we will take one more question i guess and then close. you in the front. >> i would like to ask something in regard to not voting because of ignorance. so, what i'm wondering is why would you promote not voting instead of providing being informed, educating yourself and being ongoing, how's that better >> being educated on all of the issues, so not just the presidential election, but the down ballot except that jim is big on is extraordinarily time-consuming and has a lot of opportunity costs. there are plenty of issues that i don't have enough knowledge on

to say that i could vote in uninformed way one way or the other and i spent 40 hours a week doing this stuff. so, i think that that-- and the costs, the problem with feigned to the ignorance of voter become informed us that it means giving up a lot of things in their lives that they could be doing otherwise that are probably important to them and probably more importance to them than that affected their single vote. >> and the ignorant voter question relates to the local government question. there are concerns i have of local government that i might vote, but i don't know enough about it to vote and i have other things to do with my time that i consider virtuous and okay. errands taking care of his kids and take guns to school. if like i could learn everything about this ballot or take my daughter to piano practice and people make those trade-offs in

different way, which is why there is ignorant voter's. >> i think we should move to closing statements. gym, your promised a killer close, so deliver. >> i gave the expectations, wrongly. i said i do not like the result of democracy and when i say that i'm talking about the war on drugs and particularly its impact on minority communities. of the warmaking that is a constant feature of the united states policy, mass surveillance and the list goes on and on. but, that is not a reason to not to vote. i think you have got to live in the world. persuasion is the name of the game. when i worked on capitol hill, some professors came in doing-- i was doing tech policy and professors came in and said in 20 years the whole thing will be regulation. forget about cable or telephone and satellite will all just the bits and my colleague and i sat

looked at them a kind of last. what you have just saw was a solid 5% of the problem, figuring out what the right answer is in the united 5% of the problem is getting people to come along with you. getting a bill passed in congress. we know a lot of the answers we think in the libertarian community and the other 95% of the problem is getting people to come with us. we also say that the people who have the power now and the people who use this power of democracy in ways we don't like have that power because they have solved of the collective action problem on facebook, tv, individually, they are all saying get out and vote. get out and vote. they are not doing these precise calculations about whether it is rational or efficient. they are all voting and they will turn around next year and start telling us something they want to do in another realm that i won't like. so, join me in solving this collective action problem. join me in voting for the

candidate of your choice. >> that was a killer close. [applause]. >> i think we have a little bit less in our closing statement, so i went to answer two questions on the first one is, is voting wrong i think the answer is no. i think voting badly is wrong, but voting itself is not wrong. is not voting wrong? well, i don't think it's so wrong that we should be publicly shaming people if they choose not to vote especially if they are likely to vote badly, but if you are libertarian who want to influence people and influence policy outcomes then yeah, i think not voting is wrong because you are reducing your influence. you are reducing your ability to affect policy outcome. i think aaron's answer to my hypothetical question about that , the women who have been the fire and says it will you

vote for me, it illustrates why because that was-- i think it is actually correct that you are devoting your career to trying to expand human liberties. but, i think to the next three voters in the time you took to give that answer whereas a simple yet, i vote and i care about what you care about would have gotten a lot farther. >> so, we will ask you now to deliver your closing statements and after that we will close. >> this has been a lot of fun. i went to placate few closing ideas. first, mike's entire argument is only an argument about line for arguing, so combined both of us together and lie and say you did. second, jim harper's argument about being a rational calculator, i asked them how many times in the last 10 years

they have written their congressman, gone to local school board meeting, voted in a primary, voted in a local election, all of these things back can matter on jim's calculus. writing your congressman matters a lot. we are having this debate about what affected this is an instead we should be saying why did you do that, jim. one reason he wouldn't do it is because you have a collator that's not worth the cost of this whole voting thing comes up and we spent time on this when we should be talking about other things. sliding over into this thing that voting matters. that's a triple early true that -- [inaudible] >> if you have it against her conscience you don't have to vote. it's also okay for libertarians to vote. don't vote. to vote. it makes to oh difference to us. if you do go, don't let it, it's

what you stand for. who cares that it wants matter. it matters deeply to you and it should. if you don't vote, don't sweat it. take your kid to the park. right to the congressman. stick it to the man and become a uber driver. having a mature conversation about the limitations of voting has been official and many ways it's long overdue. principles are difficult thing to have in the world of politics a principled politician is usually an unemployed one. >> if you are a libertarian, please don't forget we stand for and that's liberty. democracy in voting is not the same thing as liberty. yes, democracy look like they promote liberty more than some of the alternatives, but they can easily go astray and when they do, those in government usually cite the people as

justification. maybe they consciously not voting and being able to explain to others why you are not voting , we can change not just the policies for existing government, but people's belief about government. we can say that there are better more meaningful ways to achieve prosperity and peace and justice we don't need to resort to the state every time we see a problem and we can convince them the state is very often the wrong way to solve those problems. in a sense, the problem with voting practice today that people take it too seriously as a means for governance. they invested with too much meaning. when abstaining does not make things worse and voting does not make things better, by making the principled choice not to purchase a bacon a false show public spirited in this we could take some of the air at a big governments balloon. just because everyone is

creating the emperor's clothes doesn't mean you have to. thank you. >> thank you. [applause]. >> i'm not unaware of the irony of asking who won this debate and asking you all to a photon that question. however, if i might have a show of hands for the affirmative? for the affirmative? and for the negative? i think i'm going to call it for the affirmative. how many here changed their mind and which direction did you change your mind towards? i saw one hand go this way and one hand go that way and one hand not move. [inaudible] >> well, maybe you want more

than you realize and. in any event, we can continue to discuss this at the reception, which i believe is one of floor down in the lobby; correct? great. thank you. [applause]. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> 34 senate seats are up for grabs tomorrow in the cook political report says only one current democratic seat is a toss up in the senate, held by retiring senator harry reid in nevada and other republican side six seats are considered tossups in indiana with

senator dan coats, missouri's roy blunt, new hampshire is considered tossups and in north carolina richard burr, seat held by pennsylvania senator pat toomey and also senator ron johnson c in wisconsin also considered a tossup. the senate has 54 rick-- republicans currently and two independents who caucus with the democrats. of the seats up for reelection, 24 are held by republicans and 10 by democrats. five senators are retiring including minority leader harry reid of nevada, 24 california democrat barbara boxer and 16 year independent republican dan coats. in the house 246 members are republican, 186 democrats and three vacant seats and all 435 members are up for election. 45 members not seeking reelection or 24 other offices including new york democrat charlie wrangle and to republican chairs, veteran affairs committee chair and education committee chair john kline a

minnesota. election night on c-span. the results and be part of a national conversation about the outcome. be a location at the hillary clinton and donald trump election night headquarters and watch victory and concession speeches in key senate passed the governor's races starting live at 8:00 p.m. eastern and throughout the following 24 hours. watch live on c-span, on-demand on c-span.org or listen to our live coverage using that c-span free radio. a debate now with alaska u.s. senate candidates for public incumbent lisa murkowski, democrat ray metcalfe as well as independent candidates took they talk about abortion, supreme court nomination, foreign policy in the healthcare law. alaska public media posted this today and it's about an hour.

