone who has been in this business a long time has a heartbreaking loss, and the toughest thing when you are in a campaign down the stretch in the last couple weeks and you know it is going to lose and keep anybody's spirits up and you are the candidate trying to keep everybody involved in the campaign because you know where it is going. what is great about the business and what you like is the finality of it or that the next day you win or you lose, there is no do over, no second chance and if there is a second chance, it is two, six or four years

earlier and that is interesting but also makes it very emotional and i really admire the candidates and campaign teams who in that last push continue pushing, making speeches, knocking on those doors knowing it might not happen at this time but they are hopeful and giving it the best shot. it is a tough thing but and uplifting thing. >> i often say first of all you learn more from losing campaign than you do from winning campaigns. winning a campaign is a great feeling but losing is a crushing experience. hard to describe. you invest your soul and your time and your hopes and dreams, and a campaign staffer and unlike the example you said, i

remember being in these campaigns and not having a clue about the reality and assuming and believing we were going to win and then it comes crashing down and it is done. in this campaign with marco rubio i went the next day and people come out with boxes and it is very tough. >> i referenced marco rubio, let's talk about this campaign. it is a circus. >> one of the interesting things we observe about american politics is it is unpredictable, the fun of being involved is just when we think we know what is going to happen is it is different and we certainly know that winning campaigns rarely look back at the past, they look to the future and reinvent things, but if one of you predicted this one, speak up now

because this is something completely different. what is going on here? >> it is a combination. we didn't just arrive at donald trump is the country has been going through such significant changes compounded on top of one another. if you look at the amount of technological change since the invention of the printing press, the country has been through two wars, wars that are waged very differently, different terms and different rules. for donald trump, one of the things about his appeal that is underreported is if you were middle-class or lower middle-class, being an american meant something and a lot of

americans, you may not be rich or have the nicest car but you were an american that really meant something. there are a lot of americans that wonder if that means the same thing it did 20 or 30 years ago. couple those things with financial crisis that occurred in 2008, many people making the same money or less money than they were in that period and take off the demographic change in this country so this has been building. donald trump and bernie sanders to me are fascinating case study in american politics because they largely give the same speech. the system is rigged, you are getting hosed and i'm going to fix it and donald trump will fix it by taking on china and mexico and immigrants, to a strong

degree those as well. bernie sanders will fix it by going after wall street. their supporters arrive at the same place through different people. >> who would have predicted a year ago that a jew from vermont would be in contention for the nomination with a real estate billionaire? one thing i would say, i remember looking at 1992, the ross perot phenomenon, the polling and the data from them that created the opening for his candidacy and compare that to the year or two ago and it was much worse, the terrain for an outsider business person, not 1992 the guy who led that race for two months, fast forward to the underlying dynamics of mistrust and government, it was really -- the notion of an

outsider in the form of donald trump, the concept -- >> so much change as an outsider and so many more people identify as an independent, the highest pollingwise, he arrived on stage at the perfect time. >> it is a reminder. i will never forget shortly after september 11th president bush was in new york city, a picture in all the major newspapers of the new york leadership, i looked at that and said if ten years ago you would have said george bush would become president, hillary clinton would become senator of new york, and it's your state senator named george pataki would become a two term governor and rudy giuliani be david dinkins you would have gotten million to one odds on any of them. it is a reminder of these

things. trump and sanders have not created conditions for their rise, they tapped into them. the democratic race is over from the delegate standpoint, sanders is going to win, half of the state left, he will continue to do well, hillary clinton, the delegate battle in boxing, the first seven round you still have a chance of a knockout. that is the not the way it works in potential nominating. if you get the delegate lead it is hard to take away. hillary clinton is almost assuredly going to be the democratic nominee but sanders has tapped into something real. the democratic party-based has become more populist and more left in the last eight years which i don't think is a particularly healthy thing for the country. when both sides have a harder time compromising it is harder to get things done but trump has tapped into something real. i don't think this solves this.

