was about right was 18% and trump got 10% of that. not surprising. what about that 30% that thought that zero obamacare did not go far enough? trump got 18% of those, almost one out of five of the people that that obamacare did not go far enough voted for trump. you know, it's time like this that i start to pull out my hair, which thankfully i have got plenty. trump got 18% of the people who thought he was unqualified. so, as i said, we are going to be unpacking this for a really long time. but, what's interesting is and i did hear someone on i can't remember what to network, someone around 5:30 a.m. talking

about that this is a wave election. i was thinking, okay, it was surprising things happened, but in a wave election a party that is benefiting from a wave election doesn't lose half dozen house seats. you know, my definition of a wave election, you know, is when you start picking up say two, three dozen seats. you know, something like 37 like republicans got with reagan in 198452 seats like republicans got in 1994. that is a wave. having a net loss of either one or two seats depending upon what happens in new hampshire, losing a seat or two, that's not a wave i mean, that's not a wave in any direction. so, it's not a wave. this seems to me very very trump

specific, but some of the turnout things that obviously i think were driven by trump also kept republicans from losing more seats than we thought i mean for me i kind of thought that over and under was about 13 seats. that's the number of sees that republicans gained in 2014, over what they want back in 2012 in the last presidential election. you know, you could argue 13, 50 something like that. six seats, lower than we thought, not shocking but lower than we thought. i know at one point-- i don't remember what our last rage was, but at some point we had a really wide five-20 and the thing is losing one, two seats, you know-- as i said we will be unpacking this for a really long time. let me talk for like-- how much

time do we have? ten minutes, okay. i will talk for 10 minutes. what in the hell does all this mean and where are we going here? this is really uncharted territory, i mean, let's start off with-- let's talk about the house. how does this affect paul ryan? how does-- well, first of all what is paul ryan thinking these days? does he want the job? if he wants it, is he allowed to keep a? will house republicans, will the freedom caucus tea party folks feel emboldened by all of this and say, you know, let's get rid of brining get one of us in there or do they see, you know, we need someone that will be a negotiator, you know, someone

that is running interference between us and president trump since, you know, he's kind of new to town. the legislative process, governing process, you know, all of this kind of stuff. we don't know. you know, i think obviously mitch mcconnell is in a different situation. you know, he's not in any jeopardy and he certainly played things a little cagey or than ryan did, so he doesn't have that vulnerability, but i think, you know, some of us were talking last night about, you know, what's going to happen. you are going to have trump here and, you know, are you going to have paul ryan and mitch mcconnell here and mike pence

is, you know, been around and knows the process. do that kind of surround trump and try to kind of that move him in certain directions in constructive ways or is trump-- you know, does he start completely freelancing? how does all of this work? we don't know, i mean, we have been so thinking about, okay, if the republicans lose their majority in the senate and they get the margin the house cut in half and, you know, how many times could ryan violate the rule without being kicked out, but that doesn't seem terribly relevant anymore. we are just at a really new place here and, you know, at this point i think for this par going forward, you know, no one

is an expert. we are all novices in this situation. no one has ever seen anything quite like this before. what happens in the democratic party? i mean, there had been an argument made back-- that hillary clinton was going to win i heard people argue that she actually would have been better off with 49 democrats in the senate than 51, that she would have as much or more problems on her left is on the right and that there were already about 12 or 13 really, really, really, really, liberal democrats in the senate and it looked like it would probably get up to 15 that feel empowered and that that would be a real problem for her that maybe she could tell them to chill out a little if they didn't have a majority in the senate, so there was that whole

discussion going on, which obviously isn't relevant right now, but where does the democratic party go? i have to tell you, i have been saying this for a couple months are thinking this for a couple of months that to me if you look at the democratic party now, i would argue the center of gravity and that party nationally is closer to bernie sanders and elizabeth warren that it is to hillary clinton or joe biden and. while everyone was fixating on how ideological and outsider and an great all the stuff was going on on the republican side, but i've always thought that whenever you see some problem in one party, take a gander over the other side and look because you will see either the potential of or the reality of that same problem over there and democrats and whether it's the outsider alienated and some of