>> alaska public media presents debate for the state, election 2016. the alaska race for the united states senate and now here's your moderator, alaska public media news director. >> good evening and welcome to alaska public media debate for the state. tonight is the final face-off among candidates for u.s. senate. republican incumbent, lisa murkowski is the chair of the senate energy and natural resources committee. democrat ray metcalfe is a real estate broker and former state lawmaker. independent margaret sought is an immigration attorney. also, joel-- joe miller is a libertarian, attorney and army

veteran who won the republican primary for this seat in 2010. i'm lori townsend, news director for alaska public media and i will moderate this evening. we will begin with a series of questions from our journalists, panelists and senior news reporter. we are in anchorage, simulcasting on public radio and television. we will also air video questions from alaskans in fairbanks and doing him and if time allows we may have a question-- [inaudible] >> your questions-- answers will be time to. the first round is 60 seconds and lisa murkowski has the first question. >> mr. miller, you have run for senate twice as republican. why didn't you file as a

republican this year and repeat in the republican primary? >> you know, i was honored she received the unanimous endorsement of a libertarian board of directors, of the libertarian party. they had their nominee step aside. i was not planning to run. in fact, i had a plan for the week in the-- in which i declared and it turned out to be something i think has provided alaskans with that committee's opportunity this season to have a conservative choice and someone that will fight for their liberties. i'm excited to be in this race and thankful to my wife-- wife that she gave me the green light and i'm excited about the platform of the party and bringing decision-making closer to home, where you can be in charge of the decisions made and bring accountability to your government and have a hand in making changes that can bring greatness back to the state of alaska. >> ms. stock, being an independent party candidate is central to your campaign, but you have also coordinated with the democratic party. are you an independent

candidate by name only? >> ion definitely an independent just like 54% of alaskans and i'm running against a incumbent republican and i found to run and effective campaign that i needed access to the resources necessary to defeat the republican candidate. the republican party was not willing to cooperate it in terms of sharing database. ima pragmatics problem solver and they offered me the opportunity to coordinate with their campaign in hopes i could defeat lisa murkowski and return a sense of how the schmidt to the united states senate and the partisan gridlock that has been taking place. >> i have been participating with them on a basis that i purchased cooperation through that photo builder database, so i'm not a democrat. i'm simply using the campaign resources they

made available to me because i purchased them. >> esther metcalf, you used to be a republican and now you say you are a bernie sanders tell democrat. you don't have party support. you don't have money in your campaign account. why should voters take you seriously as a candidate? >> with that said i don't have party support is not quite accurate your guide to have the support of some segments of the party. there is a split of the democratic party and it boils down to efforts to remove certain corrupt practices from within the party, certain corrupt practices that are commonplace within our system and there are those who support me and they're the ones that support what i am trying to do to weed out the corruption and those who don't support me are those that frankly they adjourned at the state

convention to avoid allowing the platform that had been proposed by the platform committee to be adopted because it had my proposed anticorruption language in it and this had been adopted by a 27-six vote of the platform committee and the old guard adjourned the convention to avoid ever having to deal with it. >> thank you. >> lisa murkowski, six years ago you ran as an independent writing and you are successful in one. your voting record in the senate shows you to be one of the most moderate republicans. you do not support republican presidential nominee donald trump. how sure are you you are a republican? >> i think it's important to correct the record. i ran as a writing in 2010. i was not my party's nominee. iran is a writing, but it was a republican i think the series of question is interesting this evening because it demonstrates you have got a republican who's

actually changed from being republican five different times to run in the general as a libertarian. you have a republican who switch to an independent who is supported by the democrats any of a former republican who has at least remain true to the democratic party since 2008 who is not supported by his party. i look at what i have done representing alaska as being one who supports alaska 100% of the time. so, when i think about my voting record, it's not as a moderate or conservative. i have not changed my party label to be someone i'm not for purposes of election. i have remained true to alaska. >> the dakota access pipeline would move oriole to major markets in the lower 48. at the same time the pipeline threatens land

and water that are valued by the standing rock sioux tribe in terms of sacred land and actual resources as a water source. using this case as an example we will start with you, mr. miller, how does the fellow government balance the broader need for economic interests like development of the pipeline resource across the country with those of an individual native american tribe and their rights? >> imai sovereignty advocate. i think we need to have local control and i think people in control of their land need to make decisions. in alaska we are not confronted with many of those issues. the federal government is preventing development of the resource. not the fact that we have landed in private hands. it's a fact that you have a situation where overbearing federal agencies, which ms. murkowski continues to

fund are cutting often limited that ability of entities that were to invest in alaska, create jobs in alaska and are stopping that. the way forward for alaska is to ensure we say that when we went to open that we use our political leverage and rather than grabbing at that ever shrinking federal pot of money-- that's a problem we happily send people to washington and we think easy money is the answer, but the easy money is getting smaller and smaller and smaller. we had to rein in the federal government. >> how does that use the conflict between the tribe and the government >> if we had access to federal lands of access in this state to the billions of barrels of oil under the ground that the federal government has prevented they would not be fights like that. we would have so much will we could rebuild the pipeline. we want to look at this uneconomic way to get it things, things that create conflict with other people. >> thank you. >> mr. metcalf, same

question to you. how to balance national economic interest with tribal rights? >> if the federal government would have done a better job of consulting with the elders prior to the planning process this whole mess could've been avoided. that's just what should have happened. >> ms. murkowski, trouble rights versus national economic interest? >> we need to be able to move our resources and i think most would acknowledge that a pipeline is the safest way to move oil. it's the most efficient way to move oil, so we have to be able to move our resources for the benefit of the economy and of the jobs and really for the country. but, we also have to work with the tribe. is called consultation and this is where, i think, we have lost sight of some of the trust responsibility and obligation to make sure that there was

consultation well in advance. can alaska, we have done it. we did that for the trans- alaska pipeline. we could not move forward without finishing up, making sure that the obligation that we had to alaska native people in terms of their land claim settlement was settled. we were able to do that and we moved to forward with alaska pipeline. >> ms. stocks, was a way out of the situation we have with the dakota access pipeline and the tribe? >> the tribe believes that their interests were taken into account the plenty to place for the pipeline and so we have protests going on now. it's true the pipeline is on private land and also true generally pipelines are sick, but we have had problems in alaska with the taps occasionally having leakages and so on and so forth and they get reported and we try to clean them up, but the tribes worry about the greek and water and that is familiar to us in alaska. we know from a refinery in flight hills that 1500 people lost their tricky water as a result

of contamination and something the tribe is concerned about because in their view water is their life and they think their interests were not taken into account. permitting processes, it's important to take the local community, the needs of folks around the private land on which the pipeline is being built because the pipeline can have effects be on the private land of which it will rest and so now because of the protest the federal government isn't waking up and paying attention to the tribe and i heard today they are considering an alternative route that may reduce some of the impacts. >> mr. metcalfe, to get things done in the senate, you have to have allies. relationships matter. who among today's senators has an approach she senate politics that you desire to? >> i think there is the possibility that the senate might flip and become a democratic senate. if so, i will have a fabulous ally in bernie sanders, it was before and. they have sure will be

my mentors as a freshman senator and, by the way, i'm the only person on this stage who has embraced the entirety of the bernie sanders agenda, so i think that-- >> what is it about mr. sanders approach to senate politics that you would emulate? >> his approach-- well, he would become the chairman of the budget committee. emulate? i would support his agenda, what he wants to accomplish and so he would have largely my support and am sure he has plenty of allies and i'm sure he will have a lot more allies given the outcome of the last election. i think his national support is clear and fabulous. >> this stock, same question. who among today's senators takes an approach to senate politics that you might

in the late? >> well, there are a number of senators who take approaches i like to emulate. i like senators who are hard-working and spend most of their time working on bills and holding committee hearings and performing oversight rather than calling corporations and asking for money. as you probably know i don't take any money from corporate pacs and my opponent has taken millions of dollars from corporate pacs. one senator i admire is angus king, independent senator from maine. >> ms. murkowski, who among the other senators has a political approach to senate politics that you admire? >> in order to be successful in the congress you have to be able to work with everyone. so, i have worked with and will continue to work with those that are the most liberal and the most that are the most conservative and it is in between. i have worked with senator barbara boxer on fishery regulation issues and afterschool

learning programs. i have worked with senator lee from utah, very conservative on issues relating to privacy and civil liberties i have for quick-- in fact, i set up the arctic caucus with independent angus king from maine, to work through 70 about arctic issues, so it it is that ability to work with all of the colleagues and to reach out and to bridge the differences that we clearly have, but make things happen. so, those who would suggest that you have to just say in your corner and hope that others come to you is not a realistic approach to legislating. >> mr. miller, in the past he said your admiration for senator cruise, does that admiration extend to his approach to senate politics? >> i think the main reason why i think americans across the united states and alaskans we have 11%

approval raising-- 11% approval rating of the congress of the reason lies because most americans regard the senate and congress as corrupt. it's broken and it's not broken because it's not getting along well enough. it's broken because it's getting a long while enough to vote themselves pay raises, example, exemptions from all sorts of laws. interest rate america. alaska is still officially a colony. doesn't have access of most of its resources because things are getting done in the right direction. there are a few outliers. bernie sanders has some great ideas. i'm not a socialist, but he wants to rein in the big financial cronies. mike lee is a quiet guy, but he's making great strides to release the resource states-- >> thank you. thank you, mr. miller.