your point, presidential advertising this year is not having the impact we have seen before. i am not sure that will be the case in the general election where you have voter targets who are not very political are paying attention to the race very much, a chance to target them in virginia, ohio or florida. what is amazing about trump is he is doing well and not running a campaign. as far as i can tell they don't have any sophisticated debt or delegate operations, they barely run ads but he has shown a mastery at surfing the media landscape. he himself is social media director for good or bad, usually bad. >> four people running -- >> he dominates the race. every day no oxygen, if it is trump and clinton and we don't know if that will be the case, one of the challenging things for her and anybody is how do you do it. every day he calls in tv shows and says whatever is on his mind, he will say whatever rumor he has heard and that is

something as the republican nominee that is global news, legitimate news, very complicated thing to deal with. >> the interesting thing moving forward is the challenge if he becomes the nominee his challenges are very different. right now, 16 people in the race, 30% of the vote, with three in the race, and 47%, donald trump, 70% of all women have an unfavorable view of donald trump. 47% of republican women may not vote for donald trump. that is a stunning number. you have the nominee of the party in 2012, mitt romney, saying he won't vote for the nominee of the party and 2016. these are stunning things so

that trump, if he expects to win, has to really change his whole campaign because he has to actually get people to like him. he has to get people to say yes, this person could be president of the united states, this person can lead. it is a very different game than he has been playing. maybe he can make that change. so far i don't think he has shown the ability to do so but maybe he will. if he does, some of the throwing things out there and try to keep the clinton campaign off their game plan, but if you're going into this with 70% of women with an unfavorable opinion of you, very tough. mitt romney won white women by 14 points lose the next republican nominee will have to win white women by as many as 20 points in order to win.

that is a very tough thing for donald trump to do. >> let me ask you and sarah, it looks increasingly like trump could be, will be the nominee. delegates, ted cruz winning wisconsin big. if he does there are notions among republicans who say he is antithetical to everything that i believe in the republican party, he is anti-free-trade, free-trade is one reason i became a republican.

>> i think people have been talking about it, but i haven't seen anything develop of any serious nature. >> we did a series, we found what's left of the establishment in washington, six people. [laughter] [applause] >> vonn kaufman's one of them. we took him to dinner in this very tony washington place, martinis, and it was amazing. it was like a mafia don meeting. [laughter] they were remarkably candid, but the thing that was clear was of those six, there were six completely different opinions about what's going on, so there's no -- i mean, the notion that somebody would put together a movement to stop -- >> yeah, there is no establishment. they're gone. >> let me, i've got to -- did you want to say something? >> no, i was going to say i don't think donald trump's going to get the delegates required going into the convention. >> so what happens then?

>> i think we're likely in a scenario where we're in an open convention, and the question is, is he just shy, a few delegates, and he's able to cobble it together and get there, or is he shy 100-plus delegates in which case, i think, we're in a multi-ballot situation. and, you know, possibly ted cruz could become the alternative, but it's not -- it's certainly not crazy to think that somebody who hasn't run this cycle, you know, would emerge particularly if you get into one of these situations -- >> that'd have to be like a tenth ballot situation. >> right. 10th or 12th and a completely deadlocked situation. ted cruz and certainly john kasich, neither of them can get, can get there. ted cruz would have to win 80, i think 84% of all the remaining delegates. i mean, it's very high to get there. the good thing is most of the delegates haven't been chosen yet. i mean, there are states where

they run on the ballot, but, you know, many of these states then go through many iterations, through district conventions. so many of these folks actually haven't been chosen yet. so it's fairly early in the process even in some of the states that have already voted. >> but what happens, you go to these trump rallies, and there's some heat there, there's some passion, there's really something going on. >> sure. >> and so to imagine a contested convention where you deny this movement their candidacy, it's hard to imagine a good outcome out of that. >> well, it's hard to imagine a good outcome with donald trump as the nominee of the republican party, because it's not -- [laughter] [applause] it's not the republican party anymore. >> right. >> it's, i would call it the hostile takeover of the republican party. [laughter] and so in my view, i think that, you know, the difference between, you know, ted cruz,

he's certainly a very bright individual, you know, but has certainly high negatives and is not popular among his colleagues, you know? the difference between ted cruz and donald trump in a general election is probably neither of them beats hillary clinton. but, you know, we may sort of, you know, come out of this sort of, you know, bottom after ted cruz and the republican party's still intact. donald trump, it's not the same party anymore. >> right, right. >> it doesn't really exist as those of us who have worked in it know it. >> david, you're -- let's put you in the role of strategist for hillary clinton, and donald trump's the nominee. what do you tell her? >> well, i think the first thing is be yourself. i mean, you know, i think authenticity is the most important principle in politics. you can't try and outtrump trump. here's what's interesting, with cruz and clinton it's a pretty narrow band, right? there's not that many voters truly to play with. trump, it upsets the apple cart.