the stuff where, you know, bernie sanders and elizabeth warren saying the democratic party is owned and operated by wall street and the big banks, which is obviously news to wall street the big banks because they were clearly not getting a lot of value for their ownership , but where we were seeing-- where does the democratic party go over the next few years? i think one thing, a couple thoughts just about how things change and then we will open it up for questions and comments and accusations, but i had been -- again, i'm trying to sort of mentally make the turn from what we thought was going to happen to what obviously happen, but in the context of clinton winning, you know, i was thinking, well, a couple things maybe were happening. number one, that she would have

had a likely better working relationship at least with the senate and president obama did because, you know, he always-- i wouldn't say they had to break his arms to sit down with members of congress, including those in his own party, but, you know probably have to shove him around a little bit to get him to do that. it generally doesn't work so well. in fact, i venture to guess that it the last time a president had as a difficult relationship with his own party on capitol hill was a jimmy carter, you know, maybe back in the late 70s. so, without that, but it didn't think that chuck schumer-- i think chart-- chuck schumer-- first of all, thinking about mcconnell and harry reid, it was

like watching two scorpions and a bottle. in terms like loading and despising really understates the relationship there and the impression i have is that schumer would have-- will have a far, far, far better relationship both with mitch mcconnell and other republican senators than harry reid because it had just gotten way, way, way more poisonous and so that is something that will be different , but all in all a couple of you are probably lobbyists. wow. i don't think you will get your cut next year. i tell you, i, i mean, if this town is driven by fear,

uncertainty and change, we have all three food groups coming up in the next two years. let me just close on that. i tell you, i just sitting around talking with pollsters and other folks around nbc last night, you know, you had a couple 150-- hundred 30, hundred 40 years of experience there and no one had ever seen anything like this, so there is a microphone here and one over here and they ask that you identify yourself-- okay, here we go. >> hello. the states pennsylvania, wisconsin, michigan, arguably do you think that is a shift for just this election or do you see a trend by mike oh, i think it's a trend. i really do.

i think is that michigan maybe-- well, democrats have been banking so much on this rise of latino vote, asian americans, the rays eight-- latino vote, the states with booming numbers of young, highly educated people that were moving towards the democratic party, but the thing about it is that's not happening , obviously, evenly across all 50 states and their something that happens a lot and as a result she did fine in virginia. clinton did find in colorado, but in the states where it skews somewhat west minority and little west on the education side, little more on the liberal side that democrats, i mean,

democrats have been so excited about the glass being half full that they were ignoring that the glass was half empty that they were losing ground with certain groups. they had been so excited about the groups that they have been gaining with and i would say and we have all spent a lot of time talking about the 2013, republican autopsy and how republicans seemed to do better with minority voters and younger voters and etc. that may be democrats should've done a study like, okay, we won, but there are some warning signs out there. there is some sign where democrats are underperforming and troubling signs and i think the democrats would be very well advised to maybe do their own autopsy this time. and to take a look at what

happened and what some trends are that they ought to be worried about because i mean clearly the country is changing. is changing a lot. it's changing in a way that generally benefits democrats, but it's not changing as fast as they think it is and it is exposing some real i guess for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. its opening up real problem areas for them in other areas that they have got to figure out a way to square. yes, sir. >> and wanted to ask you, is a some of this trumps new approach to technology? did clinton campaign fight the old election of obama, data driven, turnout operation? where they fighting an old war and is he in some new twitter land with direct communication more nibble allocation of

resources? we all know much less he spent on his campaign or was it just the personality? >> i'm trying to think. my colleague wrote a piece this morning. she was ambitious and wrote something. i was to bring adult. what was that phrase she used? sheet quoted-- she quoted glenn talked about 2004 that good feel couldn't make up for bad messaging, i think and the thing about it is i think the power of trumps messages trumped-- the thing is i clearly the clinton campaign clearly something scooped up. first of all, the fact that they didn't center into wisconsin. minnesota west concert were left

