ients which has a cost on food and then the food credittic comes and knows nothing about sustainability and doesn't ask questions about the practice of the restaurant and give them a star without considering the value of ratio of quantities served and price. and there's no education broadly about the values added to those experiences that could be incorporated to everything about food. someone i know well had a meal recently with someone who was the food editor of one of the largest papers in the word who said we don't want to put food issues on our food pages, we don't want to touch that. it should be a place to celebrating, how do you celebrate that and not take these things into account. i think it's irresponsible to separate those two.

the writers, where you find places least discussed ironically and to me that's part of the problem. some of the issues around food are discussed on the food pages of "the new york times" however they've done in a culture look. we found the lovely culture in the middle of the country and aren't they wonder that they take these beans and grow them. bless their heart. there's this word ethnic food term. some of us find it annoying and i was talking to a leading food writer in the west and i said, don't use that word and she said okay, how about we call it exotic and i said that's worst. [laughter]

>> what i found more is the fight for 15, the only way to crack through is a question of labor and what i find really heartening, what 21 states now have gotten involved in that kind of a public fight and we have a candidate in the political mainstream who calls himself socialist and drives liberal issues and that's radical and it's a good symptom of where the food movement should push things too because the minimum wage question, because seven out of ten food jobs are going to be bottom of the labor market jobs, you have to move bottom of the labor market to make any changes and i see -- i'm very optimistic looking at the configuration of forces that's allowing this discussion that i would have

never dreamt in the shadow of what is called the post reagan united states. i think the ground has shifted. one is that -- the second is the related challenge and again to claire's point, how do you bring in the stakeholders into engaging with this and specially, specially where the stakeholders are, in fact, transnational migrants because that's what -- that's what poor people sell in the world, three things, their labor, their produce, and clothing, textile, we have to find collaboration across national because everything is moving. that's the central challenge.

the culture politics of my work comes out of the simple thing. if you look at american cities, if you look at occupations, most food-related occupation, we have data from 1850 onwards where we ask people their occupations, we ask people their birthplace. 70 to 80, sometimes 90% of brewers, bakers, saloon keepers have always been the foreign-born. that raises an interesting question. in that sense, american city food has always been foreign food, okay, which i find contrary to the french a fantastic thing. i think american food culture changes every 20 years. that's not it's promise, that's it's promise. we are just in the middle of the transformation of it but it raises a central question, which is this world if you look at labor, if you look at work, this

is a bifurcated group of people who call themselves everyday cooks and celebrity cooks. a celebrity could be somebody like me that doesn't have a tv show, i have spois, location in which allows me to cook when i wish to make nice food for my nice family. at the heart of it is the problem of professionallation. it's not just a promise but it's a policemen. it -- gives it a structure in which people who don't usually cook socialically end up with all of the benefits women, poor, don't end up with any benefit from the social system of this

attention to benefit. >> got it. lots to think about. what i love about the panels is if you leave thinking you have to complete class or a thought we failed miserably. i want people to leave with an itch. in the last 20 years, what didn't happen, right, what did you think should have happened that just didn't happen, maybe it hasn't happened or happened the way you thought? you can answer either of these or both of them if you wish and number two, what can we as individuals do if you are to say to a room full of people, out there -- how many of you are chefs, how many are cooks at home? how many go to farmers market? how many live at an ncu -- nyu

building in never mind. [laughter] >> mitchell. >> what didn't happen? that's a good question. i think that what didn't happen yet and and i give a talk a lot of people in the hospitality where you learn the customer is always right and you build your business model doing that. i think what happened in the last 20 years or more is the production side, the chefs even, the farmers, the artisons in brooklyn whatever, got really good and the customers didn't. when you look at food cultures around the world, it's the customers that keep things in check.

i went to cornell last spring and said the customer is not always right and you have the to lead specially where food came from top down and not bottom up and the customer has to meet the level of the producer, let them have another thing, understand why there are no tomatoes and understand why the bills are higher but customers are better paid. the customer has to rise and be a better customer, that's what hasn't happened yesterday. >> what i love about that when i first moved to new york tb f you wanted a regular cup of coffee, burnt in, sugar and milk, disgusting. we have begun a sense of good coffee. there was always good coffee roasted in new york city. they didn't care because the customer didn't care so that's what happened. what can an individual do?

>> i don't think the individual can know everything, we have to stop expecting more information and more information and more political awareness from every single person because you can't get out of bed. >> thank you. >> i think the individual -- i think that the individual needs to see some power and pay attention, be more mindful. to be more act nif the process is what i think he or she can do. >> jasmín. >> i think what didn't happen -- i think to a certain extent consumers have come along. we have a way to go. we are thinking differently and i think we have this kind of robust, somebody recently was visiting new york and said where should going to eat, i said, what do you want? farm to table.

we don't even talk to farm to table in new york, it's kind of a given to a level of restaurant. what kind of farm to table are you looking for. we have all of these, we have amazing network of farmers market and other ways to get food. there's a gap and i think that the gap is about infrastructure and supply and scale. our food system got really big and a lot of us are advocating for a really small thing and a lot of people are finding it really, really hard to make a living and so i think the thing we haven't quite figured out what is the right size, what's the system that gets the food to the people who are then going to sell it to us. >> all right. i want to let you know that we are going to be addressing that later this year actually. we are going to be trying to figure out what really goes on at farms because we love to fall in love with the tinny farms but farms exist in the middle too and in places and we have to

talk about that. also on april 20th, we are going to continue the conversation about 20 years in and we are going to talk about when it comes to our food what do we know, what can we know and what should we know and we are going to be doing that with interesting people. april 20th, put that down. these are all really good things. so you think nothing didn't happen that you're worried about? you think that things happened? >> we haven't addressed that in the middle point and i think we are seeing a lot of farmers trying really hard and giving up and that's a sign -- if we don't preserve. >> what can one individual -- >> what can we do? we can think about where we are getting the food from and accept a little inconvenience and for those who can afford it, accept a higher price in order to invest and keep that system going while we figure out the mechanisms by which food is going to get around. >> the un study did say that we were going to have a large system of small constructs in

order to feed 9 billion people at least. >> what we haven't done enough -- >> what hasn't happened? >> to echo jasmín, a lot of greet things have happened but what hasn't happened enough is a collective buy-in from the public because there's a notion if you care a lot about food in america, not in france or asia necessarily but in you care a lot about food is you're made fun of as a presidential candidate, as barack obama was for mentioning the word arugula. i think that's part of it, it goes back to the liveliness that goes hand in hand with livelihood that you were talking about. liveliness, joy, how do we get the public to buy in to everything this panel has been

talking about? i think we start with joy, we start with the actual taste of good food. we say beets are not the scarey -- [laughter] >> if they're cultivated right and it's part of what just food does so well, connect people in urban settings to farmers markets and actual farmers and when you have that kind of -- i met a farmer and procured the produce and then you slice the beet and drizzle the oh live oil and sea salt, you're getting it. it's not -- i think we need more of that public buy-in. [laughter] >> as a visual aid, look at the national geographic. it's about wasted food

initiative and look at how beautiful these things. >> and the fact that this was considered unsellable food. people have to buy into this. >> absolutely. claire, what didn't happen and what can one person do? >> okay. so i think the thing that we are still not doing and sort of trying to figure out is how we move this incredible food movement or whatever you want to call it into a political movement. how do we start to elect people who understand that food issues are incredibly important so that access to healthy food to all americans is universal value to everyone in the room but not universal value to people elected to congress and how do we change that in a significant way over the next 20 years? ..

looking at the organization's comment that is exactly the translation that has to happen. i would take her citizenship demands with infrastructure building as seriously as what is owed to us as a customer.

one other thing, second is somewhere between what jasmine raised about very big systems in very small systems. maybe we need food at moderate speed. that might be the way to build relatively efficient but relatively resilient systems. diverse, social resilient, to be able to build reform systems through neighborhood action, through csa, we can build this system of food at moderate speed and moderate scale. i encourage you all to do what mary says that with your fork. may it be delicious. please join us next time. let's thank the panel.