so so there's going to be a bunch of voters that might have voted for barack obama twice, even john kerry, blue collar men that might be available to trump. the clinton campaign, you have to know who they are. then there's going to be a bunch of suburban, college-educated women who might be available to hillary clinton. you've got to know who those people are, and you have got to go after them. so i think with trump, you know, cruz probably can't win, but you kind of know what you're dealing with. trump could make it close. he could also lose by a historic margin. so from a presidential campaign perspective, that puppets a lot of voters out there. regardless, hillary clinton's biggest challenge, i think, is turning out the obama coalition. so that's a hard thing to do for anyone, but we've seen young voters gravitating to sanders, so that's a big piece of business. then i think you've got to step back and say, well, how am i going to execute the campaign

with this nonsense going on? am i also going to call into sick programs a day? run my own thing? if i kind of ignore him, he will dominate the oxygen of the race, so that's a difficult thing. listen, president clinton defined bob dole in the race early and won. your team and president bush did that against john kerry, we did it against mitt romney. so even though she's not an incumbent, the republican race is clearly going to go to cleveland -- >> she's got an opportunity. >> she's got an opportunity these next three months. you can't look like you're being rude to bernie sanders, but to me, the most important of the race may be the next three months, and you also with the voters that are either available to you or at risk with trump, can you make progress there? >> let me touch on part of the media question. i'm going to fold in some questions from the audience too in the time we have remaining. donald trump has thrown out the rulebook in a lot of ways, but

one of them is media, and i think earlier pat mentioned that when you quantify the dollars of free media that he's got, it's worth $2 billion. is the media complicit or take some responsibility? is it fair to criticize the media for what's happened with donald trump? >> sure, sure. [laughter] it has to be. it has to be because, you know, how many candidates, you know, that we have all worked for would like to say, hey, listen, don't bother getting up this morning. [laughter] just pick up the phone. [laughter] pick up the phone, it's okay. they'll take the call. it's all right. >> would you like to have dialed it in? [laughter] >> you know? but you can see, you know, donald trump in his jammies in trump tower calling in -- [laughter] calling in to chuck todd. i mean, it's just -- so, yes, is

the media complicit in this? of course they are. you know, are they going to his rallies and covering his rallies? of course they are. why? because is there news value to it? absolutely, there is. there's a huge news value to it. you know, i think that he -- the other thing to kind of remember about trump is that the guy had a hit tv show for, what, 10, 14 years that many people see him as that person on that show is that his -- so that his image is very much tied into that show of who he is as a strong, decisive person who makes big decisions, you're fired, you're not fired. which is all fine. but that's part of who he is. and then he had also a big social media following. so, you know, one of the things that i think is interesting about this cycle is that really it's been while the media's been complicit, you can go whether it's the washington post or "the new york times", you go on the

editorial pages and, you know, columnist after columnist are railing against trump, telling us it's going to be the end of, you know, the republic if he becomes the president. but, you know, you go on facebook or you're on twitter, and people are pushing back. and they're real people. they're your neighbor down the street. joe down the street is saying, no, no, i think trump is really dead on, and we've got to make america great again. and, you know, david brooks has no idea what he's talking about. [laughter] so, i mean, it used to be in 2012 when mitt romney, we had a, we got a bad editorial in "the wall street journal" on health care, and you probably remember that. we were devastated by it. and i remember governor romney was, he was very, very upset. oh, you know, what does this mean? now this stuff just seems to be meaningless, you know? george -- a bad column from george will used to mean life or death for a campaign x you'd have to be fighting it for weeks. >> yeah.

>> now it just sort of rolls off, you know, like it's nothing. so i think that that's how this whole thing has really changed and how the media has been, become less important and not quite as impactful as it used to be. but at the same time, you know, really interested in this storyline and be willing to play along with it. >> it's really interesting, i think advertising particularly at the presidential level has always been important, but it's important as a means of driving earned media. so if you think about one of the ads that you showed earlier, the wind surfing ad, there was another companion ad to that where john kerry was peeking to camera where -- speaking to camera where he actually said i voted for it before i voted against it. and i think both of those were produced very quickly, they were produced very inexpensively, and they -- we didn't put a ton of money behind them, but they were the most impactful ads by the campaign. and so that's been true now

going back, you know, certainly at least a decade. and so this notion that, you know, having, you know, the best, biggest ad budget, it's actually -- it's certainly not true in this cycle, but it's not been true for a while now. it's really about driving earned media. and donald trump does understand that. and part of what's driving this is, you know, americans now spend more time in front of screens than ever before. we've added two hours on average to the amount of time we're in front of a screen. it's not all landlocked tv. a lot of it is an iphone or some other device. but there's more and more coming at people from more and more directions. and it's, it contributes to this environment where the media's not as relevant, and donald trump can dominate through these social channels. >> so one of the things that you all did brilliantly was targeting voters in new and