i would like to follow up for a second. when was the last time congress voted themselves a pay raise? >> it's been several years ago. >> do you know what year it was? >> 11% approval rating is a consequence that congress exams themselves from laws they pass on other and the wealth of congress members goes up steadily with they get their. why? because there is insider trading. .-dot. >> thank you. we will have to leave it there. let's move onto immigration. lets say to those who look at the terror attacks in san bernardino, manhattan and orlando and say it's unsafe to admit muslims because they were their american-born sons could be radical jihadi. ..

lots of good folks committing terrorist acts professed beliefs in a particular religious system. most important thing to fight terrorism is to have good intelligence and not in the intelligence that talks to the communities from which the terrorists might come to find out who strange radicalized them. most incidents in the united states today were a result of people getting radicalized over the internet and we do not yet have a good handle on how to stop that. we need to have a national conversation about how people get radicalized over the

internet and working with their communities we can stop terrorism. >> mr. metcalfe, should the u.s. said that more refugees to help with the humanitarian crisis? >> in the large immigration for there's a big statue of liberty and i remember why it there. we are a country of immigrantimmigrant s and for the second world war was heating up for us, we turned away jewish about return to germany and many died in the camps during the second world war. the history for having done so. we showed that ss were able, but when there is a humanity crisis like there is, we have an obligation as a human being to open our arms. i ask myself once in a while and i'm not a religious man, but what would jesus do? jesus would open his arms and say take care of these people. you are my people.

>> mr. miller, what is the right funds for america during this refugee crisis? >> is it's absolutely insane with 11,000 thousands of refugees with inadequate background checks. we know it's not been done properly. the government auctions agencies are telling methods not been done properly and at this time of heightened security issues, why don't we address those issues come in the external issues creating problems for those types in our country. i keep hearing about how we've got to tamp down individual liberties. we've got to have an nsa surveillance state that's able to track everything you do on your computer. the reality is there's a lot of things we can do, common sense things like not letting them radicals. thousands of radicals good look at the refugee program and it just simply doesn't make sense at all. we are letting people in many cases, some great people, but a lot they don't have adequate background checks and those are the risk we can undertake as a

country if we want to maintain security. thank you. >> ms. murkowski, lest you called murkowski, lets you call for approximately refugees in syria to the united states to allow for betting analysis, assessment of the vetting process. what is your take on that now? what do you think of the process? is it sufficient and is it time to let marci refugees into the country? >> if you listen to all three of us, you would agree the vetting is an important part of it. making sure with the resources they are, the intelligence there, making sure we really understand who it is that he seeking to come in. it is important to note that the refugee process, the screening process that we have is a much more rigorous. the time. for which it takes someone to go through that whole process to come into a state like alaska is

almost a two-year process. there is a level of betting that is higher and a higher standard than you would see if you just got somebody who is going through a regular immigrant process. am i satisfied with where we are? no. do i think we need to be doing more to make sure to have the level of assessment and analysis and making sure we know what is happening when these individuals come into our countries. >> her and asks question will come to us from our media partners in fairbanks and is a question from longtime fairbanks resident mary bishop. >> hi, my question is about certain lands in alaska. they tried it come out with their lands into federal trust. do you think this is a good

thing for alaskans? >> that start with you, ms. murkowski. how do the alaska settlement act with the territorial jurisdiction to try this gain by putting land if implemented? >> you're in alaska, land into trust with number consider as part of an opportunity if you will simply because we do not have reservation status here in the state of alaska. it was not until as many said a recent decision added the administration that would allow for land into trust here in alaska. i have been pressing on this issue because there's a great deal of concern and controversy about what this exactly means. there is not agreement in the state itself as to what this

actually means. it doesn't mean necessarily more federal resources to allow for greater public safety. that is the issue we need to address. so this is still something that i think we are all as alaskans looking to determine what does this really mean in a state like alaska where indian country does not exist. >> thank you very much. mr. miller, would you try to put the brakes on alaska tribes that want to monetize what you think the process should proceed? >> is a tricky one. trust is not really clear to a lot of people here in alaska. the fact is it may end up not being able to modify with a lot of restrictions on it. a number of natives on this issue. what we have to do is seize upon the issues we can work together on. those things for sovereignty we can join together with the state and push out over the room the federal government. the federal government is keeping away from resources that

the federal government as recently as this year has overtaken 100 million acres of alaskan land containing fish and wildlife. can you imagine a cooperative approach to manage the resources and displays federal land. the federal land of the state restart tv in and out. leaseholders in the day, the state, the tribes and create a whole new energy renaissance here. we can do it together but we've got to put aside divisions and work for the bright future. >> thank you, mr. miller. federal protection for tribal lands. >> the question was the first question to be for villages. villagers do need better local control. they need protection from being overwhelmed by the corporations.

the other people have said here, it is new. we don't know what it's going to look like. congress needs to get in front of this. doesn't have to look like reservation. it's already happening. there has been tribal recognition across the state by the federal government. there's one application rdn process which will probably go through four main trust. we need to get out in front of it and shape what is going to look like and make it work. >> thank you goodness stock on any question you? >> we have a unique situation in alaska. our native corporations are unique institutions in the relationship between the tribes is unique among all the states in the union. the lands into trust idea has been proposed as a way to solve local problems. of course it's going to take years to figure out what the

process will be and how it will work in alaska because it's been applied in a unique situation. i support the idea of government to government relations between the federal government and the tribes and its first exploring the trust because people are asking for it. >> thank you. thank you on the kennedy spirit for our audience if you're just joining us, this is debate for the state with candidates vying for u.s. senate. we're getting close to halfway through the program and i would like to offer time for candidates to ask a question of one of their opponents. you will have 20 seconds to ask your question. please be sustained. 50 seconds will be allowed for the response and if you would like you will have 30 seconds for follow-up rebuttal. do you have a question for one of your opponents? >> i have a question for margaret. what do you call up and the mayor is not to be hiding gifts received from alaska's largest real estate developer, gifts

worth tens of thousands of dollars, gets delivered to a mayor of the fannie mae was arranging tax exemptions in the gifting developer for over $10 million in annual taxes. would you call this bribery? >> i don't know what you're talking about. maybe you can clarify that. >> i'll clarify. do you want to maybe talk about a court case. >> when we took a three hour tour i gave you a copy of an investigative report that detailed a gift from alaska's largest real estate developer to mayor big h. at it also detailed mark big h. -- >> what is the question mr. metcalfe? >> i ask her she classified that his bravery. >> i don't understand the question is asking me. i went on a three-hour tour with ray because he told me he had a a corruption tour that sounded quite interesting.

we drove around anchorage and the accused most of the democratic dirty leaders and he told me that he had helped to convict various politicians and alaska's path. he also gave me a whole pile of papers i couldn't make heads or tails of them, but i assumed since ray has a history of taking things to prosecutors that he took these papers to a prosecutor at some point and they found them to be of no concern. >> 30 seconds to follow what appeared >> the same tour that i gave her a gave fbi agents along with the same information. they flew a coup from juneau to take the same to her and when the crew was done they flew out the crew from washington d.c. to take the tour and it resulted in the expansion of legislators. what relevance it has to the current senate campaign.