exposed and even though she eventually did carry minnesota, but it wasn't by much, so clearly something went wrong somewhere along the way and i'm sure we will read a lot about it. no, i don't think that trump sort of found some new way. i think he just had in retrospect a very very powerful message that resonated with certain types of voters really really well, right message, right here and i think it was that. i mean, my guess is, it if i were a republican consultant i would not tell future republican president of candidates, don't worry about field and do it the way trumped it. i mean, this is like the car commercials, professional drivers on a closed course, i mean, kids don't try this at home. just because it worked for him don't mean it will work for you.

the thing is and i remember and i'm not saying that this is the same, but the romney folks, romney had some awfully bright people working for him and they had done a lot on analytics and, i mean, it was a pretty sophisticated campaign. they thought they were pretty good. they fell good going in and felt they were measuring up reasonably well to the obama operation and as it turned out they weren't-- you know, it didn't seem to be as nearly as sophisticated with the obama operation, but i think-- but romney did not have that powerful message to make up for whatever in the technology level that was there, so i don't think this is something new, but i think it's more the power of trumps message. i will stick with that.

until we learn more, which i'm sure we will all read lots more. >> hello. what impact does this election have on the role of the media and politics because it seems like all of the what i would call the judgments media, the fact checking and document all information had no impact whatsoever and instead what we got was the entertainment side of media and there doesn't seem to be a real political filter anymore, so what's in the future for media role in politics? >> that's a great question. part of it is, i think particularly with younger voters and i don't want to lay it all off on them, but the distinction between traditional journalism and opinion that walls broken

down and that they don't, whether you go on the internet some of these walls that use to be there that you knew what was an editorial, what was an op-ed piece in what was a news piece, it's a murky and i have to also add, though, that the media-- how much trouble to get in? i think there will have to be a lot of soul-searching within the media on this. on the one hand, i think with a lot of not just one, but a lot of cable networks, you know, up until this year, you know, if you wanted to watch a whole

speech from a politician you had to go to our friends at c-span and that's for you went and the idea of other cable networks, national ones basically doing entire speeches, that had never really happened with any kind of frequency before and they started doing it very aggressively with tromp and eventually they would throw in some clinton and bernie sanders, but-- which, i think, you know, we saw figures a couple billion dollars worth of coverage and not that donald trump had any name recognition problems before , but in terms of allowing him to give his message unfiltered directly to voters mainlining it to them anyway that was unprecedented and then we kind of segue to a place where the networks realized

every time we put this guy on our readings went skyhigh, you know, which helps my bonus. and that wall between profit-making and journalism got a little more permeable and to be honest, i think in a lot of the early debate and enough interviews, you know, they would ask the obligatory question about when will you release your income tax returns and he would say, oh, after the audit is gone and there may or may not be one follow-up, but in terms of someone grilling him and sort of really going after him, they didn't do that and i don't want to impugn anyone's motives, but you kind of wonder whether wow, if i give him a really hard time

maybe he will come out on and we will take a little bit of a ratings hit and the thing is, i mean, if you want an example of -- remember the interview that chris matthews did with tromp on abortion? he asked, i mean, chris was like a dog with a bone i may he just couldn't, you know i mean he just kept going after tromp in a very, very, aggressive way and i know chris is not from the traditional journalistic background, but the thing is chris went after him far more aggressively than i thought any -- a saw any other journalist doing terms of that kind of thing. just didn't see much of that, but then we went into the last six weeks or so and i have to say i think some newspapers that i love and respect enormously,

they kind of went a little far the other way. got really really aggressive, i mean, when you-- you know, it's one thing to say, mr. trump said this, however, the records showed this, this and this. et al. they teach you in journalism school, but to call something a lie i mean in a news story, wow, you know i think i would have gotten a f in high school journalism if i had tried that. that's a new play. even though i have no sympathy for donald trump, but i tell you what, i got to really uncomfortable watching some of the finest newspapers in the country-- it was like watching a badly refereed basketball game where you are getting a lot of