innovative ways that we continue to sort of have evolutions of targeting, micro-targeting. ted cruz is doing an interesting thing this cycle where it wasn't even just, you know, finding the person in their home and what they cared about, but it was the way you talked about the people when you went door to door. if you knew the sort of profile, there were four different ways you actually talked to them when they answered the door. what's the, what do you see in the future? where does this go? where does micro-targeting -- what's the future? any thoughts about what we'll see in 2020 or 2024? going down the line? what's next? >> there is an evolution. so we looked in 2008 as we prepared for the general election very carefully about what you did in 2004. so what the bush campaign did in ohio in 2004 is one of the most remarkable political achievements in the history of lek trl politics, right -- electoral politics. john kerry exceeded his number that he thought he needed to win ohio by some margin, and you

came in and used a decisive victory. you used targeting to understand every conservative and republican voter as you could. so that's the big advance, is you're going to just have better targeting. the ability to deliver messages, this is the first election cycle where i can deliver a television advertiser to a voter. now i can do a television ad. i don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's happening. so i think there'll continue to be advances in virtual reality. >> interesting. >> maybe not by '24 and '28. you can see even presidential candidates, not just state representative candidates, interacting with voters, okay, based on a profile. >> yeah. >> i think that's going to be a big advance. and how you, you know, i think it's likely in 10 or 15 years -- again, i don't think this is a healthy thing necessarily -- people are going to spend more time with screens because they're going to be in these immersive and rich gaming, entertainment, even educational. so you're going to have more data about that.

i think you're going to see more advance there. to me, virtual reality's going to be the big net. >> that's interesting. >> i think it's going to affect every part of our economy and every part of our lives, but i think it's certainly going to affect elections. fairly crude, he wasn't interacting with people, but he would give a speech somewhere, and he'd be in 50 or 100 different communities, prime minister modi. >> i think certainly by 2024 the notion of a gross rating point will not exist. >> how we assess television -- >> how we assess. it will all be based on video views, and there'll be one measurement form across all screens; digital, tv and then, of course, you know, all these other devices that people have, or ipads and so forth.

so you will simply just measure video views, and we won't be buying gross ratings points, we'll be buying eyeballs. and direct eyeballs, individual eyeballs. >> and the other thing that winds up happening is that you have to be more creative. you have to be more interesting in order to draw people to come look at what it is that you're showing them. because it was when there was four channels and people at home watching tv at night, you could give them almost anything, and they would watch it. when now when you have commissions and you can, you know -- choices and you can swipe on your device or you can go move to another web site, it's very easy to kind of get out of it. so i think the creativity's going to have to rise up and the levels of creativity and the messaging's going to have to rise up. also the ability to target that messaging again so that you're really, really specific and talk to voters. >> great.

>> what still will matter the most is the candidate and their message. >> right. >> no question. >> yeah. we often in all of this we talk about tactics and strategies. it starts with having a great candidate. [applause] so let me close by answering a great question we got which is what advice do you have for young peoplenterested in politics? i'll let everybody take a crack at this. a couple things. one is i remain hopeful, particularly when i see young people -- i've been all across the country covering the campaign, and, you know, young people are, they're passionate, they're excited. you see these bernie people and young people at trump rallies, i mean, they haven't given up, and i'm asking you, please, don't give up. we need you to fix this mess. [laughter] so the other thing, you were actually asking, you know, what specifically could i do if i want to get involved in

politics? there is no license or degree, but a's actually part -- that's actually part of the advantage. if you have an interest or a passion for politics, this is what i did myself and this is what i did to, you know, lots of folks who have come to me, and it's worked out very well on most occasions. if people were genuinely passionate about it. if you love it, find a candidate or a cause that you believe in, show up. just go to the ngo, go to the candidate's office, say that you're there to volunteer, that you'll work, and then go to work. just work long hour ands outwork -- this is not corporate america. if you've got the hustle and the smarts, campaigns are great meritocracies, you know? the next thing you know, you'll be the campaign manager of the campaign. [laughter] it truly is, if you've got an ounce of talent or spark because les a lot of people in there that don't. and these move quick. as ross said, we're not trying to improve market share. we win or we lose on a date certain, and we hate to go home.