[applause] you can come and talk to them that they are all going to go into the gallery next door and have a glass of wine and a piece of some atc. [inaudible conversations] >> the current welfare system has failed the very families it was intended to serve. >> i don't know how many people who watch is humiliate ourselves in the tendon in my rating for their welfare check.

there's some cheats out there and there and their druggies and drunks. they are out there. there's no question about it. but a lot of those people are simply people who have not yet discovered a way out of their misery and their poverty. >> we've decided the states and governors and legislatures out there in america are as concerned about the poor as we are, as concerned about their well-being and as concerned if not more so than we are about the status of welfare in the date. >> from now on, our nation's answer to this great social challenge will no longer be a never-ending welfare. it will be the dignity, the power amid the ethic of work. today we are taking an extra chance to make welfare what it was meant to be, a second chance, not a way of life.

>> ucla lynn vavreck and political historian allan lichtman on the campaign knows of donald trump and hillary clinton. [applause] >> thank you all of you for coming tonight to hear from our two distinguished guests who are not psychics or pendants are prognosticators, but political scientists and historians to study elections and the results of elections and everything that happens in between. clearly, in this year as the outsider, status quo politicians are having a hard time practicing politics as usual parodying predictable rhetoric with platitudes and prices that are falling flat because the

electorate is angry and donald trump has changed the narrative and not necessarily for the better. there rather than predict the end project will come a ucla political scientist lynn vavreck will begin and explained the young predict the bowl. she will speak for 10 or 15 minutes, then american university allan lichtman will explain his prediction system has correctly predicted every presidential election name in 84. he perhaps made venture a guess about the outcome of this ride we've been on for a minimum of many billions of dollars later. if he throws up his arms in the all too crazy and anything can happen, we won't hold it against him. after that we will have a conversation and q&a with their audience whose menu of choices for the president he has just been expanded. no more complaining about having

to vote the lesser of two evils. we not only have donald trump, hillary clinton, kerry johnson and jill stein, but as of yesterday we can now include evan mcmullen, a 4-year-old bachelor farmer with the cia who is chief policy director of the house republican conference and is now running for president representing the republican never trump movement. let me introduce lynn vavreck, director of political scientific university los angeles. her research focuses on kim he feared she is the author of campaign reform inside evidence, the message matters, the economy and presidential campaigns and co-author of the logic of american politics. the latest that is the candle choice and chance in the 2012 election and a book about the 2016 elections has called shattered.

ladies and gentlemen, lynn vavreck. [applause] >> thank you. thanks very much. i brought some show and tell items with me. so if you have always wondered what it might be like to give ucla undergraduate, disobedient at 10 minutes to experience that. i'm really pleased to be here. thanks to the hammer forum and to be in for that great introduction and alan for having a conversation today. i want to talk about 90 days out and everybody wants to know what is going to happen. so im going to talk about that in three ways. sorry i'm supposed is alright i'm going to talk about that in three ways to talk of the nation's economy and how that really serves up the backdrop in front of which the screenplay that is the presidential

campaign takes place and then we will talk a little bit about the candidates, particularly because they all come with constraints. the third thing is messaging. the way to think about messaging is to think about leveraging the constraint that candidates bring with them. that is really the trick. for me, my system at predicting election outcomes mixes these three things together and talks about what they might expect to have been. that's where we are going in the next couple minutes. we'll start with the state of the nation's economy. if you only remember one thing, this is what i tell this event. one thing only for this 10 minute chorus, this is the thing to remember. incumbent parties in growing economies typically win presidential elections. this is an aggregate relationship. the opposite is also true of challenging parties and shrinking economies typically win presidential elections. you can think of this as a

referendum on the incumbent party about this date the nation's economy. neither personal pocketbooks, not pocketbooks, nobody of a job now or don't have a job that i did before, but how is the country doing? that is the relationship i like to talk about when it ain't about setting the stage for any presidential election and most of the post new deal era. since the late 40s. so how does that oil? here's a little bit about that relationship. so what i've got for you here on the y axis is the incumbent party share of the two-party vote in the presidential election that i applauded for you. on the x-axis satiated the growth rate for the nation's economy in terms of gdp change in the six months of the election year. basically i think screwing their shrinking. as you can see as growth in the

nation -- i didn't want to do that yet. wrong button. as growth increases, the incumbent party showed the two-party brokers that. present as positive relationship year. i totally get that a monkey flipping a coin would be right about which of our two parties is going to win an election 50% of the time. if you want to impress me about your prediction come you got to do better than that monkey. this prediction will be right. very basic prediction not taken into account much else will be right 75% of the time. it just better than the monkey and i think that's good at the next logical question is what about this year. we just got the second quarter number and what does that tell us? now it's time to read. right at 50%. that's up to 2016 growth number projects. an equilibrium that the really

important phrase i want to unpack in a minute. an equilibrium based on the last several decades the election is meant to be a squeaker. it is going to be close. since neither party will benefit, you can't beat barack obama in 2008 going out to tame republicans argued opal financial crisis. time to change course if you do can't be in 1984 sanest morning in america. neither candidate as the challenger or the incumbent. they are going to fight to frame this election for you. they live their fight to frame your perception of the real economy which is what's been going on the last two days or they will fight to change the focus of this election off of the economy. it doesn't help either one of them in any profound kind of way. they need to change the topic. they can't change the topic to any issue.

the issue has to meet three criteria. in my view, you have to find an issue on which public opinion is lopsided. that's the most important thing. it doesn't do you any good to refocus the election not the economy and on to something else on which the public is divided to you. 50/50 doesn't win it for you. you've got to find a lopsided issue. you have debate closer to most voters than you are -- your opponents credit doesn't do do better to focus the election for your help in the other guys. you've got to help yourself. know where you stand in our public opinion is. you better beyond the lopsided site. the third thing, this issue has to be or can be made to be important. you can't colonize the moon on

something that you are not convincing people which everybody thinks is important at bayside. it has to be an issue that topical, can be made to be topical. just a couple of ideas about how candidates have a hard time with this. this is because of their constraints. what kind of constraints do i need? some are young, some old, some experienced in such an experience. they've taken positions on things. they have records. they, constraint and the trick is to find those constraints and leverage them. a couple examples of what i mean. in 1960 john kennedy is running against richard nixon and kennedy is young and inexperienced and nixon has a lot of ex. what is kennedy do? he turns the election is to an all-out war into the future of the free world and the soviets.

what if they tell us about the soviet? they are better at science advocate to the moon force. the art is more beautiful in poetry is nicer. he talks about everything and how we are going to be better in all of these things was alert the ocean and the whole campaign of that new frontier. because make them as part of the past. it comes down to the missile gap. he didn't know that. it was a good part of the story. how would nixon constrain a part of the administration that has perpetuated the gap. there's nothing richard nixon can do to shake that constraint. that's the thing i'm talking about.

in 1968 nixon and leverage his crime and fear and says we will restore law and order in a country reeling from the word vietnam, the free speech movement, it is chaos in the leverage is out. in 1976, carter does the same thing. it's a washington outsider running against the most in depth about way washington insider you can find. disappointed to the vice presidency and the presidency. there's nothing more to do to shape and carter pushes him out at the right moment. the right guy at the right time for a guy who found the right constraints at the right time. so that's what we are talking about. not as easy as it sounds. i give a barry goldwater who in 1964 when around the country talking about nuclear war with the soviets and saying he wanted one being a nuclear bomb to make sure it hit. disabuse americans that their fear of the word nuke leer.

in 1964, most americans thought the americans thought that they would see world war iii in their lifetime than most americans thought they would die in it. going around the country telling people you will start world war iii is this the criteria to decide the lopsided issue. he's just on the wrong side good not as easy as it sounds. to wrap a comment think about the message is that donald chuck and hillary clinton are trying to convince the frame if you go they are trying to put on this election. it's worth pointing out that both of these messaging strategies were in place one year ago from right now. it isn't the case that donald trump ain't america great again. this has been going on for a year. in thing with hillary clinton. make america great again. the key word is again, maybe not right now but it once was. in the past. why in the past? we were different then.