makeup calls at the end and, you know, you watched games then you see these make up calls and you kind of go wow. frankly, i'm not sure print journalism had a lot to make up for, you know, to me it was more the television aside where some of the transgressions early on had been, so, you know, i think all political analyst and pollsters and operatives mean there is a lot of that that they will look back at how we did, but quite frankly, i think journalism, i mean, when we sort of assume that tromp was going to lose i wondered whether you would able to get the genie back in the bottle, that if print journalism or any kind of journalism, if you did this to

or ford donald trump, would you be able to get your standards backup down the road for someone else and that maybe should've just left all the standards where they were. so, yeah i think there is a lot of us in various kinds of people have a lot to be thinking about over-- navel gazing, not that i've seen my navel in a long time. anyway, how about more questions? >> hello. >>'s art, the lights are behind you. >> i will have you prognosticate a little bit more, but you go to that part about freedom caucus.

may be a leader, wipro conference position and that might have been an edge agenda item with crews with the meeting last week. if senate autopsy may be they come up with how they met the genome and that republican party. what kind of candidate would you have in 2018? how conservative would candidates be that ted cruz could use in 2018 or 2020? >> again, we are mentally making the turn and in my mind you had all of these circumstances that were working against republicans this time. you know, we know in presidential election years the turnout is big and broad and relative diverse and looks more like the country in a midterm elections the turnouts are roughly 40% lower and it older white are more conservative more republican.

and we knew that republicans had 24 seats at this time and democrats only attend, that republicans had seven senate seats up in the states that president obama carried there were node democrats up in states that mitt romney carried, but that for 2018, it was like everything was on the other foot. that it's a mid term election and favors republicans. we thought it was going to be a midterm election with a democratic presidents and we know that just using the house as a yardstick, the party the white house has gained a seats in precisely three midterm elections in the last century. and that there were 25 democratic seats up and only eight republican seats up in 2018, so that all of the factors

go working against republicans this year would be working against democrats in 2018. well, now it's kind of topsy-turvy. i guess part of your question would be as if a group of people , party leaders in ohio would get in a room and commission a lot of the polling and focus groups and research on jared brown, let's say, and their various potential candidates and take a vote and decide who would be that optimal candidate. well, maybe that's the way it ought to work, but that's not the way it works anymore. my guess is you would probably have quite a few republicans pray for that seat and that they

may or may not get the optimal person, so right now i don't know off the top of my head who would be the optimal person. i guess it's kind of like the supreme court justice that said i can't do fine photography but i know it when i see it and this would be where you kind of know you think you know who would be a good challenger. sometimes that does not work. i mean, for example democrats got really excited when they recruited patrick murphy to run for the senate in florida and republicans were really really worried and then they did their research and it's like there was a lot here to work with and they dismantled the guy. so, i may punt on that one, but it's a good question. we just don't know yet. >> hello. so, you provided a lot of interesting exit polling data and obviously attract

differently than what we have seen with the pre-election polling hence the results. can you give a little explanation as to why the pre-election polling was so i'll particularly from the campaign standpoint? >> let's look at it two ways. first, let's do national and then take the state apart. national, what do we say the average was going in, clinton by what, three? for-- three or four? then it ended up being clinton by a half, you know, a third of a point, something like that. now, that is off, but it's not, you know, orders of magnitude off. it's just often the fact is that polling is-- i think the best

pollsters in the business doing the best work they possibly can, they are not as good as they or their predecessors were 30, 40 years ago and while a lot of people think that's about cell phones it's really not because good pollsters use like live interviews. the problem is, ready. the problem is telemarketers burned all these people out so that if my mom or dad got a call 30 years ago they felt flattered that someone would ask their opinion about politics and now it's who in the heck is interrupting my dinner and you look at your collar id and if it's not something you want to talk to then you don't answer and that's why response rates that used it to be almost 40% of all calls that went out could