it's a really powerful thing. if you're interested, show up, volunteer or and just get involved, and you'll be surprised how quickly you kind of get on the onramp and end up in an office. it's been a great life, i love it still, and i get to hang out with cool people like this. your thoughts to young people interested. >> pick a discipline. even if you love politics, you know, figure out quickly what about the campaign you like the best whether that's finance or research or field organizing. because it is a great way to have an impact in the political arena, in public policy to be involved, but life will go on at some point, and, you know, very few people make a living out of this forever. and it's important to gain some skills that you can take after you're done with that portion of your life. >> yeah. it'll burp you up. i -- burn you up.

i call it a human microwave. [laughter] >> first of all, to pick up on what mark said, we need you. so it's clear we need more talented, selfless, young people to get involved in politics, to work in campaigns, to run themselves. people who are involved in government or politics who then their most important thing is staying there, their important thing is to actually make progress. and elections matter. typically this election season, it seems silly and dispiriting, but everything in this country we've ever done flows from an election. so the one exception you could say is the civil war, but abraham lincoln helped trigger that. every law are we fought or didn't fought, tax we raised or cut, every single one flows from an election. so i remember and i say this when i'm not here at the george bush presidential center when democrats would complain about some of president bush's agenda from 2001-2009, he won. he got to set the agenda. so bobby kennedy was on, was the

best campaign manager in history. so very inspirational. you know? said some men see things as they are and ask why, i dream things that never were and ask why not. but he was one of the most ruthless political practitioners of the time. because he realized if you didn't win, you didn't get to set the agenda. we're a divided country, but if you feel strong about something in your city, county or state, work for someone who shares that belief because they will then get to set the agenda. i think it's easy to forget that sometimes. but there's a straight line between that and everything we've ever done. >> well, i would agree with all this and also just stick with it. you know, the first campaign that you work on or the first two campaigns or maybe six campaigns you may not win. and you may get discouraged. but the ability to keep on going back there and working on things that you believe in and working for people that you believe in

is really important. and i think it's really satisfying, because there's very few things that you can do that you realize that by your participation you've helped change the direction of the country. and that's a really big thing. and you can be 16, 17 years old working in a campaign and work on changing the direction of the country, or you can be, you know, retired and doing the same thing. as mark said, it's a great meritocracy. so i would just, you know, if you like it, keep with it. we need you. >> thank you to my colleagues here, thank you, mr. president, thank you smu! [applause] >> the u.s. senate is set to return for debate this afternoon at 2:15 eastern. senators on their break now for their weekly party meetings. coming up, more debate on a long-term funding bill for the federal aviation administration authorizing just over $33

billion for funding faa programs until september 30th of next year. and again, you can see the senate live here on c-span2 when members return at 2:15 eastern. president obama's supreme court nominee, judge merrick garland, is making the rounds on capitol hill today. he's meeting with members of the senate. this tweet from our capitol hill producer, craig kaplan, showing maine senator, susan collins, talking with members of the media after her meeting with judge garland today. she's one of the few republicans agreeing to sit down with judge garland after republican leaders refuse to hold hearings considering his nomination. he's also meeting with democrats jeanne shaheen and joe manchin. here's a look at what senator collins had to say after her gathering with judge garland. >> looking forward to sitting down -- [inaudible]

>> great. thanks. >> thank you. >> come back out, everyone. >> thank you. >> beautiful. oh, here we go. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. >> thank you. >> time to begin our meeting. >> thank you. i love it. and my bag was hand crafted in maine -- >> thanks, guys. >> thank you. >> guys. [inaudible conversations] >> i've just concluded a more than hourlong meeting with judge garland. it was an excellent meeting that allowed us to explore many of the issues that i would raise with any nominee to the supreme court as well as some of the criticisms that have been levied

against him. the meeting left me more convinced than ever that the process should proceed. the next step, in my view, should be public hearings before the judiciary committee so that the issues that we explored in my office can be publicly aired. and so that senators can have a better opportunity to flesh out all of the issues that we discussed. i'd be glad to take any questions with anyone might have. >> would you approach leader mcdonnell about your request, and how much influence can you have with him and chairman grassley to relent on their no hearing, no vote approach? >> well, first of all, it's my understanding that senator grassley has agreed to meet with judge garland, is so let's see -- so let's see if after that meeting senator grassley still holds to the position that

there should not be hearings. i believe that the majority leader and senator grassley are very sip sere in their belief that the next president should make this decision. i don't have i don't happen to -- i don't happen to agree with that, and i believe that we should follow the normal order and proceed with public hearings. >> senator collins, what about this meeting made you more convinced that the process should go forward? qualifications or what not? >> i found the judge to be extremely straightforward. he answered all of my questions. it was a lengthy meeting. i brought up issues ranging from second amendment cases to executive overreach, to the role of the court, to perceptions of the court. and he gave very thorough, impressive responses to all of my questions.