you can finish that equation however you want. but it's an isolationist kind of message and you can see them very clearly how the counters are hillary clinton's stronger to get their message counters that you said they are very much trying to leverage the exact opposite ideas about the future of the country. here is a still image from one of donald chung's first campaign that actually. he talked about the things they might be afraid that he is security, terrorism, radical islamism. he is trying to unsuccessfully to defend the republican primary divide the election by in group and outgroup attitude based on race and ethnicity. here are going to show you a little bit about it in so you understand what i'm talking about. on the y-axis that donald trump's share of the vote in the

republican contest in 2016. these are data from the national elections sunday gathered in february this year. donald tram share goes up on average the other candidate shares have to go down. on the x axis i've got two different bashers of the kind of in group outgroup conscious is. the first is just a question asking respondents in the survey, what respondents, whether it likely that way people will lose jobs to minority and the more likely you are to say that the more likely you are to vote for donald trump. over here, how important you think it is for whites to come together as a group to change laws that are unfair to whites. we call this white or conscious at and again a positive relationship here. i could show you seven mark on the 10 bar graphs of different groups and they look the same. donald trump didn't create these attitudes. these attitudes have been there upon time. he has chosen to pride that in a

way that divides the elect jury at and he successfully did that in the republican primary and is largely successfully doing it now in the general election. heather clinton is talking about stronger together and she is telling us an inclusive message. women, nonwhite people, children. she wants everyone to come together and that's our message. we will be greater if we are all in it instead of just those of us who live here in some previous periods. so what is that the light? hillary clinton is successfully expanding the democratic coalition. she's winning by 31 points among college-educated white women. obama won by one point. that is a huge, huge change. that is not about hillary clinton being a one man. she won against bernie sanders. that is about donald trump. that's about college-educated white women being offended by donald trumps macho is that if

you will. college-educated white benches also expanded the party in that way. she's losing them by seven-point, but this is a big improvement of how barack obama did with college-educated white men. that is the group that is moving toward trout. she's losing them huge. the white man's story is more of a timeline story. they started between mccain and romney and now there is little bit more with trump. the way of a man's story is completely up beside it. that is about this election. where does that bring us to? who is going to be president? i'm not in the business of poll aggregating for predicting outcomes but i will share with you the prediction by my colleagues here today updated their poll aggregating prediction to 86% likely that he'll rented wins the

presidency. worth keeping in mind that if not her vote share. that is the probability, the chant, the likelihood that she will win. it's better than a chance at an nba basketball player makes the free throw when he goes to the free throw line. better odds than being the average nba player making a free-throw shot. hot not >> thank you. translates as an historian who studies that the american right in the presidency. his books include by protestant nation, and the rest of the american conservative movement and the keys to the white house, the sure fire way to predicting the next president. this prediction system that's correct he predicted the outcomes of all u.s. presidential elections since 1984. ladies and gentlemen, allan

lichtman. >> thank you very much. you can all rest easy. i am not going to predict that it re-up evan mcmillan. it's okay. it is true i have been predicting elections since 1984 when i was nine. but that's another story. you may think it's a wonderful prestigious thing. i go all around the world predicting the outcomes of american presidential elections. but i have to tell you field the result of all of that is every four years i make half of the country really, really angry at me. so i hope i won't anger to many of you. now i've got to tell you i am not going to predict the outcome of this election. you are going to predict the outcome of this election. you all have my 13 keys to the white house.

you are going to predict the election because 13 keys as the world's only do it yourself election system. to have that privilege because i'm a professor, you've got to answer a pop quiz first. are you ready? a really easy one. how many of you have listened to, read or watched any of the punditry about this election? raise your hand. you walk past the quiz except what you've got to do is take the advice of david hume, the great british philosopher when attacked about works of superstition. consign it to the flames. it is superstition. it's worthless. it is not based upon it. of how american presidential elections really work. that is why you've got to turn to a scientific system like the keys to the white house, which is actually raised in a really simple.

comment that elections don't turn on debate, speeches, advertising, issues, party loyalty for anything the media spends a billion dollars a year covering. rather, elections are simple. it is the joe the plumber theory of elections. if you remember joe the plumber, ecstatic i who asked obama a lot of obnoxious questions in 2008. now imagine you hire joe the plumber to fix your pipes and joe the plumber breaks your pipes and floods your basement. are you going to hire joe the plumber again? of course not. if he does a great job, fixes your pipes, everything is great, you consider hiring him again. same thing with presidential elections. but the party governs the white house holds well enough, the american people get him another four years. if they break the pipes of the country flooded space-bar, do a

really bad job, then the public turned them out. the 13 keys to the white house is a system for creating a model to demonstrate that theory and a decision rule for prediction. lynn pop about her students. i would love to tell you and i would love his actually tell my students that i came up with the keys to the white house by ruining my eyes and years of contemplation, libraries and archives, by deep thought. if i were to tell you that to quote the great not so late richard nixon, that would be wrong. i came across the keys to the white house. it's interesting how these things derived entirely by at event but of course even though i'm based at american university, i discovered the keys to the white house right here in southern california when

i spent a year at caltech and there i met the world leading authority and earthquake prediction. silas barak said to me, you and i are going to collaborate. being such a brilliant foresight foci of course i said absolutely not. they make a lot of earthquakes in california but i've got to go back to d.c. nobody cares about earthquakes in d.c. he said no, i'm ready solve the problems of earthquakes. on a chart harder problem. predicting american presidential elections. get this. he was a member of the soviet scientific delegation that came to washington and made tea and 63 and negotiated the most important treaty in the history of the world. it's why young people are here today. the nuclear test treaty that

stopped us from poisoning the atmosphere and mother's milk and the earth. he said he became fascinated with politics. he said look, i live in the soviet union predict in elections. if the parameter or off with your head. you know a lot about american politics is the greatest election in the world for the american presidency. at this point i thought the guy was kgb back when there was a kgb. but i'm an historian. i have no secrets. we put to test my theory that elections are primarily referenda on the strength and performance of the party white house and the opposition party doesn't care much. this is 1981. at caltech by looking at every american presidential election from 1860 to 1980. we found to our surprise we were able to come up with a model of

13 keys which are simple, true false questions that can be answered prior to an upcoming election and for an answer of true always favors the election of the party in power. that is the way they are phrased. we came up with a decision rule. if six or more of the keys are false and six or more keys go against the party in power, and dances. they went. six strikes and you're out. you don't even have to take your shoes off to use the system. all you have to do is be able to count to six. now what do you couple of academics do and they come up with a big discovery like this? publishing. in an academic journal where we spent at least four or five people to actually read it. and that is so great day. we publish the proceedings of the united states national academy of sciences.

the six people read it and the six or send with a science reporter from "the associated press." i'm back in washington in 1981 at american university, young professor. i open the newspaper and there is an article which side odd couple discovers keys to the white house. it wasn't felix and oscar. it has to be the crazy russian physicist and the crazy american historian. all of a sudden i'm thinking i'm in the paper i can go public and i published my first prediction in the "washingtonian" magazine in april 1982, 2 and a half years before the election and i predicted the reelection of ronald reagan. don't go me. that is really easy. but here is my next pub quiz. i talked about the economy people was a state of economy in 1982? horrible.

the worst recession since the great depression. everyone's talking about a one term presidency. and it caught someone's attention. i get a call in my office from a man with a heavy southern accent says professor lichtman, this is lay out what her calling, codirector of the ronald reagan white house. we want you to come to the white house. i said excuse me, mr. atwater, you've got the wrong guy. in france as george mcgovern. no, we know who you are. if you don't know who the output of us, he died young tragically of a brain tumor. he was karl rove before there was a karl rove and karl rove is a pair i turned pale carbon copy. i go to the white house and we talk about all kinds of history. the end of the day he pokes me in the eye and we get to what he really wanted to know. professor, what would happen if

ronald reagan did not run again in 1984? i'm going to give it to you straight. six keys in your route. right now you are down three keys as the article pointed out. take out ronald reagan. you're going to lose the incumbency. the sitting president won't run in. you're going to lose the incumbent charisma. george bush charismatic? forget it. and then you're going to have a big party contest. bush and cap in the whole crowd will fight that crazy. three keys down and assure the win to six keys down in a certain loss. lee atwater looks me in the eye and says thank you, so much, professor lichtman and the rest is history. the other call i got in 1991 after he published my first vote special assistant to governor bill clinton in arkansas and she

asked me based on your system, can george h.w. bush really be beaten? his approval rating was 90% said 90% said look up and go to shows he is a sure loser. if that is the men on the best is history. no matter what your partisan affiliation, you can blame me for something. let's turn your attention to this election. the toughest election i've ever had a call for obvious reasons. 2008 i called in 2005. i was notorious for saying that democrats could nominate someone out of a phone book and win in 2008. that's not exactly what they did. who had heard of barack obama back then. i called 2012 and 2010. why is this election so difficult to call? it turns on one key and one key only and it's a very difficult thing to call which is why what your help. right now the democrats have five keys to give them.