get completion and now it's down to like 9% and so getting a representative sample is just really, really, really hard, so even the best pollsters doing their best work is not as reliable, but i don't see that as as much of a failure. now, on some of these states where you had state polling that was just-- first of all, not of all of these states had a lot of polling going on. you may hear from minnesota-- is anyone here for minnesota? i don't recall seeing a whole lot of polls out of minnesota. i mean, i couldn't remember any. you know, michigan had a few. you know, it wasn't exactly over polled i mean there were some states where we had polls coming

out twice, three times a week, but some places were not polled well and the quality of polling and individual states vary a lot .. >> to see what they say but to me that's where, but i don't, you know, i'll pull the that clinton up by three or four and she won by less than one, that's troubling. to me we knew the blue-collar

noncollege white, we knew that was there. to me i think it was the rural, the small town, rural. to me that's the group that i suspect may have been really underrepresented. and one of the things that happens is when you do focus groups, you know, there are cities that have really good focus group facilities, and where they all go to columbus, ohio. they all go to charlotte where there are good facilities but they don't go out to, you know, out 20 miles, 30 miles, 40 miles south of roanoke. they don't go out there, so that maybe tap into that small town rural thing, maybe that's where, to me that the suspicion that i have of where we missed capping into somewhat anger. and you could see, even like

upstate new york. upstate new york, they might as well be in a completely different state than the city or the suburbs. >> a quick follow-up. is your assumption that, say, the clinton campaign, that they probably modeled out that that vote would be very similar to the obama vote, it just ended up, trump just out of the water. is that kind of your take? >> picture looked like it. but i don't, you know, my transit is open if anybody wants to wiki leak a bunch of internal clinton campaign documents. i mean, that's not even funny. [laughter] you know, inquiring minds would like to know what the d.c. and when did they see it. i'm not going to throw a whole

lot of rocks that technical people and that came pain because some of them are dealt with their are some really, really bright, talented people who were pretty, a lot of them were on the obama campaign and are pretty damn good then. i don't think they sort of all the incompetent one day. i think they were new and different things, and i think having some of the challenges that secretary clinton had, image challenges. and let's face it, where the democratic party is going, you know, president obama, nancy pelosi, sort of the image or the democratic party is. man, it's a really happening place for a certain kind of voters, but man, it's just on a different planet with the voters

in, you know, south arkansas where my parents grew up, for example. so i don't know, good question. nice hotel though. i like the regency. anyway. anybody else before we go? >> jeff brown with the pew charitable trust. curious as to the impact of the hispanic latino turnout. can you talk a bit about general, what trends do you see, what happened in florida, nevada? what's going on maybe in the future in arizona, texas? or was this a story that was more hype than anything? >> well, i, you know, i want to see and see what the benefit of sleep a lot more data. i mean, i know that there were some, i mean, i had the impression certain areas of the latino vote was out and robust

and all that. i was hearing a little bit of calm and florida there was a little bit of sort of the cuban vote back and forth, that it may have, that may have complicated things a little bit. part of it is, and i was talking to a political scientist that doesn't stop with the democratic party a few years ago and asking him, you know, when will texas go purple, and when my to go purple? you know, what i was told it is, you know, 2020 earliest, 2024 may be more plausible. and this person made a comparison with california, that in california you have this very large growing latino population that typically tends to be more in urban areas. and then you had really, really

well-financed public employee unions that were more than happy to spend a heck of a lot of money on voter registration and mobilization, all of that. while in texas, let's say, the latino vote is much more spread out and a lot of it is more rural small town and you don't have that financial infrastructure that california democrats had in texas. and as a result, it was just going to be maybe lag the curve of want, just be a completely different trajectory than, say, say california was. and i would guess that arizona might be some in the middle but to expect them all to behave like california. also where california, ever since pete wilson and what was that, prop 187, is that right?