>> senator collins -- >> you actually, you had an opportunity to vote for mr. garland, would you consider voting for him or would you, in fact -- >> or would i, in fact -- >> would you vote for him if you had the opportunity? >> it's premature for me to reach that conclusion. whenever there has been a nominee to the supreme court, i always wait til after the public hearings are held before reaching a decision. that's only prudent because after public hearings you have a far better sense of the nominee. we covered at lot of ground -- a lot of ground in our hourlong meeting but, obviously, public hearings with many senators posing questions allows for far more in-depth review of the qualifications, decisions, philosophy of the nominee.

>> how disappointed are you with the stance of no hearing? [inaudible] >> in my time in the senate, i have always found that whether it's legislation, nominations or treaties that we are best served by following the regular order. that produces better bills, it makes sure that nominees are fully vetted, and that, to me, is the way that we should proceed. i am not optimistic that i will be changing minds on this issue, but i think if more of my colleagues sit down with judge garland, that they are going to be impressed with him. >> senator collins, can i build on that answer by asking you whether as a result of today's meeting you will, indeed, try to recruit more republican senatorial support?

>> i have already spoken out at the republican caucus and expressed my views. so my views are not a secret to my colleagues. i would encourage all of my colleagues to sit down with judge garland. i believe that that's how the process should work and works best, when we have these one-on-one meetings followed by public hearings. >> senator, beyond the principle of regular order, what about the strategy, can you comment on the strategy of mcconnell in terms of how risky it is that hillary clinton could become president and nominate someone much more liberal? in talking to him, do you feel like he would be a good choice for republicans if that happens? >> i can't -- i don't want to comment on the majority leader's strategy. that's really a question that should be directed to him. i will say that from the conversation that i just had, i found that judge garland was, he

has a humility about him, he's clearly thought very deeply about the issues confronting the courts. there was not any question that he could not handle, and he has a long record of accomplishment as a jurist on the d.c. circuit for 19 years. it would be ironic if the next president happens to be a democrat and chooses someone who is far to judge garland's left. but we really don't know what's going to happen in this very strange political year, so i think what we should do is follow the normal process with the nominee that has been sent up by the president. and that, to me, is the best way

to proceed. >> last question. >> you said that -- [inaudible] likely be impressed. do you think he could actually change some of your colleagues' minds in those hearings and cause them to the call for a hearing? >> it's always hazardous to predict what one's colleagues are going to do or how they're going to react. all i can do is report on my meeting, and i found judge garland to be well informed, thoughtful, impressive, extraordinarily bright, and with a sensitivity that i look for to the appropriate roles that the constitution assigns to the three branches. thank you. >> thank you. >> and democratic senator jeanne

shaheen also met with merrick garland today. this picture sent out by our capitol hill producer, craig kaplan. senator joe manchin of west virginia will sit down with judge garland this afternoon at 4 p.m. eastern, and there are more meetings scheduled over the next several days. >> campaign 2016 continues today with the wisconsin primary. live coverage begins tonight at nine eastern. tune in for complete election results, candidate speeches and viewer reaction. taking you on the road to the white house on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> we want to welcome back tolc our table fred barnes, co-founder, executive editor, weekly standard, talking about this nominating process.s. so so who will be the republican nominee? >> well, i think donald trump still has the best chance even if he loses in wisconsin today, and i suspect he will lose in wisconsin today. the cruz polls have been much

better, and i know there have been a poll that came out yesterday that showed trump ten points ahead. that would have meant that he's had quite a finishing kick that the press missed -- >> host: in wisconsin. >> guest: in wisconsin, yeah. i mean, he can afford to lose here. it will mean that he probably will not have the majority as he approaches the convention. but there are a lot of delegates out there that can, he could deal with who can add to his number, and he could, he's a great negotiator. there are delegates that, who are not bound to other candidates, and he could add some before the conventionon starts in july and win on the first ballot. i think that's probably the most likely thing, but i wouldn't bet the family home on it. >> host: let me show you what senator cruz had to say

yesterday about the prospect of donald trump being the nominee. >> so that at this point as we stand here today, there are two candidates and only two candidates who have any plausible path to becoming the republican nominee; me and donald trump. and let me say what we're seeing here in wisconsin and across the country is the 65-70% of republicans who recognize that nominating donald trump would be a disaster.e] [cheers and applause] nominating donald trump elects hillary clinton. hillary wins by double digits. it is tying a giant present and giving it to the democrats. and by the way, if hillarynt clinton is the next president, the supreme court is lost for a generation, the bill of rights is put in jeopardy, our kids are buried in trillions more in debt.