obviously, to mandate key. how did they do in 2014? horribly. obviously they've lost the sitting president. the lose the party, the policy change because it goes term by term and nothing big was achieved this term. they lose the incumbent party. even hillary clinton says we don't have that match. and they also lose the foreign policy success. i thought the iran nuclear treaty was a huge success, but it's a big fuss with the american people. that's another story we can talk about later. if it stays at five keys, the democrats win. if it goes to six keys, democrats lose. what is the sixth key? q. number two, the party contest key. this is such a difficult key to call. early on i thought surely there

is a big conscience. that is the sixth key and the republicans are going to win. but then something really strange hat band that has never happened before in the history of our country. i'll give it into words. donald trump. donald trump is such an shattering candidate that he may be erasing the effect of the democratic contest. in other words, as bitter for a while as the contest between hillary clinton and bernie sanders happened to be, it is being embraced by the fact that all of clinton's supporters and the vast majority of sanders supporters can agree on one thing and one thing only. it would be a catastrophe to have donald trump is president, which he may approve today with his remarks about supporters of the second amendment. by the way, after she's a lot dead and had nothing to do with

how they were voting because he was talking about importing supreme court justices and she selected. in the question-and-answer period, i want you to think about this. do the democrats lose the contest key and the election or has donald trump be raised the effects of the contest? take a quick poll now. how many of you raise your hand think the democrats lose the contest? wow, i'm in the wrong audience here. you have now turned history. this group has now turned history. there is an old saying, think is chinese and probably acres. may you live in interesting times. no doubt we have that here. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. let me begin with lynn.

there's a certain amount of certainty in both of you and i would like to talk about the wild-card. i don't think you can do a lot in terms of foreign policy. i think you can rule out an october surprise with the islamic state. also, you have essentially -- i think you could make the case that the american people don't necessarily control their political destiny. the obscure palestinian decided bobby kennedy would be president and help elect the next thing. in 80, the ayatollah khomeini, another obscure act of the middle east helped elect ronald reagan and clearly had jimmy carter twisting in the wind. you can also argue that osama bin laden and saddam hussein helped bush certainly in 2004. so do we really control their political destiny?

we get website by foreign events in far-off land that we don't understand and more often than not we get down. >> first i think i want to separate the bobby kennedy example from the others get its really different when someone eliminates the front runner. that's really different. the second set i think is interesting to think about is that the occurrence at these events or is that what the candidates who are running in those moments you are calling october surprise is, they do with those elements. i think that is an interesting thing to think about. in the background of all of that, i also want to say that foreign policy is rarely the thing that decides modern presidential election outcome. so even with a evidence for that during the vietnam war, if you

go back and read all of the campaign speeches and on the political advertisements and all the news coverage in "the new york times" and "washington post" of those campaigns, what you will learn is neither one of the major party candidates from making the warranty at not their number one predominant message. so someone is always trying to ram the state of the economy for asp and the other person is always trying to shift off of the economy onto an issue that needs those three criteria and the recent foreign policy is never the choice is because an october surprise. but what can change dramatically in an instant 10 days before the election. if you have your whole campaign on smart diplomacy, the hillary clinton secretary of state and all of a sudden the world unravels and you've got 10 days, you are losing. a little bit, mostly candidates try to avoid owning the foreign

policy card because of that reason. >> .trump has played the basis for fairly prominently basically saying they are incompetent. would that help them if there were an attack? >> the one thing about trump that is unusual, there are many things that are unusual. the one in response to this topic is this is why he is a good salesman. he has this uncanny ability to know how to sell his product and he reads the room so to speak. so when an event happens in san bernardino or paris orlando or dallas, she knows instantly how that works in the surveys of all call it an argument, but his frame that he is trying to cast over this election. i don't want to say that he's made this election about me. i don't think he has. i think he's made this election about in group outgroup

attitudes and those are separated on base and it is to be and his foreign-policy moments only work for him and the service of his frame because at the ethnic makeup of these moments. and that is why they work for him. it's not so much about foreign policy. it is about your fear and he uses that. >> alan, i mentioned donald trump has changed the narrative. it seems to me that he really has any very profound way and got through the primaries with the 16 people on stage and he continues to do so. what is to make the news hour of the republican and democratic say i respectfully disagree with my good friend.

now it is like, you know, you are a scumbag. so can we recover from? >> obviously we can't have donald trump loses then you all think he is going to lose so indeed we can recover from it. if he wins, i don't think we can recover from it. you've got to look at the history and it's not a pretty one of those who claim i am the answer. i am the answer. only i can change things for the better and it doesn't matter what i say. you have to believe me and trusting me as a person. you know, i don't like to draw analogies to foreign nations. but you have to reach out to find the analogy too done the job. many times when you see similar candidates, you have folks they that can happen here. we have checks and balances.

we have a bureaucracy that can keep them under control. that is simply wrong. it has not worked out that way for country after country in the world that it's got into the way of this one man type of rule. so i think our country is on a dangerous precipice. we are in danger of going somewhere where this country has never gone before. he started gone where no candidate has ever gone before. not just once, twice, three times, but 10, dean, 20 times. i have to tell you it doesn't matter how many times he's criticized. it doesn't matter how many times he's caught up in my service events. it makes no difference whatsoever to donald trump because he has no shame. you can't shame him into changes. so while these people who say he

will pay that, he will change. they are whistling past the graveyard. donald trump has been throughout his career and life essentially a con man, essentially doing the same thing that he didn't quote, unquote trump university which was never university. not all by them, not that romney, on the key sources of the republican party will change this one word. >> to jump in? >> u-shaped. >> i want to entertain this idea i've been thinking a lot about that none of this matters. the comment that he is making. i think what you are saying is he is not getting feedback. he is not changing. i have heard a lot of people say i can say some people say. i've heard a lot of people say that he is teflon and he can say anything and he doesn't pay a

price. i just want you to think about where he stands in the polls and how much is created in the last 10 days. he is not teflon. he looks like he is stuck where he is. maybe there is an october surprise, but i don't think it is right to say he's teflon and none of this is hitting him. they might be right to say he's not getting any feedback from the fact he's cratered in the same georgia and iowa and utah and arizona. he is not changing because of that, but he is paying a price in terms of public opinion. >> given that he has a gigantic ego, t. think he could face humiliation, public humiliation? you hear so many rumblings and rumors about a new strategies. george w. bush is the writer has an op-ed in "the new york times" today same night and should be

easy. do you think that he will last the distance? again i'm not putting you on the spot. >> i guess all i can say about that as i don't know donald trump. i've never met him. my guess is that you don't have to be that kind of executive with that kind of a part only of unless you have some resilient to you. can he take humiliation? i suspect he can. does that mean he's going to drop out? i don't know. when i hear republicans i think that's wishful thinking more than it is based on any kind of real evidence that he may be indicating he's looking for a way out. >> if you agree with me that donald trump has no shame, then none of this matters. it's not that he's not getting feed back. it's that the feedback doesn't matter. the feedback never changes 10. his arty set things up to heaven

out. his arty set the election is rigged. so if he loses, that's going to be the narrative. i should of won, but for the rigged election. how deep is for that? how do you prove a negative the election was separate. his arty set himself up. and in short he really wants the job. he loves the spot light. can't stand not to be in the spotlight. this is a man does he really want to be president of the united states for your actually how accountable for your decisions. i'm not sure he does. i think he's planning to think that gravity. not that he's going to get out, but he's planning to say if i lose that was rigged. >> , but a good time to write up your questions. we are going to have people on

both files collect them. new-line this patch q&a is kosovo. given that he's cratering -- >> tomorrow he will surge. just because i said this. >> they all change rapidly. the one thing that's consistent as he drops a bombshell every day and did a pretty major one today hitting the second amendment folks to stop hillary clinton for appointing judges on the supreme court and the assumption is that he meant stop them with a bullet. that is just today. is it possible that this very -- there is a trajectory and it could get worse and worse for him. >> is absolutely path will. the upshot prediction that is mostly based on paul abrogating, moving because the polls are