>> we are going to west go to your opponents. >> thank you. i will direct this to you. we've been talking a lot about health care and we've been debating health care for years here in alaska. democrats in the state and nationally have been pushing a single-payer system. i disagree wholeheartedly with this approach, but as the democratic nominee in this race, why do you think that this will work for alaskans? >> i believe in hundred% for a single-payer health care system. the system we have is not working. i've been in the private insurance department before. i had a company provided insurance for employees. the insurance companies refuse to pay when they had an obligation to pay they would constantly come in and say here

is your new policy. we would do it for less than the other guys and they would double the policy. it just didn't work. they would forget the work. and now medicare. it will be on medicare. and it works. there's no reason in the world we can expand medicare to simply cover everybody. >> i make the approach to a single-payer system. i voted against obamacare because it puts the government in control of choosing what care is covered. access as we know is a critical issue here in this state. the aca is collapsing because the federal mandate and the flexibility. was safe to leave us more flexibility and more choice.

>> mr. miller comedy of a question for one of your opponents? >> senator murkowski has long been a critic of the federal courts. in fact you even called the withdrawal for the ninth circuit. you've also been at least two of him as radical nominees and rubberstamped many of them for closure and most of them in some of them and they come up for confirmation. how can you criticize when in fact senator murkowski, it helped elevate many of these to the bench? >> i would remind you that the two nominees that president obama has put before the senate, justice k. gain and soda may or i voted against both of these individuals. i think it is fair to recognize that i have taken approach when it comes to ensuring that there is an opportunity for an up or

down vote, to listen a district court judge nominations that filibustering is not an approach that i think is appropriate. i have allowed for judges to go forward so that they can receive an up or down vote. in terms of putting a rubber stamp on any of this president's nominees or any president's nominees, i have not done not and i think it is reflect that and the votes that i have made as it relates to the supreme court justices. >> thank you. mr. miller, which like to follow up? >> part of the standard announced by your judiciary staff and we know this from wikileaks, a recent wikileaks e-mail that came out. their senior judiciary staff was quoted as saying with respect to the very liberal judge you were going to support cloture unless he's a child pornographer. i don't think that's the appropriate standard to be

applied. second, i would also note that when you support merrick garland, there's a 4-4 split. had he gotten the voting gone forward effectively the second amendment would be done. >> we will leave it there. your question for one of your opponents. >> to be fair, i lost joe miller a question. six years ago you stated that this debate that the central government has no role in providing for government health care plans and that's the end of the quote appeared in your current campaign about to replace the aca with a market-based system although presumably the aca is based on republican idea for a market-based system. presumably you're aware that prior alaskans did not get insurance on any private market because they have preexisting conditions. they didn't have a profession that would allow the private market to buy the health care. isn't it hypocritical to rail against government provided

health care when you yourself have regularly participated in government provided health care military and va systems. >> admittedly i am a combat veteran and i do have lost to qualify for veteran programs and i will fight for every veteran in this state to ensure because i know the system is like. i will fight to ensure you have the coverage or service demands and the sacred trust between the government and it does not happen. that's how it's worked out. i think i've been that it's been very distracted to alaska. all of us understand the choices are going away when obama claimed that you could keep your doctor. everybody found out that was a lie because most of us -- many of us were unable to do that. i talked to one guy that's an employee. his rates went up so high is effectively a 20% reduction in net income. when we get government halted

areas, generally results in control and efficiency and less choice and that's not what alaskans want. alaskans want a system where you can choose your doctor, based on market decisions and something i pledge. >> thank you. >> would you go to get rid of all government health care just the obamacare? >> i'm under the impression because joe does not have private health insurance on the private market. >> that's not what he said. >> what you have is through the government. since you're against a government provided health care presumably that would mean you get rid of medicaid and medicare. the military health care system. >> not true. >> thank you comic candidates. we are going to take another video question from a voter from bellingham. the question is from alina hurley re: mining and epa.

>> it's no secret how important our seminar is to be. they are the cornerstone of our culture is in our economy. for more than a decade, my entire adult life was lived with the threat of a large-scale mind would destroy our land life. we try to take action. if elected will you support as we do the epa's use of the green water act to protect bristol bay. >> okay, let's start with you when you have 45 seconds to respond to the question. >> for the same reasons ted stevens was opposed to it. i think it's the wrong line in the wrong place. i'm opposed to the idea that we mind and a place that would potentially harm renewable resource and the bristol bay salmon watershed is an incredible resource for a stated

mr. noble. it's very important we don't harm that for the future. i'm not opposed to mining, but mining has to be done in a way that protects the environment and the epa does play a role in that. the republicans have talked about going back the powers of the epa with regard to clean water, but water is a critical resource that alaska and alaskans in remote areas depend on the water in the ground. there is no way to treat it. it's very critical we protect the environment and epa plays a key role in that. >> thank you very much. ms. mccarthy, you've been critical of the intervention. 45 seconds. >> i have been critical of the intervention. i have said that there needs to be an appropriate practice not only for a paddle, but for any development project that we have and the epa should not be moving forward with the preemption of a project before the project has even been down. i have had many conversations with the one that and many in

bristol bay who have comes turns about the balance. none of us have alaskans want to exchange one resource for another. we are not going to trade fish for gold. we need to know that we can ask the resources playfully, keep the water safe, keep this amazing fishery saved. that is the challenge to us. we have to have a process we will respect. >> thank you. mr. metcalfe. >> i do believe that before to my never breaks ground it is to prove they can fly under the clean water act that the clean water act should be used in the force there that's not the only problem. i see no point in developing the pebble mine with our current tax system. we don't get paid for it. why would we? we've been in the ground. >> mr. miller. >> i'm an advocate of state and local control. i believe that the answer to many of our problems especially in the bush's jobs. i think part of the reason we

have lack of purpose, the st. michael's battle last week talking to people about how they want jobs and when we have opportunity for jobs, such as the donald and gold mines and other resource development, we should seize those and make sure we are hiring alaskans, native alaskans in those communities where the resource development occurs. it is the state and local is the need to be in charge of the process. my perspective if you are at risk in that area should take part in the rewards or certainly have the ability to stop the project. >> thank you. >> were in the midst of the longest u.s. supreme court in the country's history. ms. murkowski, you recently said he respected republican leadership in the senate's decision not to hold hearings. are you concerned that set the precedent that any sitting president won't be able to get a confirmation of a nominee when they are facing opposition? >> i think we all recognize this

particular environment we have been in this past year has been intense to say the least. when you and jack and nomination as critical as that of the supreme court justice, i think it is important that you allow for perhaps the political temperature to subside a little bit. chairman grassley makes a decision that he was not going to move forward with a hearing. i'm not on the judiciary committee, but i am the chairman and i know that when i called a hearing, i expect the people on my committee would respect what we are doing. i have respected the role chairman grassley has played in this as we deal with the vacancy that does need to be filled and will be filled. i believe when we have a new president. >> mr. miller, is this the right

decision to hold up the nomination hearing? >> originally senator murkowski said the name ought to go forward and then ms. mcconnell got involved and the senate majority leader said you can't do that. senator murkowski lined up on it. i will tell you that right now it is for-4. four justices say the second amendment the second amendment is a collective right. for his faith in individual right. if merrick garland would've got to vote in the president appointed him, your second amendment rights as you know them would be over. i can assure a alaskans onto everything in my power to fight every bit i can't to stop any radical justice it's going to take away your second amendment rights. if i have to stand alone and for a whole week filibustering a judge or justice it's going to take away her second amendment rights come you can bet i will absolutely do that because that's what i'm obligated to do to serve you, satisfy your needs and of course protect individual liberties that make the country great. >> just suggested somehow or

other i supported merrick garland. what i support is a process that would allow us to get to confirmation to allow for the life and consent process move forward which is exactly the rule that the senate plays. >> is that different than an actual confirmation hearing? >> it is. he has suggested somehow or another i supported merrick garland. we haven't had an opportunity to weigh in. i want to make sure people understand what i supported was a process. >> you can absolutely have it both ways. i sat down with mr. garland. >> your take on the situation? >> merrick garland is not radical at all. he's like all those court observers have listened to in any indication. i think it is wrong to try to