and we remain stuck in the same economic stagnation we've seen the last seven years. >> host: fred barnes, agree with his predictions? >> guest: i think donald trump would have a very difficult winning the general election. i think ted cruz would have a very difficult time winning the general election even with a candidate as flawed as hillary clinton as the democratic to penalty. -- opponent. they both have great problems. >> host: this is front page of "the new york times."ew ted cruz is fuming because kasich won't bow out. >> guest: uh-huh. >> host: should the ohio governor get out -- >> guest: trump is fuming too. >> host: yeah. trump wants him out as well. >> guest: yeah. i'm not sure who kasich's vote would go to, but it wouldn't necessarily go to cruz. a lot of them are moderates and independents who, oddly enough, are groups that trump draws from. i don't think a lot of them are these hard core, very conservative voters who cruz draws from. so it's really unclear who would

benefit the most from kasichld dropping out. >> host: if there's a contested convention, and do you think we're headed towards a cop tested convention. >> >> guest: well, it's certainly going to be contested. in 1976 when ronald reagan challenged gerald ford, it was contested, but ford won on the first ballot. so there's a contested convention, and then there's one that opens up because there's nr first ballot nominee. >> host: what -- ted cruz has said that the choices should be between either him or donald trump. that's it. there shouldn't be some sort of consensus candidate, rnc ruled that out as well. what do you think should happen here for the republican party? >> guest: for the republican party, i think kasich makes one strong case and that is that polls show him running ahead of. i think he would probably have a better chance of beating hillary clinton than either cruz or trump. i've thought all along that

marco rubio would be a candidate who would have a better chance than either of those people and perhaps even kasich in beating hillary clinton. on the other hand, you've got to win the republican nomination, obviously, marco rubio isn't going to win it. >> host: well, and john kasich has 143-plus delegates right now. >> guest: yeah. when the delegates arrive to a convention, it's magical. there's some magic sets in. i'm not so sure about that, but i think he would need magic. it would have to be on the first ballot where he will not even be on the ballot unless the rules are changed because he will not have won eight primaries or caucuses. but when you get to the second or third ballot, then he might be viable. you know, sometimes parties are looking for the candidate who has the best chance of winning the general election. and that is john kasich's strong suit. i think he could command the center, the political center

more than either trump or cruz, or at least it looks that way at the moment.. >> host: okay, let's get calls involved. betty in green bay, wisconsin. independent. >> caller: hi there. >> guest: hi. >> caller: thanks for taking my call, and, mr. barnes, i just have to say to you, i hope people look at the big picture. i mean, the big picture. >> guest: i do too. >> caller: i, i used to work for a republican congressman on the hill many years ago, and there is no comparison with the republicans as they are right now. i mean, it's just, or it's a joke. but with donald trump i always say don't vote for somebody who wants to the talk about nuclear power, okay? be that's a no-brainer. and cruz is not a conservative, because if he was, he wouldn't have shut down the government and give the will to the people

of -- the bill to the people of the united states. >> guest: uh-huh. >> caller: so i, i am voting -- i already put my vote in, i was the first one in line, so i'm voting for hillary clinton. bernie wouldn't be bad. they're both good people, but people have to use their head, you know, to look at the bigot picture not just because, you know, they speak good or they promise this, you know? i've seen it all. and hillary would be the best to get things done because like trump and cruz, they don't -- how many, how many countries have they gone to, you know? >> host: okay, betty. >> guest: i'm a little, let me ask a question. >> host: oh, sorry, she's not there anymore. >> guest: i was going to ask her what republican congressman she worked for years ago. but anyway -- >> host: what did you make of what she said?