moving. when i've made this advantage over to the hammer a week ago, that number was barely a 70 and it is a different sports analogy. just then that we, so many polls have come out that have big margins, double-digit origins. it no-space prediction into a range that is really unprecedented. it's possible this is the plateau. it's possible it goes that got good i agree with alan. let me just say that falling down the stairs and 47% the american people won't vote for you, none of those moments are game changers. and so, debates rarely change the outcome of elections. but what did you do is change the paul right after the debate. you don't have to pay attention to send. but on the example is a great

one because he was good people supporting romney after the 47% comment that into undecided. people moved into undecided on the news is like romney, this hurt him. it's a game changer. 10 days later i sat to his campaign manager come you guys are brilliant. you orchestrate a double ring. 10 days later he had an amazing performance that obama funded in part and all the news was that romney had a great night. he went back up in the polls and he was searching the debate was the game changer. you saw those people who have panels that we knew. all those people who moved away from him to undecided after 47% in the bag to him after the first debate. there has been no change at all. polls can move that the outcome. >> lynchers proved why you can't predict the election by following the day-to-day events,

the ups and downs of the polls. under 93 weeks ago, the gold standard addiction was saying 65% to 45% job. now it's heavily clinton. you can't predict. i also want to briefly talk about donald trump's comments about the second amendment people and why it's so dangerous. he tried to explain this away by saying i was only saying we want unified people to vote a certain way. that is not what he said. he was talking about after the election when hillary clinton was already president and is making supreme court elections. how can we stop that? nothing to do with voting or unifying people for the vote. it was clearly an invitation for the second amendment people, those who love guns to do something about it.

why is that so dangerous? not because you and i are going to take a gun and shoot someone. what has trump spent up in this country? the worst and most dangerous politics, the white supremacist, the ku klux klan. david duke has had trump has made this my time. all of those groups are encouraged by the trump campaign. it does not strain credulity to think of some of those people might interpret what donald trump said. that is why it was so despicable in so dangerous and in my view out to be disqualified for the president. we have not seen anything remotely like this in our history. [applause] >> and a jump in real fast. i think it is important to keep in mind as to think about these things that i said this earlier that donald trump is that creating these attitudes. they do exist in the united states. people at. people kind of a separation anxiety. we can trace this back to the

beginning of polling. what donald trump has demonstrated is that payoff from this kind of explicit racial and a text messaging or dictate messaging. he's demonstrated that payoff for doing that. the white non-college-educated men moving towards him. mitt romney and john mccain could have gone to that same explicit messaging and they were running against the first but then nominated in the united states. they were in an environment where there would've been more of a payoff for going there. both of those candidates are on record. you can talk to them or their advisers saying they were not willing to do that. they were not going to win the vague promise that i had to look up in the morning and we are not winning by playing the race card. what alan is saying is donald

trump is not a member of this class of professional politicians. you referenced it, too. you said honest or genuine. whether it is genuine or enact, there is a set of norms that politicians adhere to. you can see on the floor of congress, but he's a businessman. and so, a lot of what we see as coming from the fact that he is not of this group. >> i couldn't disagree more. i have to say. >> when they finish one sentence. >> is way off. >> i want to finish this one sentence to say people does their age politicians all the time. this moment actually make me sick that and say that professional politicians may be deserved slightly more respect than they traditionally given them. >> i cannot explain donald trump by saying he's not a professional politician. we have had nonprofessional

politicians before run for office. we had wendell wilkie, the republican nominee in 1942 was exactly like ella trump, a businessman who had never run for office, never held office and he ran an exemplary campaign. i began sprinkling roosevelt. he had no chance to win. he never appealed to the darker natures in america. dwight eisenhower was hardly a professional politician. he too ran an exemplary campaign. where do you disagree with with dwight eisenhower or others who can't do math at the political class believed they did not come remotely close to stirring up the emotions that donald trump has. i don't think donald trump is explicable at all by saying he is outside the political class. he is outside any reasonable class of human beings.

[applause] >> is a big stack and will try to get through as many as we can. do you think the election is anyway affect did by gop leaders away from trump? >> i do think that will have some impact. i actually think if we were seated what we are seeing in the last two weeks back and out sober up 2015, a little bit of the shine could have come up culture but rather appear more coordination among republican elites a year ago. >> given what we now know, do you think sanders would have had a better chance against trump and clinton? >> i can answer that. i don't do that kind of thing. >> no, i don't think so. >> is there anything that republican could have done to

foil trumps rice? >> as i was saying before, the coordination from the lack of ordination, if you look at the advice they were making a year ago, they are buying time for attack advertising that they were all attacking each other. that's when they started attacking donald trump. march. >> i don't think there's anything they could have done to stop donald trump because that donald trump supporters weren't listening to those people anyway. in fact, last august when everyone was missing donald trump is on the air saying you cannot dismiss donald trump because he is saying but a substantial as segment of the republican base want to hear, but that the other politicians are afraid to say and that is why donald trump had so much appealed and there's nothing that jeb bush is the world could done about that in my view.

>> why does the republican party continue to support tribe in you think there is a limit? >> so this is an interesting question. they take a pledge and say they are going to support them. he becomes the nominee. what do you do? i think plenty of people is held back and a lot of people is that they won't vote for him. if this had been happening earlier, things might have shaped up a little bit differently. i don't know how much differently. at the end of the day, there has to still be a party. contrary to what you might think him that there is no master puppeteer out there telling people in the party what to do. donald trump is back to tea party, not tea party evangelical, not evangelical

with a broken vista should the republican party. if he wins, i am not sure what happened. but they have to be worried about the house and the senate. >> i will answer the questions in two words. two words only. supreme court. if there weren't maybe as many as three supreme court nominations open, you would see much more massive defections come the probably even paul ryan and mitch mcconnell. ..

those are formidable candidates with a lot of political experience. >> there was a summit shadow candidate riding the white horse. what you see is what you get. >> in terms of either candidate, trump tower candidate, do you feel the entry of three of the candidates shifts the balance? >> i think it's too early to tell. i don't feel like i've a good read on what that's going to go just yet. i think if it ends up being more than two people in the first debate, that could be very interesting. >> that looks unlikely. 15%. nowhere near that. the liquid rule is you take what the candidates are pulling, third party candidates and you slice it in half.

so if johnson pulling six, 7% you might expect three to 4%. why? the wasted vote syndrome. if these are to tell a pollster i'm going to vote for gary johnson. nothing ventured nothing lost. you get into the polling place and say i love you, terry johnson, but you can't win some going to vote for someone else. ross perot in 1992 at one point was outpolling both clinton and bush. he was at 40%. he finished at 19 and that's typical. >> well, he dropped out. took a walk. >> no third party candidate ever in the debates. >> what is your personal hope for the outcome of the elections? >> how about you? >> i outpolling for trump.