delay the hearing all the way through the next presidency. if elected, i can tell you that i will vote my conscience. i will not vote in lockstep. it sometimes goes the wrong direction. >> your take on the situation. >> is the longest vacancy on the supreme court in history. it is a result of partisan obstructionism. the ball. senator murkowski knows this because she said previously it was a matter of good governance you had to hold a hearing to give a vote up or down on a nominee. there is no tradition and of course senator murkowski's colleagues have now said they will hold that the vacancy for four years now if hillary clinton gets elected. it is hurting alaska because we will have a for-4 tie and it's absolutely ridiculous and a copout to blame this on the judiciary committee. if you are a leader, we take a

principled position and stand up to the chairs of your party who hold seats on the judiciary committee to seek out. don't copout -- >> you caved in, flip-flops. you tweeted that the nominee should get a hearing or a vote. >> that is not true. >> that is what happened two days after antonin scalia passed away. >> lives has our next question. this question will also draw some heat on abortion. candidates, you will have one minute for your response. >> mr. miller, we know you have the endorsement of the alaska right to life. if elected, what course would you take on american laws and policies? >> a nation that a sickly sacrifice is the most defenseless, if we don't protect life and i think that the 14th amendment protected thing. if we don't protect that, what rights are up for grabs. i think an indicator of a nation

willing to defend or not willing to defend the defenseless is something we all need to consider. i will do everything we can to make sure we have judges that are pro-life. that is a standard that needs to be applied to the whole of the judiciary. life itself and i'm proud to have the enforcement is again kind of the bellwether. is the federal government going to protect life? if not, what else is the federal government willing to allow to be taken in? >> what statues would you write, what does the right to change the policies them all? >> the constitution is sufficient. no life may be defined without the due process of law. some of the constitution says that, we need to demand from judges to protect them that way. >> mr. metcalfe, you're pro-choice candidate. would you vote for full funding for planned parenthood and organization that provides

health care as well as abortion? >> yes, i would. >> okay, why? >> for one reason from a libertarian point, even the libertarian party that joe is part of the leaves that a person has the right to control their own body. >> alaska libertarian.com. the national libertarian party subscribes to that. i have no desire to control a, frankly. i can imagine why somebody, a group of men in the u.s. senate would want to. >> ms. murkowski, throughout your career seems no issue has been as for you as abortion. during those related to planned parenthood funding have anchored both sides. can you clarify where you stand on abortion?

>> i do not like abortion. i don't think any of us like abortion. but i recognize that the supreme court, through roe v. wade has said that a woman has the right, the right to choose and i have supported that. i also recognize that it is important that when it comes to federal funding, for those who just cannot abide the thought that their taxpayer dollars to be directed towards abortion, that there'd be a separation. i have unequivocally and clearly supported the hyde amendment that would prohibit federal dollars from being directed towards abortion. i support women's rights and ability to be able to gain

access to women's health care for the service is that they, whether it is what they get at planned parenthood for mammograms or pap smear is, screening. this is where so many of alaskan women receive their services and is an port to sustain that. >> missed that come you declared your support for keeping abortion legal in preventing planned parenthood. do you believe taxpayer support for planned parenthood amounts to subsidizing abortion? >> now, i support a women's right to control her body. the supreme court is that women have a constitutional right to make a decision about their pregnancies and of course there is a balancing test involved as all the lawyers have here are aware. i support plan parenthood because planned parenthood makes great efforts to reduce abortions. they provide education. they provide family planning and those are terrific ways to reduce abortions in america. furthermore, planned parenthood

has been doing a lot of work with regard to keep the virus. educational outreach where women are likely to get bitten by a mosquito that carries its eco-virus. senator murkowski voted to prohibit planned parenthood from doing that work by not allowing the federal funding necessary to warn women about the virus. the >> dan has a question. >> i do with the cost of benefits of involvement in foreign conflicts -- america is a free nation do we have a responsibility to ischia press and if you can use an example in your answer of the recent situation that supports your philosophy, we will begin with mr. metcalfe. you're 45 seconds. >> you know, right now we are engaged in syria and all this stuff. none of this would've happened if we had simply stayed out of iraq in the first place. the adventures that we have gone into from vietnam, you know, most of them have been ill advised in the rearview mirror we wish we hadn't gone there.

we need to be a lot more careful about where we go. if we are not we should probably stay out. a case of exceptions where we could step in and stop genocide. that still needs to be on a case-by-case basis. >> how do you weigh the benefits involvement of foreign conflicts and when do we have responsibilities to get involved? >> we often act emotionally when congress votes to go to war. often congress doesn't consider the second and third are side effects of a particular conflict in particular conflict and we've seen that repeatedly over the last 15 and 20 years and what might happen and what the actual costs are engaging in a conflict and bring in conclusion. we saw that with iraq where people are very emotional on the boat and they didn't consider the wounded that they didn't consider the cost of the administration.

the most important thing we need to do as legislators and senators is to consider our national interests. it is always going to tug at our heartstrings when we see terrible things in the world. as a country we simply don't have the resources to intervene in every conflict. >> mr. miller, same question. when do we have a responsibility to help others question the >> standing up here that does have a bearing on my answer to this question because once you've been in combat, war, the fact that it is a causes you to have much greater apprehension. i remember sitting when i was told i was going to lose two thirds of my unit thinking about okay, why are we here? what are we doing here? the men and women in combat that are put in the war, we need to go after vital mass no interest. most of my friends still live and the members i talked to today survey looks at what's going on in the middle east, the

disaster made of the middle east, the spread of terrorism in aces. it's absolutely crazy how we've done an incredible disservice to americans. we spend billions, trillions of dollars on this. >> you've been involved in these debates. how do you balance this? >> it's a difficult balance that they try to keep in the forefront that we want the united states to be a force for good and that we do this by an appropriate mix of soft power and military strength. i am one who believes that isolationism doesn't do as good. and yet despite our nation's true wariness about where we are with international engagement, i think it is important that we be aware that often times we must not just engage. making sure we are ready and that is what we are doing here

in alaska but the buildup for a military. >> we have to leave it there. >> it is time for closing statements. you only have 30 seconds for your close. ms. mccarthy, we are going to start with you. >> thank you for the opportunity to be in front of alaskan this evening. i have been honored and truly privileged to be able to represent the people of this amazing state for the years that i have as someone who is born and raised here, as one who is passionate about my state and one who is passionate about the purpose that we have, not only is the state, but as a people and our contributors to our country. this is what i'm asking is your continued support for yet another term. i would respectfully ask for your vote. >> mr. miller, your closing statement. >> to 36 year dynasty has brought us down a dead-end road

trip us jobs, less resources, more of alaska coast never before. time to chart a new course. we cap and how the second has taken next year. we've got to do things in the state to bring about new jobs for kids and grandkids. we can do it together but we've got to vote in a bold way. i will do everything i can possibly do to bring goodbyes to people in alaska to open up the resource base like never before. >> thank you. three seconds. >> congress has 11% approval rating thanks to folks like senator lisa murkowski and her partisan colleagues who have done nothing over the last six years but engage in partisan gridlock. i'm an independent, a pragmatic problem solver. i have a proven track record of getting things done in washington. alaska is ready for new leadership and i'm ready to be your leader. vote for me on november 8th. i'm all work and no party.

>> mr. metcalfe come your closing statements. >> before you go, ask yourself what the candidate has done. i was the co-author of the language that established the investment program and it's held up pretty well. if elected, i will continue my efforts to root out corruption like i did with zika and bravery of getting your oil away. i will do everything am able to do to end the pay to play games that congress is so heavily involved in. >> thank you. thank you, that is said for the 2016 debate. thank you to our reporters and brass. thanks for the candidates for participating in thank you for joining us this evening. stay with us for a few minutes of analysis with alaska public media reporters, early voting is

underway and election day is tuesday, november 8th. goodnight.

>> on this eve of election day, workers prep for the non-jewish that the new president. in front of the white house construction has begun on the reviews and an visitor seating area.

[background noise] [background noise] >> inauguration day is january 28th.