>> guest: it sounds like she was a republican at one point but is now very disenchanted with the republican party. i would disagree with her on one thing. i do think ted cruz is ative. >> host: you do.gu >> guest: of course? >> host: what about his relationship with his fellow conservative senators up on capitol hill. >> >> guest: well, that's a h different situation, and i thinf that does detract from his campaign. after all, all this campaigning, after cruz doing much better than people thought he would, certainly better than i thought he would, and stories written about how the conservatives are now gathering behind ted cruz,nd only two senators have endorsed him. that's a pretty small number. he's not well liked in the senate club, and it shows. >> host: harry in baltimore, maryland, a republican. >> caller: yes, ma'am, thank you.u. and thank you for c-span. i've just got a couple statements. when everybody keeps saying about donald trump doesn't have any experience, obama didn'tot have any experience either.

the only experience he had was -- [inaudible] when you look at trump and you look at the rest of them, i honestly believe donald trump loves this country, and he don't care about his money anymore. he knows -- [inaudible] so he's really trying to help the people. and i just don't see the other ones, it's like washington in it for itself. >> host: okay.y. and we hear that a lot, fred w barnes, from our viewers. >> guest: yeah. >> host: they like donald trump because they think he might be able to do something differentnt than the lawmakers that have been here. >> guest: well, he certainly says so, he does have experience, but it's not the kind we usually associate with somebody we're voting for for president. and, look, he's made that case by asserting so often that i can do this, i can stop illegal immigration, i can rewrite all the trade deals, i can jack up the economy almost overnight, i'll balance the budget and so

on. he's said it so often and so emphatically that people come to believe it.raat and he is a different kind of candidate. now, i wouldn't have thought he would have the appeal he has. that's the great thing about politics, it's not science. politics isn't, never has been, and things come along that surprise you. c my only one rule of politics is that the future in politics is never a straight line rejection of the present. things change. unexpected things happen.ha candidates do crazy things. candidates do smart things. it's, politics is very unpredictable, and it's too bad that in the media, and i'm a great offender of this too, that we write about the future all the time as if we know it. we don't. >> host: joel in texas, democrat? >> caller: hey, good morning. >> guest: ing hi. >> caller: i'm tired of hearing about donald trump sayingbo america isn't great. it's the greatest country in the world.st it's the best economy in the world, fred.

>> guest: yeah. >> caller: you have done quite well in this economy. donald trump has made millions in this economy. look at what the stock market is, 7,000 when obama came in, now it's 17,000, over? you guys have reaped the harvest. and for the working class, join a union. you want to complain about your wages being low, these corporations don't love america. they don't. they don't care about america. and if you people want to raise, form a union, join a union. t have competition between labor and corporations. if you don't join a union, don't expect your corporation to give you a raise. they don't need to. they'll cut your health care, your pension, they don't care about america. [inaudible] >> guest: well, there's a very strong union voice. i suspect he's not going to be voting for donald trump. >> host: well, the sentiment is something that you hear. it's not just, actually, democrats, it's republicans as well who believe that corporations are not on their

side. >> guest: corporations are outuu to make a profit. they're going to serve their share helders. the whole idea -- holders.s the whole idea of capitalism is that it works well for everybody in the long run, and i think it does. that's why we're the most prosperous country in the world, he's right about that. even though donald trump wears a hat saying i'll make america great again. america's still pretty great. >> host: fate of the gop's convention is still uncertain. cruz and dropouts seek to snag the delegates away from donald trump. in louisiana mr. cruz had trailed trump but is poised to pass him. so there's that brokering going on. and then it says that things are about to get even messier in pennsylvania. who votes april 26th. most of the delegates are directly elected by voters and

can decide on their own who to support. >> guest: i think all that stuff's just fascinating. it tells you manager that the trump organization to -- something that the trump organization, to the extent there is one, didn't seem to understand. it's not just winning thet primaries or coming in firstmi after a caucus, there's steps after that in which real people become the delegates. now, in some states you'll just offer, a candidate will offer a delegate slate. these are people, they're committed to vote for me, but at least on the first ballot. but in other states, you cited pennsylvania, you know, they're picked in different ways. and i'll have to say the cruz people have been very wise about this. they're extremely well organized all over the country. that's been, i think, biggest strength of the cruz campaign. and they've figured out that, well, okay, this delegate may be committed to donald trump on the first ballot, but after that, no. so they'll get one of their owne

people in -- and they've gotten a lot of their own people in -- as delegates who may have to vote for trump or some otherdi candidate on the first ballot, it would be trump, of course, t but after that they're free to vote for cruz. they're very smart. it's something the trump campaign should have been known about, organized for and now is suffering because of that. >> host: okay.y. >> guest: because they didn't. >> we will leave this washington journal discussion to return to live coverage of the senate now. senators considering long-term funding for the faa.