>> well, personally as a political scientist writing a book about the election, my personal hope is that continues to be really interesting. that's not what you want to know. i'll tell you what i told my mother last week. my mother who is 87 and has watched her for seven political conventions. she's not very interested in politics so she's been watching the this is an interesting this election is. she said to me, i don't know, like, what do you think? this is amusing to me. i had the privilege and honor of hosting hillary clinton at ucla in 2014 when she came and spoke at the lecture on file leadership. that was a career highlight for me. so i said to my mom, wouldn't it be great if i got to tell people for the rest of my life that i got to interview the first woman to become president of the united states?

i guess that's what i was say. >> you should go into politics. [laughter] >> if one candidate is a manifestly incoherent dangerously mentally unfit not case -- [laughter] -- does not overturn all the keys? [laughter] >> now. does not. spent i explain how trump affects the keys. this has never happened before, that an opposition candidate has affected any of the keys. but in this astute audience, this brilliant audience, you all explain to me that trump has negated the effects of what otherwise would've been a divisive and bitter democratic context. perhaps something only donald trump could have done. >> so what can be done, or can

anything be done to improve expectation and cooperation and compromise in congress? >> i know we are talking about the presidency. >> i think that, i don't want this to sound hokey, but it does kind of start with the candidates who get nominated in primers for open seats in congress. i really think whatever the systemic problem is with the people who are in the chamber right now, that problem distinctive. to change the culture we have to change the people. you need to, if you got the people you think should be running for congress in your neighborhood, in your districts, i know this sounds hokey but you've got to talk them into run for congress. >> you are not going to run? >> i'm not going to run.

but i will talk you into running. i think we really do have to change the set of people. because as long as the republican party has this tea party, non-tea party divide, it's going to be very hard to have brokers like ted kennedy and john mccain working across the aisle, even people like dan quayle who had bipartisan, co-partisan bills. i just think that's an era we have lost. >> think what our politics have come to when you are rooting for dan quayle. [laughter] >> okay. we'll put you on the spot, allan. did you expect or predict donald trump to win the gop nomination? >> my system does not predict nominations. in august i was on record when

every other pundit was saying he was going to fade, that i thought donald trump was the most likely candidate to win the republican nomination. and everybody thought i was nuts. >> i think somewhat similar to the one i asked, but how can you evaluate a campaign where one candidate keeps breaking the boundaries of what is acceptable and/or normal? >> great question. i mentioned this in my remarks and i forgot to come back to it. when i put up a slide that said this election is meant to be close. i told you the in equilibrium part was important that's what this question is asking. i take all of those numbers since the new deal and i look at what they mean, and i can make a prediction for where that red dot, where 2016 is going to be, based on the growth rate in the six months of this election year but that is assuming the

equilibrium that we are typically in in every presidential election year, which is to well-qualified, typical, not always, to highly qualified candidates equally financed writing really hard because they want to win. that's the equilibrium where making a prediction in. if someone comes along and doesn't have any money, never runs the tv ad, says all sorts of unusual and provocative things just to get in the news, all the other thing you guys have said, people always ask me, when obama ran to his and this time different? because he's the first black man come in 2012. isn't this the time different? maybe people would say this about this election because of hillary clinton being a woman but it's a different because of donald trump that they are not saying that. i always say no. part of what i do is try to generalize, to take data and be able to tell an overarching story. so we have this urge to generalize to something we can use to make predictions.

i always want to say no, no, this time is not going to be different if we're in the equilibrium. but i think we might not be in 2016. so i'm willing to say this time might be different. >> is there any positive impact of the trump candidacy speak with if you're a democrat. i mean -- [laughter] >> by the way, i think hillary clinton has got to be incredibly lucky. according to what both o of you have second she shrunk the worst campaign based upon what you both said because she's using comes words against them rather than addressing the underlying reasons for the anger for why people support him and supported bernie sanders. >> i don't know about that. some days i wake up and i say, if you were hillary clinton right now you are saying i am the luckiest person in the world. sometimes i wake up and i think she sang this guy is a loose cannon and i don't going to do today and i'm the most unlucky.

how about some predictability? i don't know whether how she feels about it but -- >> do you think it is -- >> i have this project in the field right now called spotcheck were i am testing these ads in real-time. it's all on the web. if you google my name and spotcheck you will find it. what actually works the best is when, it's not one of hers, but his republican superb tackle our principles back and they had women just average every two women reading from ipads at iphones quotes that donald trump said about women. he might have seen this. it's worth checking out. they are offensive. offensive statements your what at first donald trump more than anything else i tested, and so i think that's why you're seeing her do it. it is effective. >> what the second amendment

people do in the face of a rigged election? [laughter] >> donald trump said today, not today but recently went a reporter pushed upon what did he mean by rigged, they eventually got to the point where trump said people voting multiple times. reporter, how many? 10 times. >> ten times? >> he said 15 times today. >> if you're not voting 15 times you are not living up to the civic expectations. >> i was the expert witness in all of those, most of them, texas, north carolina, virginia, wisconsin, and we look into the question of whether people were voting multiple times or impersonating someone, and your chances, even in southern california, of being hit by lightning are vastly higher than the chances of anyone impersonating someone or voting multiple times. do you know why it doesn't happen?

three years in prison. who is going to risk three years in prison to cast one impersonating vote when your chances of being caught are about 25% goes that is about the percentage of people who recognize people who come to the polls. this is a complete red herring issue. and four courts have now weighed in on this including the most conservative appeals court in the country, the fifth circuit down in louisiana. they have all come to the same conclusion that these old id laws are not justified by claims of fraud. so donald trump is making this up out of whole cloth, imagine that. >> is polarization such that polls will become much less elastic and volatile from here on out? >> i don't think so. i think if you asked me this question in '08 and 12 i might've said maybe, yes.

because party of indication is such an anchor. in '08 and 12 we have these long paneled, panels of data, a lot of people them as the december the before the election what is your party id, who are you going to vote for? over 90% of both sides tell us that there will person from the party and then when they go back to them the end up doing it. so the swing in the election, people moving around, is maybe 13%, maybe a little more than that. i might've thought the stability was the story. vision makes me think, we see a lot of volatility in the polls recently in the last two weeks, makes me think when you get an exceptional candidate like this, when you get party elites denouncing that candidate endorsing the opposition, the other party, that you can shake people off that party identification in a way that

honors is a little surprising to me. >> when i watched the rallies, you talk about uneducated white man come and trump did say i love the poorly educated, but i don't see them at these rallies. i see kind of middle-class republicans. >> i have been to a trump rally, and it's hard to say really. i can't say that the crowd felt much different to me from, i went to a ted cruz event, the trump event. it was at that notice whatever. it might've been a little i thought maybe the teenage older. >> will democrats get back the senate? will hillary clinton be a one-term president? >> i will let you -- have

appalled the senate. >> the election is sweeping, so we can expect there to be coattails on the democratic candidates win. she will bring in members of congress and members of the senate upper party. this is a well-established pattern. one of these things has really generalizable. you bring people into congress when you win in the election, presidential election year, then there's this reverse and the anti-off your party loses seats. we call the surge and decline. we are likely to see a democratic search if hillary clinton wins. the question is if she wins a day, how much, how they cannot surge be? i suspect it can be pretty big. >> allan, here's one for you. is trump truly a president? was there anyone like him in all of u.s. history? >> all of u.s. history?

i can think of one figured he wasn't a major party candidate. he was an independent candidate. he did really well though for independent candidate. he got 13% of the vote. pop quiz. does anyone know who i'm thinking of? 1968. george wallace. george wallace was very close to what donald trump is doing. he also campaigned on inciting a lot of ethnic and racial issues. he campaigned as a complete outsider. in fact, one of his favorite targets was us pointy-headed professors who tried to to them what to do but can't even park our bicycles straight. [laughter] >> so how will the relationship between china and the u.s. be if clinton wins? i would think the question would be if trump wins, wouldn't it?

>> on the expert on that. i'll defer. >> that's a little outside both of our speeded out of anyone who would dare to say anything about that would be wrong anyway. try to predict what china is going to do, good luck. >> do you think gary johnson can get in the debates? >> again to i think it's tough. the presidential debates are different than the primary debates. those are hosted and put on by television networks, sometimes msnbc, cnn, fox. the presidential debates are organized by the commission on presidential debates which is bipartisan, have some democrats, some republicans. it's been in existence for a long time. ththere are all these rules abot how you get in. highly negotiated set of atmospherics of representatives from both campaigns. 15% is the number you have to be polling. there are some other criteria that off the top of my head i don't know what they are. i think it's a bit of a tougher road. >> i agree.

the bigger question is will donald trump debate? he set up the possibility of his not debating. again not only is the election rigged but the debates were rigged, somehow said they were rigged by the democratic national committee. nothing to do at the debate. it's the commission. republicans and democrats. he's already said i'm only going to debate under conditions. he hasn't said what those conditions are. i agree. i doubt if gary johnson would in the debates. i'm not certain. >> i think if i remember correctly, if he doesn't want to show up, that's fine but then she gets the stage for however long, 90 minutes. so i think that's the rule. >> i don't know. >> i'm not sure about that. >> she would be remiss if you didn't take advantage of that situation. >> she will.