>> key element that interests me most our commitment to really expand broadband access with a lot of talk about competition and bringing the benefits of broad and to all americans. i think there is another strong theme running through the idea of inclusive innovation. in other words, how do we make sure the entire country, everyone actually shares in the benefit of the internet economy. >> i think there is a hearing of goals and objectives. we'll want to the benefits of

the internet be made available to all. i think we want to see my rapid innovation. we want to see lower prices. but mr. trump is saying is the way to the subject is his lower taxation. >> catholic university of america for policy research and catholic studies hope a discussion on issues driving cap at voters and their expected influence on the 2015 election. panels include e.j. dionne and abc news political commentator cokie roberts. [inaudible conversations] >> well, it does work. thank you all for being here on a monday morning. i know the traffic is

horrendous. it is stalwart to view to be here. the catholic university of america institute for policy research and catholic study and sponsoring this event and bring in their event knowledge of the sub get to it. i am cokie roberts. i am really here to listen as much of anything and maybe make a few comments about what is happening politically in the past and what might happen in the future. i did check out the patron saint of politicians. and there wasn't one until this century, which i guess makes sense. john paul two in 2000 name sir thomas more is the patron i know it's really impossible. it was a good idea, but really the bar too high. but i then also checked out the patron saint of salesman india

love this this. it is st. lucie. st. lucie of course gave her dowry to the poor and was tortured and killed for it because one didn't do such things. what a perfect person for our salesman candidate. she couldn't be moved to be killed and she couldn't be burned, the shoe has finally stabbed and that was the end of the period the notion that someone who gave her dowry to the poorest person who's running now an interesting concept. at any rate, we are all going to talk for a few minutes. e.j. dionne will be joining us when he does. and then we will open this up for questions. every one of these panelists is

distinguished and he or she will introduce themselves and that way you won't have some long introduction is nobody does that. so, we will start with steve. >> well, thank you for that warm introduction. [laughter] i am steve schneck from the catholic university of america appeared on director of the institute for policy research and catholic studies and along with p. along with pri, one of the cosponsors of today's event. i have a little bit of a slide show before the talk. so once we move to the slideshow

to begin with. i will start actually with the theological overview to talk just a bit about the church teachings in this regard. we first say that the catholic church does not instruct catholics how to vote. it does not tell catholics to vote for one party or another and it does not endorse candidates. it does however instruct on the moral dimension of issues in public life. the church of course i don't think this is the prize to anyone teaches that abortion, contraception, euthanasia are wrong. advocates for traditional understanding of marriage with the death penalty and for religious liberty. these teachings instruct as well that economics needs to be regulated by concerned for human life and dignity. the teachings oppose racism, promote generosity towards

migration and the welcoming of refugees and immigrants. those teachings talk about the moral imperative to care for the earth, the moral imperative for the public quarter to provide health care and education and the moral imperative of peacebuilding. these teachings instruct cap asked to judge laws and policies by whether or not they make the needs of the poor, the oppressed and the marginalized the priority. the church teaches that the moral weight of all these issues is not equal, that issues for sample or deny human life should be especially weighty un- catholic conscience. but it also insists that concern for human life is entirely

insufferable for dignity and concern for the earth. that is the teachings promote a vision for what catholic should do as voters and legislators that is holistic and integral in that sense. so what does this mean for catholics in public life? for american catholics who want to follow the church's teachings, they face a problem. neither political party as is evidenced from their platforms is a particularly good fit. but we are not allowed to be cafeteria catholics about that. we are not allowed as catholics to pick and choose which of the many teachings to support and which not. none of the teachings is optional. moreover, american politics have become polarized. no surprise to anyone in this

room, have become polarized in the last few decades and polarization has built over into the pews and american catholic churches. so like all americans, catholics are very much affected by that polarization. this makes it even more difficult for catholics to engage in public life as catholics. it is no wonder then and i wish he was here now announced that it had him. it is no wonder as e.j. will tell us in a few more moments i hope that there really is no catholic vote. there is no meaningful bloc of voters to represent this holistic unity of the church's teachings and their political engagement. for the most part, what we are talking about and what is usually talked about in context like this are voters who are

catholic and non-catholic voters per se. nevertheless, voters who are catholic are very keen. how they vote usually correlates with who wins national elections. and i expect this to be true in this election as well. these voters who are catholic are diverse. they are at the moment about one fifth of the total elect rate in this country and obviously they are not spreading them across the country. the larger catholic populations than others which makes the role even more interesting given the realities of the electoral college. a bit more than 40% of catholics leaned towards the democratic party, party identification.

a bit less than 40% lead towards the gop and about 20% are true swing voters. demographically, they forced catholics in america for shadow for america as a whole is headed. 43% of catholics today are either first or second generation immigrants. that is something to cause on. burgeoning numbers come from africa, the caribbean, east asia and south asia. but fully one third of catholics today and here is another amazing number. two thirds of catholics under the age of 18 are latino. that is the future of the church and in many ways as i said, that is the future of united states.

even these latino catholics are diverse with ancestors from mexico, cuba, puerto rico, central america, dominican republic, south america and so forth. so the hollywood image of american catholicism is white as next irish, italian, polish and no one. and perhaps in present company i should mention asian catholics and as e.j. were here, french-canadian catholics as well. you are welcome. that image is less and less an accurate one. there are three things to note about these white catholics. first, why catholics are much more assimilated and generally more americanized in the attitude and values than the others. not the occasion, i agree. bair group apart.

why catholics -- should i say not asians here, too. more educated and have higher in comes another catholics. and why catholics are shrinking. not just in percentage, but in real numbers due to birth rate than those leaving the church. to make sense of the complexity of all of this, and these many voters who are catholic. i divide the cap at population into three roughly equal groups. the first third are latino catholics who have in recent elections voted for the democrat by upwards of 60%. then, looking at all remaining catholics and essentially dividing them in half, we have two more groups. there is a group of those who attend mass every week or more. about one third of the total

catholic population. these catholics have in recent elections cited that the gop candidate just short of 63%. i call this group intentional catholics. and finally, the third group are those non-latino catholics who do not attend mass every week. that is a group than in recent elections has been a strong swing group and i called this a group of cultural catholics. this year though is a bit more complicated as dr. jones will explain in just a moment. support for donald trump is lower among intentional cap then we saw for romney, for mccain and for george bush. latino catholics are supporting secretary clinton in numbers actually significantly higher than what are democrats in this past election. the upshot is that at least at

last polling, of course things have been fluid, but at least the last polling, catholics appear to be moving to the democratic column more strongly than they have in recent elections, meaning that secretary clinton is likely to win the support of voters who are catholic. with that, let me turn it over to robbie. [applause] >> okay, great. so i am robert jones. i am the ceo of prri, public religion research institute at some of you may know us by. my job here is to set the table a little bit with some drill downs of some catholic groups

looking at white catholic voters in this election cycle are fairly interesting. the cycle compared to where they've been in the past. and i'll comment on that as we go. let me just jump in and in the interest of time. first of all, it might be helpful to get some context. one of the things we've been seen as many of you know wrote a book called the end of white christian america this year. one of the things that i had been noting is this real pattern and despite some of the historical antipathy between white catholics and white protestant groups in the past, we've seen more of an alignment of the 90s especially among some of these groups, even some explicit theological documents to kind of buried the hatchet back in the 90s and going forward. ..