the thing about it is, is really alienated latino voters like a generation ago that has just gotten worse and worse and worse and worse and worse. and you know, with texas you typically haven't seen, i mean, remember back in 2012. look at what mitt romney did to rick perry, where rick perry tried to take sort of what can republican party would be a fairly moderate position on immigration. and romney just killed him with it. where texas republicans have not behaved in the way, st. pete wilson had, back in california back in the 80s. so i think there will be a lot, i think of the a lot written. i think i would expect pew charitable trust to write a lot of it. and i will be reading it very carefully. it's too soon.

it's too soon. we've got to wait until all the votes in an all the exit polls have been sort of weighted and massaged and ready to do it. anybody else before i get the hook? there you go. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> you know, there's an old rule of thumb, never take the last question. [laughter] they are good questions. well, what i wonder, where the country is going on social and cultural issues, where the

republican party needs to be in the future. i don't think this year will have done a lot of good advancing the cause that the republican party needs to make changes in order to go after younger voters in the future your so that -- in the future. so that a lesson that needed to be learned i think probably did not get learned this year. and so it kind of kicked it down the sidewalk along for an allowance i think a demographic problem for the republican party on cultural issues, to just get worse rather than to start figure out that voters under 50, under 40 can look at a lot of these cultural issues very, very, very differently than where the historic republican base has.

so i, if i were a moderate republican hoping that the party would change its direction on cultural issues, i would be really, really depressed today because i don't think, while the republican party won the presidency, that fight kind of got prolonged. the first 100 days, you know, your guess is as good as mine. i mean, i think we're all just going to, you know, fasten our seatbelts and get ready for a wild ride. i don't even think he knows what he's going to do. or he knows who he's going to hire to help determine what they're going to do. but your membership and "national journal" will help you understand that. [laughter] always sign my renewal with kevin. that's a little extra here, here but listen, thank you all very

much for coming out. and by turning it back over to kevin? thank you all. [applause] >> thank you, charlie, for sharing your thoughts with us today. a couple of things to mention before leaving. you all will receive an e-mail from us that will have a survey. we take feedback very, very seriously here at "national journal" and we take serving our members are seriously so we would love to hear what you thought of another thing to mention, there are -- i see some of you with them but please pick them up on the way out. if they'll break in a lot of the polling and a lot of the results. i know many of you will be giving presentations to internal stakeholders in, and we are hopeful to be helpful there. so thank you for coming out today and look forward to serving you in the next 100 days. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> president obama says he's instructed his team to make sure there is a peaceful transfer of power to donald trump. the president sisi and the president-elect has had big differences but we all want what's best for this country. hillary clinton says losing is painful and will be for a long time but in a first public remarks after donald trump victory secretary clinton told supporters we all him an open mic at the chance to lead. she said that with a failed bid for the white house, america is not shattered the hardest and

highest class we must someday someone will. and neither mcbride outlined the role of the outgoing administration ensuring a smooth transition. she also said it's important the incoming administration team admits that they don't know and they will learn what's happened in the various agencies. >> so the role of an outgoing administration ensuring a smooth transfer of power is setting the tone. it's really important the president do that and do that well. and by extension that they give direction to all of their staff not only in the white house but to the departments and agencies as well to be open and transparent and provide all the information that incoming team would now. what of the greatest obstacles for an incoming team for progress obstacles is they don't know what they don't know, and particularly if it is a trump presidency, how do the people who may be, because this is an

election based on dramatic change, and overhauling of government from top to bottom, the anticipation that these people do want to come and just blow the whole thing up is probably pretty highly likely. so what tone is going to be set by the incoming team? how open are they calling have the government does work. as david said extremely complex, trillions of dollars. thousands and thousands of people work, hundreds of thousands of people work in these federal bureaucracies and then you have 4000 pivotal positions to put in there to run the government the way you want it to be run. so a great obstacle for the incoming team is admitting what they don't know, having the people of their transition teams which are in place now to really understand what is happening in