>> why hasn't trump not been accused of treason for encouraging russia to hack democratic computers, and why is trump not been arrested for inciting assassination of clinton after the election? >> you are throwing that one to me? check out my article in the "new york daily news." you can just google lichtman daily news. i didn't say he committed treason but it did say he was advocating a violation of federal law. because he didn't simply say if you have the russians, if you have hillary clinton's e-mails, release of them. he said go find those e-mails. the only way you can find those e-mails, assuming you can at all, i don't know if they exist, these two hack into her private e-mail server which is a violation of the communications director so violations of a federal law punishable by five years in prison. he was breaking the law not

under -- i'm not low enough to say, but certainly he was advocating a foreign power to break a federal law. first candidate i know of ever to advocate a foreign power meddling in our election. ever since george washington asked the meddling french ambassador to get out of this country back in the 1790s. we have stood staunchly against foreign believe in our elections until this year. absolutely extraordinary as far as what he said, i have given my commentary on what he said about the second amendment folks. if you had said that, you would be in some interrogation room with the lights in your eyes and 6'6" secret service agents in your face. >> what about hacking the elections? >> i think that is a really scary prospect, hacking the elections. if they can hack, people attacked the defense department. i've got to tell you these

voting machines are nowhere near as secure, probably not even as secure as the dnc. who knows? the possibly of the russians hacking in, while small, is not zero and that's a pretty frightening thought. federal officials are well aware of that. i'm not a computer expert. i don't know what precautions they're taking but they're treating this as a homeland security issue. and treating the security around elections as an acute big issue for which protections have to be taken a who will do whatever putin wants to do and doesn't care what anyone else thinks or anyone says. does that sound a little familiar? >> i may be the pollyanna of this group, but i'm not willing to believe that the united states secret service changes its protocol on threats to a principle because that person is a nominee. i'm not willing to believe that. >> it was sufficiently ambiguous.

>> it was spitting maybe it was, maybe it was an. was, maybe it wasn't. i guarantee you if a private citizen, they would've in some jeopardy. the federal government does not like the bureaucracy to interfere with the presidential campaign. you're right, political candidates to have a lot of latitude that is not given to us ordinary citizens. >> here's the question for you. i myself am puzzled by this because a lot of my lefty women friends hate hillary clinton with a passion. how do you explain the extreme hatred of hillary clinton? does not matter for the election? spewing this is one of my favorite questions. how do you explain the animus people feel for hillary clinton? someone asked me this last week at a forum i get.

i just want to say really? like you were around in the 1990s. she's not an un-bruised candidate. whether or not you love her or hate her, immigrant or republic, a big fat whatever, but you have to admit that she has a history that is, there are patterns there that are just somewhat troubling. i think that is why she's a little bit of a lightning rod, but not always. the other important point is that she had very high approval ratings when she was secretary of state. a lot of what you see now with the-favorables is brought out by the campaign. they knew that was going to happen. everybody knows when you get in a political contest that partisanship takes in, and so -- >> do you think misogyny is kicking in? >> there is a gender difference here for sure. you can see in the daily and

talk about these ads are going to go watch this ad that's called quotes with the root women reading the statement, i wrote about this in the time and so you can go read the piece and see obligated, but there are very different reactions to this ad by ginger. -- gender. women really hate donald trump. men are not as move to hate him because of all these horrible things that he is saying about women. and so i think that a lot of it. i think the dislike of hillary is that driven by much as gender, i'm not so sure about that. >> do you think donald trump as fundamentally and corporately changed the way that politics and the media interact? i would add, the only beneficiaries of our broken political system are the media.

the 5 billion this election is going to cost. most of that will go to the mainstream media. >> local television. that's not a bad thing. >> but they are affiliates usually. >> the local stations are going to make a lot of money that's not a bad thing. if you like your local news, like this is, okay. do i think he has changed the relationship? i think so but probably not in the way that you think. some of my reporter buddies were telling me that this thing about how the media has made donald trump kind of pushes their buttons because they just don't want to cover these candidates. that is their job. what does he do? he calls them. sitting around, you'r your prodr for the morning show at cnn and donald trump culture appeared you were talking of this thing right now, how about putting me on? he makes himself so accessible. one of my friend said, we are doing a forum like this a couple

of months ago and he said, i will prove to you. i will get to my cell phone right now. we will call of donald trump it i guarantee before this panel is over he will call me back personally. so he made himself so accessible to them, whereas elder clinton hasn't talked to reporters in months. that's attention for the. should do not cover truck innovate making himself accessible because clinton will not talk to them? it may be think differently about how much coverage you got and is that a rule change for going forward i think what future cards have it is you want to own the new cycle, make yourself available. >> right. he's taken for immediate to extraordinary heights. frankly, i watch it because i'm expecting a train wreck and i think most people do. spent nobody watches for the -- >> why do people watch nascar? >> yes, we are past the witching

hour. i'm sorry about -- did c-span shut us down? those we could get you. i'd like to mention your that the final debate live october 19 to whether or not donald trump is on stage. so i thank both of you joining us here tonight. >> thank you. [applause] ♪ ♪ [inaudible conversations]

>> three years after a supreme court ruling overturned part of the voting rights act, courts across the country struck down a number of state laws saying they discriminate against specific groups of voters. saturday night c-span's issue spotlight will feature part of the 2013 supreme court oral argument in shelby versus holder. members of congress look at whether to restore the voting rights act. plus a discussion on whether the voting rights act is necessary. is what the presidential candidates have to say. >> all the photo id nowadays a lot of places are not going to go to id. what does that mean? what does it mean for you just keep walking in the voting? >> what is happening is a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchised people of color, poor people, and young people from one end of our

country to the other. >> watch our issue spotlight on voting rights saturday night at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org. >> today maryland senator ben cardin on cybersecurity and an innovative economy. he speaks at the association of county summer conference. live coverage at 1 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> monday marks the 20th anniversary of the 1996 welfare law passed by a republican congress and signed by president bill clinton. our special program looks back at the senate debate over the 1996 law. spirit the current welfare system has failed the very families it was intended to serve. >> i don't know many people who watch -- what do you militate themselves, standing in line

waiting for the welfare check. the are druggies and drunks. they are out there. there's no question about it, but a lot of those people are simply people who have not yet discovered a way out of their misery and their poverty. >> we decided the state and the governors and legislatures out there in america are as concerned about the poor as we are, as concerned about their well being and as concerned if not more so than we are about the status of welfare in their states. >> and includes discussions on how the changes impacted the poor. >> from now on our nation's answer to this great social child's will no longer be a never ending cycle of welfare. it will be the dignity, the power and the ethical work. today we're taking an historic chance to make welfare what it was meant to be, a second chance, not a way of life.

>> monday night at nine eastern on c-span. >> earlier this year defense secretary ashton carter named eric schmidt the chairman of the newly formed defense department innovation advisory board. next, the former ceo of google talks about innovation and technology's impact on the economy. he was interviewed by journalist charlie rose. >> good afternoon, everybody. welcome to the 453rd meeting of the economic club of new york in our 109th year. and bill dudley, chairman of the economic club in new york in president of the federal reserve bank of new york. the economic club is the nation's leading nonpartisan forum for speeches on economics, social and political issues. more than 1000 promised speakers

have appeared before this club over the last century and we've established a strong tradition of excellence. i want to recognize the 232 members of the centennial society. these club members make an extraordinary contribution to ensure the financial stability of the club as we go into its second century. their names are in your programs. i would like to welcome students that are here from columbia university, hunter college, nyu, school of business, university of pennsylvania and southern methodist university. this afternoon were honored to be able to have as our guest speaker eric schmidt, executive chairman of alphabet inc. in this role the ask as the firm's global ambassador with responsibility for the external matters pertaining to all its businesses including google. these responds does have taken him to all corners of the world including visits to cuba, north

korea and saudi arabia to promote open internet access. in his role he advises the senior leadership of alphabet on business and policy issues. joining google in 2001 eric help grow the company from a silicon valley startup to a global leader in technology. he served at google's chief executive officer of 2001-2011, and its chairman from 2011-2015 part to google hit leadership roles in novell and sun microsystems and holds a bachelors degree in electrical engineering from princeton university as well as a masters degree in computer science from university of california, berkeley. is a member of the president's council of advisors on science and technology. is also a writer, author of the new digital age and how google works. he serves on the boards of the mayo clinic and the broad institute. is a gulfstream pilot and his

philanthropic efforts through the schmidt family foundation focus on climate change. so welcome. we are quite fortunate the data as our interviewer ali rose, anchor and executive editor of charlie rose, a nightly one hour program. and the newly launched charlie rose, the week. as many of you know he also co-anchor cbs this morning and is a contributing correspondent for 60 minutes. so let the conversation begin, charlie, and eric. the floor is yours. [applause] >> thank you very much. it's honor to be here and to be with my friend, eric schmidt who i've known for a long, long time. back when he was the chief technologist at sun microsystems trying to explain to me what java was will about the remember those days? >> i do. >> bill said it well about what

eric represents. i looked at the paper today. there's a story about google and others in europe, story about this investment in google. you can look it in the paper today and there are three or four stories about technology affecting our laws. we did a program about artificial intelligence and virtual assistance. everywhere we go great companies are becoming technology companies. eric has been central to that revolution. i don't know what google has become, the second richest company in the world, what he has done and his partners have done is to help us understand the power of technology. he feels strongly, and so do i, about how essential it is to this country to make sure it treats with urgency and with a sense of commitment to all that technology can do for us. i know that's a central concert of this.