>> with white evangelical protestants because most supportive republicans believe they are the least likely to support democratic candidates mainline protestants, episcopalians and presbyterians have both been around support for democratic candidates and support for republican presidential candidates over time so that's the contact and what's interesting is it really has been this big sigh between white christians groups on the one hand and everybody else leaning the other way.

our democratic presidential support for democratic presidential candidates among hispanic catholics, religiously unaffiliated, jewish americans and african-american protestants a very diverse coalition supporting democratic presidential candidates in the last election cycle and is very homogeneous. it's protestant and catholic and mainline bunks mainly white and christian so republican presidential candidates so that's the context from which we enter this election cycle. it's a long-standing pattern that we see very steady. there's wiggles here but mainly the patterns have been set and it's largely since reagan years. now let's move forward. here we are today. here's our latest set of data. this is a combined set of surveys of 2600 likely voters in the election today. across those september 22 to october 17 among all likely voters we had hillary clinton

up over donald trump 4839. as you can see, white evangelical voters by far as a group most strongly supporting trump at two thirds. only 17 percent supporting hillaryclinton. white mainline protestants, that four and 10 supporting hillary clinton, half supporting trump. here's the half in the middle. 51 , 40 is what we had in the survey. and then the unaffiliated, including jews, hindus, buddhists, muslims and others and african-american distance at the bottom at 90 percent support or hillary clinton. only three's percent support for donaldtrump in that survey. one thing to say about catholics is that catholics overall , they have basically catholics overall have gone with the winner to be much consistently in kind of a bellwether constituency but that happens because of some

very interesting push and pull underneath the surface of that water between white and latino catholics that have been pulling in opposite directions and the confluence of those currents that have led them to be this kind of bellwether constituency so it's not the catholics overall are evenly divided, they are two subgroups that are kind of pushing in opposite directions in some way that our landing catholics at the end so just for some context, in 2012 among all catholics, obama got 50 percent, romney or the so that's consistent if you go back, you see a similar thing. but here's what's interesting. drill down a little further, romney won white catholics by 19 points.and romney lost latino catholics by 54 point three so that the split underneath this current that's going on.

so one of the things, i want to attack this alittle further here . just to give you what this looks like in our current survey, here's likely voters. here's why catholic likely voters, dipping toward trump, 48, 41 years nonwhite catholics and this includes african-americans, latinos, mostly latinos but it includes african-american and pacific islander catholics as well. you see this huge gap between white and nonwhite catholics in the current election among likely voters. so i'm going to drill down a little bit. why catholic voters, get a sense of what's going on. one of the interesting things we are seeing is this white evangelical sku, here's likely voters but look at the age. there's no age gap. among white catholic likely voters.

and we are also seeing this on evangelicals, we are seeing virtually no age divide between trump and clinton among likely voters and we can activist you and day but one theory back up with evidence is that part of what's happening is among both white evangelicals and white catholics, they have lost so many of their younger members, that has pulled that younger generation to be more liberal than it is kind of muted the generational gap. this has been true for evangelicals and white catholics. so here's the distribution. among white catholics, likely voters, 68 percent are over the age of 50 and 32 percent under the age of 49. you see the disparity in the size of these groups. let's take a look at the gender. there is a little bit of the gender gap here going up.

here is a 2012 and 2016, i want to point out i'm comparing 2012, these are exit polls to our survey numbers and we have 13 points out and undecided. it could be some of these numbers come back a little bit of people still saying there undecided but you still see in the numbers here, here are white catholic men, 2012 to our latest survey among white catholic women. our recent thing, you can see that our gap here is among women that we've got a 15 point gap among white catholic women from 2012 and today. here is college education so among white catholics with no college degree, a narrow gap but among white catholics with a college degree, a bigger gap and lower support for trump then compared to 2012. about 15 points a year among catholics with a college degree. this is consistent with other polling that we've seen that

donald trump is going with white with a college degree and white women and we are seeing that show up among the catholic voters as well. i'm going to stop there and say one quick thing about context and why this really matters , especially down the home stretch in places like pennsylvania and wisconsin for example, white catholics make up three in 10 voters there and they make up about a quarter of voters in ohio, iowa, nevada, michigan and florida so those are state we are all hearing a lot about so it is very important constituency as we are looking down the home stretch. >>. [applause] there are four seats in the front row here and the second row. >> it's just like church. [laughter] >> thank you so much for that.

>> thank you so much for joining us so early, i know how difficult it was to get here through traffic. thank you. my name is maria kumar. i want to thank catholic university and pri for hosting this. i often get asked to talk about the millennial vote and religion and perspective, very rarely through the cross-section of the catholic perspective and i think that is a better way to provide context for what we are seeing when it comes to participation. i am the founding president of the vote latino specifically among latino millennial's, we did something slightly different. we talked among young latinos using technology and english and recognizing there is a leadership, we recognize that long before these young

people turned 18 years old, they are navigating america with their parents and what i mean by that is my son is two years old, he was a good sturdy 11 months old when i had taken to the hospital because he kept running into things, jamming his finger, cutting his toenails, you can imagine he was a tiny tot and he's a boy. i have a little girl and i have to say they are so different. but no, i'm trying to raise a gender-neutral they are like, no. so my son, this is the third hospital visit i have for him and about three beds down, we have a little girl and her little brother is wailing,

little more than six months old and she is explaining to her mother what the doctor is telling her. basically that her little brother needs to have an mri. and she took me back to when i was a little girl from my family and these little things have changed. we started focusing on the young american latino, recognizing they are making decisions on behalf of their parents long before they turned 18 years old, why not the same thing when it comes to politics? so we fast forward to the mitt romney election and start talking about this and they start realizing the largest group of americans are eligible voters and they start talking about their families and you fast-forward to self deportation to build the wall. and you can only imagine where you have a mixed status family of 6.5 million americans meaning that somebody in their family is undocumented.and of that

family, 1.5 million are eligible voters. and they are eligible voters that we describe. nevada, arizona, florida, pennsylvania , ohio. we have had this luxury of latino votes second closest for so long. they are either in new york or they are in california and yes, you have texas but in the last census, 54 percent of the population boom in the american populace was because of children of minorities. is a latino boat and they find themselves in unsuspecting places and this is from one of the largest reasons i think that when you start talking about issues of socialjustice, poverty alleviation, the environment, immigration , social equity, all of a sudden you see the alertness among thelatino population because it impacts

them disproportionately . and i actually think that right now you are seeing a renaissance within catholicism because for many latinos, hope is the one we have been waiting for because he's speaking of social justice, of the environment and then you have a presidential candidate with the pope. on social media, shocking, right? when he calls the pope unfaithful, when the pope says simply you have to be charitable, those that have the most, give the most support and it wasn't surprising to a lot of catholics that he went to the border of el paso and basically had a conversation, this idea that we are equal and we are one and many latinos , there was finally a leader giving voice to the possibility they been feeling

even though they've been doing good lately. that brings me a little bit what we see right now with in the latino community and the latino vote. for overall, you have the latino is basically the second largest group of americans. we are 56 million strong. we represent 17 percent of the actual electorate. no, i'm sorry, 13 percent of the electorate. you have 27 million latinos that are eligible voters this year. what we know is 17 million have registered to vote. in california, the last two days of voter registration, they saw a surge of half 1 million people register online. i had a conversation with the secretary of state alex padilla to find out how many are latino voters, they're not quite sure but he does know that the surge in voter registration in california is a faithfully blue state has

seen a surge of latino participation close to 20 percent. in the work that we do at vote latino, our goal was to register 75,000 people in key states. colorado, arizona, north carolina, ohio, pennsylvania and texas and florida. we have seen registered 177,000. and mostly using a digital first strategy, talking specifically in english about social justice issues to american latino youth and we are a 501(c)(3) so we've been transparent when it comes to the issues we know are going to galvanize them. if you start looking at the catholic vote along the lines of not just equity but also this idea of who's participating, it's not surprising that you see a real street when it comes to women and families, when it comes to environment and help

and that's because women outperform men in the latino community when it comes to voting. women, this is a survey, we haven't had anything recent but we had 50 percent of the women went to the polls to 39 percent of men. when you start tryingto , i have a question. when you start trying to parse that out, it also, you start talking about issues that matter. overwhelmingly, young what he does care about social prosperity and that's because their parents all of a sudden get sick or don't have that social safety net, they are expected to take on that role for their family we did a survey with families in nevada with young women and found one of the top reasons latinos went out and voted were not just immigration but they were increasingly interested in the prospect of presidential candidates when it came to, when it came to issues of retirement and social safety nets so in the

event that an older person got sick on the job, were they going to have basic care that they needed? those are usually reflected in older americans, around 45 to 50 that have to care for parents as they age but the reason this 23-year-old young woman cared was because if all of a sudden their parents got sick and didn't have the next to ensure the parent was taken care of, she had to continue going to school or does she quit? and support her parents? that's one of the reasons why social charity resonates within the young latino community in general is because this idea that they need to make sure they have, let me back up. because they do not have savings. they considered social security as a saving so if their parents are not healthy enough to pay into that system and they are get sick,