let me begin with a couple of questions. when you went to google, they say to you, we need an adult in the room. [laughter] because it was a good day for you. >> it was a good day for me. it's an honor to be here. thank you very much for inviting me. thank you for doing this as well. larry and sergey decided they need someone to sort of run things. they had spent 60 much anything people and they made them do things. so to become ceo you had to go skiing with them or you had to go to burning man with them. [laughter] and very, very few people met the test apparently. i was fortunate enough. i told her i wasn't going to spend a weekend with them but we made along list of things to do. >> ten years as ceo eric what was most important thing that happened in those 10 years for you, for the company as you see?

>> my world is full of good ideas that are not monetized double come into since people are amazing ideas. in order to build a company of the success of a google or facebook or uber jeff knupp both a technological idea but you have to have a significant change in the way the revenue will come in. in our case we intended targeted advertising which is much better than i'm targeted advertising and that's what happened. we wrote that really, really hard. that gave us this engine, in the same since microsoft data engine from dos and windows, go back to the '80s. we do this engine that has allowed us to build these systems not necessarily with a particular revenue plan. we have been able to fill a the projects without too much of an issue with shareholders. because of the underlying engine we can take risks, invest in ideas and crazy ideas, things that i don't think the work of the work that they don't.

i learned that's not normal. most companies are locked in these quarterly cycles, death structure and so forth which gives them very few degrees of freedom and it's tough for them. >> today, what is the role that you have? >> i am mostly working on science. i've spent a lot of time as you know on public policy, trying to understand, to make sure frankly the government wouldn't screw this amazing thing that's happening up come in the form of the internet. >> is the risk for that? >> of course. whenever you are affecting communications, government has a role to play. we have a significant battle if he will with china. the democracies are generally okay. as long as you o on the side of informing people and you are recently their. >> will google be back in china and? >> i hope so.

we left in 2010 because the heavy favorite strict rules about censorship and we just were unable to operate morally from our perspective under the censorship rules. we keep trying. i spent a fair amount of my time trying to get we open. it's really up to the chinese government. >> i want to talk about the issue which is restored to you. we want to talk about the future. the notion of the moonshot. we are looking at intention as an example which joe biden is heading up. what is the possibility that a moonshot could do -- >> maybe i should say i have come to an obnoxious view that we are operating under this zero-sum set of assumptions in our society. i'm including western world, not just the u.s. we are not asking the of our people and were not kind of the things that are transformative. go back to the interstate highway system. which was originally justified

so they could move missiles around. alike the interstate highway system wisconsin or not to go at all. economic growth, the economic love is largest interconnectedness and innovation. making the world closer. i mean that intellectually and informationally and physically anticipation networks and all the things that companies represented in this room do. new inventions come along. every once in a while there are things which we have a consensus. if we would just get behind it, we call these moonshot. the vice president did a cancer moonshot. sean parker just donated $250 million to a set of doctors who have figured out a way to promote white blood cells against red blood cells an and a coveted new way that might be a very major cancer breakthrough. these things, along the way to talk about the we spend our time arguing about political issues which are largely not that

important compared to how to resolve these massive problems. they can be solved. the two biggest things that are going on i think in the world i see is this incredible revolution in medicine and incredible revolution going on in dallas. the two of them become the basis for many of the things that we can do. a cancer moonshot is powered because we've had these cancer brake shoes -- breakthroughs. >> do you think there's a consensus to do that? >> will the criticism is that we have gone from an era when we thought about solving problems that were very, very big, and we've now become, we've now defined them as special interest. everyone is guilty. i'm not making it political point the everyone has their own issue. let's dream bigger.

let me give an example. 3-d printing of buildings. we now think we can start to build whole buildings with 3-d printers. dramatically lower the cost of housing. does that matter? we all have houses. doesn't really matter? it matters enormously to all of the people. another example, synthetic food. we have lots of food. we don't need to work on that. of course, not. in fact, 10% of the global warming contributions come essentially out of cows. i call this nerds over cows, that cattle, their wonderful animals but there are significant source of pollution. even if you don't care about the cost of food which many people do, looks like we can do synthetic the generation of the plans with quite a positive comment case could come it works. i can go one. >> in terms of the central

philosophy is for government to provide an investment in the future by investing in research and science, are somehow to unleash the private sector to be able to do this or are these problems too big? >> it's more of a consensus. the country is full of smart people, shocking. furthermore when you compared to europe and asia were i spent a lot of time, i want to be here. let's start with that. why i want to be your is we've 18 out of the top 20 research universities in the world. our demographics are such that we are would. we are relatively open to immigration to the kind of model that got us through the last 30 or 40 years is stronger now than ever. we don't want to admit it but compared the other model, i will take hours. we need to focus on it. we need to agree to roughly what these projects are. they need to build a consensus. i don't think it takes a lot more money.

there's lots of money. is how do you apply it. >> let me talk about revolutions. it was the industrial revolution and the information revolution. where are we now and what's the next revolution? >> i mentioned our two phenomena that will be transform it in the next decade. the first is in health, biology and the second is dollars. health and biology there's been a breakthrough something called -- away to essentially, at the moment a very, very tough hammer. the use a piece of genes that they didn't think were useful, turned out to be very useful to reassemble components. it's a gene editing in its basic form. the combination of that and then doing databases of genes and sequencing and so forth allowed us to probe into the molecular biological structure of life. it's true within the next 10 or 20 years you'll be able to get a body part generated out of stem

cells that come out of your blood. and exploited achievement. >> -- extraordinary achievement. the politics were just over a stupid argument. the core issue is unique and a body part, we can regenerate it from your own cells. that's life-saving for people who need transplants. let's go through, this is the real combat. your friend is dying to this that fixes it. why are we not doing more of it? the core point here is the combination of all of that is current. why is it a prank was partly because technologists and scientists see this but also there's a great deal of money at stake. the health care industry sees new treatments as new sources of revenue and new billion dollar drug. you've got a good alignment now economic interest, venture money. this stuff is risky. venture capitalists, some will

make a fortune, someone was money. information, google is working very, very hard on the concept of an assistant. the way the assistant works is the assisted, this is all opted in with your permission and so forth, it uses all of the knowledge that google has generated. we have a knowledge grafter we understand have language is spoken. we have 17 years of queries to help you out. one of the first versions is what goes with instant messaging app which can reply for you. it learns what to say. our first foray on this was an e-mail project which would automatically reply to do. i served what he wants this product, right? we launched this and the most common reply is i love you last night which turned out not to be the correct answer in a corporate setting. [laughter] we have bugs, so forth and so

on. >> let me stop you there for one second. the idea of a virtual assistant coming out of artificial intelligence is, everybody is trying to do that. amazon already is on the market with ago. common people get up and see what time is it? what's the news? you have all of the major companies are there. i assume that competition will be good for the end product, but is google behind the curve on that? >> we have, we just announced a product with a different technology. we will see how well it does. this is how the industry works. we are far more collaborative than competitive. added that he wants to focus on apple, versus google or whatever. the fact of the matter is the whole ecosystem moves forward. it is building those platforms and building the knowledge. i think it's reasonable to expect come in a decade the vast majority of your computer