many young latinos have to make a decision of whether or not they will continue down the road of dropping out in order to take care of their parents. so as we move forward with this election, what we are finding is people are in line for voter registration have movement within the young latino community that are not only registering on behalf of their families, but they are also creating options. i consider the dreamers, some of those folks that have galvanized the community in a way we have not seen it meaning there were willing to change themselves to international offices, they were willing to change themselves to the white house so that they could have a conversation on equity and coming out of the shadows. and as a result, they were able to capital legislation within 10 years of comprehensive immigration reform. i would bet money there's no one in this room that does not have a view on immigration. to appreciate it, these young

people marched and galvanized, globalized people and they were people that have the least ability to represent themselves. but yet they made it a national consciousness, by contrast we talk about issues of lgbt or civil rights and it's anywhere from 30 to 50 to 100 years for there to be an opinion among the majority of americans and i think that speaks a lot to their leadership but also their ability to talk explicitly about socialjustice . basically, you see a lot of the young people in the dream worker talk about the environment, they talk about wage equity. lgbt and i think it has a lot to do with what you are going to see if you were to talk to most catholics within all the latino community, it is the agenda of social equity. of justice and parity and that parallel to what i would

consider this pope we've been waiting for that he discusses every single time he's in front of the pulpit that they identify with. i do want to caution that unless a lot of these issues that resonate among the latino millennial's, we noticed two thirds of all catholics under the age of 18 are latino. unless the church welcomes and have these conversations that are represented right now currently by the pope, that is not going to change. right now you have a large section of older latinos leaving the church . close to one in four latinos that practiced another religion or are no longer practicing a religion, 25 percent of them were catholic first. i do think there's an opportunity and there's this opportunity have these conversations on social justice, equitystanding strong for what's right .

speaking to power when it comes to a clear candidate that is not only not accepting but not tolerant of a whole swath of americans that happen to be hispanic, that happen to be of immigrant families and that is going to be our challenge as we move forward.how are we accepting and standing up for the person that does not have a voice, how can we be more like pope francis? thank you very much. >>. >> e.j. dionne, i apologize for being late area i miscalculated i think this morning and i apologize. it's very good to be here and i want to begin by saying i want to commend calhoun

university for underscoring the role of latinos in the catholic vote.when people talk about catholics they immediately talk about catholics as if latino catholics are somehow in some other church. they are not. as pope francis among others reminds us, every day and politically, that is very important because you look at george w. bush's ability to win the catholic vote, his ability to win the catholic vote on on the fact that he was able to pick up about 40 percent of the latino vote, these arguments about the precise number but it's at least around 40 percent. that made a huge difference in his ability to carry the overall latino vote because what she said at the outset is right, we can be sure right now that hillary clinton will carry the catholic vote. we can be almost positive unless some very strange things happens in the next week because these strange

things happen all the time. i think i also was like as i spent too much time reading the newspaper when i woke up this morning. that hillary clinton will carry the catholic vote by a substantial margin and latinos will be key to that but something is happening in this election. i always like to say that there is no catholic vote and it's important. by that i mean that catholics are not a block vote in the country. i think we get misled because we go back to the 1960s and 1964 elections of john kennedy, first catholic candidate got 78 percent of the catholic vote. and 64, lbj on malta most of that. but just one election before jfk when i was running against adlai stevenson, according to gallup, eisenhower got 44 percent of the catholic vote. i think of catholics, there

is no swath of catholic vote and even when you nominate the catholic host john kennedy, john kerry, anything like that majority area but the important part is precisely because a, catholics are a swing vote. there are 40 4020 group in rough terms. there's a slightly larger swing among catholics and catholics are strategically located as steve also pointed out which is very important. incidentally, i've always loved that chart that probably put up, i've seen it before. this has nothing to do with our discussion but when you look at white mainline protestants, 44 and 44, i've wondered what numerology would make that seem to meet. but i think one of the things . [laughter] i think one of the things that we need to think

about looking at these numbers is whether catholics in many ways are like all other americans right now which is ideology from religion. ideology trumps peoples faith traditions. we all find ways of rationalizing it and there are distinctive characteristics of what steve wagner, a republican voting analyst has called the difference between social renewal catholics and social justicecatholics . social renewal catholics are basically the pro life catholic and i have to say you see this even at the parish level. last two sundays, we went to do different parishes because of the math and i was struck that at the more conservative parish, the first people

focused on a boesch abortion and right to life. at the other parish, it went to the first prayer of the faithful focused on maybe we'd be welcoming to all, maybe not excludes. you see this right at the parish level all over our country. i don't deny that there are real theological differences, we need renewal and social justice catholics are different in priority, there are differences in how they deal with tradition. nonetheless we should be honest enough that there's a great cs lewis line that many christians do not read the gospel for enlightenment on lyrical questions, they ransacked it for support of their own political party and there's a lot of that going on. we are also some split by class. more so than usual split by gender. we are split by region, southern catholics like all southern white catholics are more republican than other catholics because southern

whites are more republican than the rest of the country, that's generally true but what is going on this year that might be a little different? take robbie's numbers on white catholics. where he's got a 19, the exit polls showed a 19 point margin for romney and now only +7 for trouble. you get all those on undecided voters, trump would win by 18 points among catholics. if a split, something like they are split now, trump would only have a nine point margin so something specific is happening with donald trump, obviously within the latino community but also within the white catholic and also by the way, african-american catholic community except for cokie roberts who knows a lot of african-american catholics, we ignore, about 10 percent ... exactly. about 10 percent of

african-americans, 10 percent of catholics are african-american but something specific is going on with trump and i'd like to suggest several things. one, clearly is gender as robbie pointed out. the second thing is there is something about donald trump that is making it very hard for even traditionally conservative catholics to endorse him. i have been struck looking at the national catholic register, conservative newspaper had a very interesting summary of the opinions of catholic bishops, what they are saying about the election. and in the last several elections, very conservative ships, though they didn't say how you should vote, they were pretty clear about their preference for the republican candidate. in this election, many of these same conservative catholic bishops are likely to say we can't decide.

one bishop said i'm going to write in some money. there's something about trump, especially in the age of pope francis that makes even conservative catholics reluctant to support him and that's true of conservative catholic intellectuals as well. and clearly immigration, because it becomes such an important position for the roman catholic church, clearly immigration is part of that area i have my faithful view of that and my cynical political view of that. my faithful view of that is of course the scripture says welcome the stranger. my cynical view is latinos are the people in the country that both protestants and catholics are fighting for and neither catholic leaders or protestant leaders want to get on the wrong side of latinos. though in this case, we have the happy circumstance of

being reinforced by institutional self-interest. this may be the work of the holy spirit. but i think that ... it does. i'm a great fan. i am, actually. i think that has something to do with it and i think various other aspects of donald trump that we need not go into today are pushing some of these traditional catholics, conservative catholic bishops away but you also have begun to see a change in the leadership of the american catholic church since pope francis, the two most obvious signals of that are archbishop cardinal suraj in chicago, bishop robert mcelroy in san diego, the cardinal including cardinal stupid that popefrancis said recently . i think that the message that people are getting from the hierarchy this year is far

more let's put it, complicated then the message that large parts of the hierarchy are giving in recent elections and i think one of the fascinating questions is, are we seeing a circumstance in which the leadership of the church will come back toward where the church was back in, say, the 1980s when some people in the world who are old enough as i am to remember, when the push-ups put up strong statements on social justice and nuclear war? finally i want to say that in the end, even churchgoing catholics don't always listen to bishops when it comes time for voting. my late mom, a devout catholic used to have an aversion to candidates that recommended explicitly from the pulpit just on general principle. but i do think that the message coming out of leadership has some long term

impact here. but i see no evidence from numbers or any other numbers that we will seize anytime soon to be that swing group that is not a block that remains extremely important election i suspect that on election night when we are looking at returns, particularly from ohio and pennsylvania and a number of other states but also looking at returns because of latino catholics from colorado and nevada we will be paying a great deal of attention to how catholics vote and that's exactly how pope francis would want it. thank you very much. >>