the agencies, what are some of the things that are on the table, what are some of the things in the hopper that agencies, either through regulation or policies, are getting ready to do? and how is it different from what you campaign on, what you've promised to do, and that personnel that you need to select and ready to go in at the end of that 73 day period, to actually execute on what the electorate has asked you to do. >> c-span, where history unfold daily. in 1979 c-span was greater as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by her cable or satellite provider. >> with the election behind us, congress can get back to work next week to members need to consider an extension of government funding before the december 9 deadlifter also work on a final package of aid to

residents of flint, michigan for the contaminated drinking water system, work on a bill promoting medical research and funding for defense department programs. you can see the house live on c-span monday when they return. the senate will be here on tuesday live on c-span2. political congress, congressional reporter burgess effort tweets that was gone senator ron johnson surprise everybody. politico did not talk to a single person that had any clue that he could win. senator johnson delivered a victory speech at his campaign headquarters in oshkosh, wisconsin, after defeating his opponent russ feingold. is introduced by governor scott walker. [cheers and applause] are you excited, wisconsin. [cheers and applause] what a great crowd and what a great victory for all the people of wisconsin, republican, democrat, independent.

senator ron johnson, a victory for future generations as well as those here today. thank you all for being out of tonight. back on november 2, 2010, you elected ron johnson, you elected me, you elected a whole wave of republicans across the state and you send us a message. he said don't just a campaign. get out there and govern like you said you're going to do when you campaigned. we turn this state around. we turn this state around. [cheers and applause] and the great news tonight is you've got someone is kind of like, remember that old movie mr. smith goes to washington? someone who is a manufacturer who was just doing his own thing, stood up and heard the call, it is going to do something, went to washington, did his job instead i'm going to focus on wisconsin not a washington. that's what he's done for the past six years. that's what he will do for the next six years. he someone will bring those wisconsin values to washington.

[cheers and applause] and not only with his victory tonight, a victory for all of us in wisconsin but it's really a victory for wisconsin and a victory for america as well. because now ron johnson can yet again tell what it means to be someone from wisconsin, to show what it means when you people willing to think more about the next generation than just about the next election. you can do remarkable things for the people of your state. he will plead innocent, the remarkable things for the people in this country. ladies and gentlemen, it's my honor to introduce the current and future senator from the great state of wisconsin, ron johnson, and the entire johnson family. [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ >> thank you, everybody. ♪ ♪ ♪ thank you, everyone. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you, wisconsin. thank you. thank you. thank you. [cheers and applause] thank you. so apparently we didn't run out of beer this year. thank you all. i so appreciate it. this is a big night. it's a big night --

[cheers and applause] it's a big night for wisconsin. it's a big night for america but i have to take some time to thank some people. i want to first thank my wife jane. [applause] jane has just been a rock. she's been so supportive. jane is a patriot, and i could not have done this without jane. i want to thank my kids, jenna and her husband chris, my son and his wife courtney. my daughter and her husband. [cheers and applause] they have been supportive ever -- every part of the way. i have to thank my siblings. my younger brother moved back from minneapolis to open the business. he's doing a great job. [cheers and applause] his wife, mary, who has had to

leave her family. she's involved in the community, the boys and girls club doing a wonderful job. mary, thank you. [applause] my brother dean and his wife. dean is a wonder filled a lot of our commercials that i think really put us over the top. [cheers and applause] my sister and her husband bob. she has been a supporter from afar. give me all kinds of texts of encouragement so, lynn, thank you. [applause] i need to thank a very special person. you saw him year earlier, tony blando. [applause] where is tony? [chanting]

>> there he is. so first of all let me apologize oshkosh and the catholic school system for taking tony away from you. but you all know what a servant leader tony blando is. he has gained so much respect in washington, d.c., the respect he deserves. but tony, you know i could not have done this without you. so god bless you, tony blando. [cheers and applause] i want to thank the official staff of the senate. the folks here in wisconsin who are just dedicated to actually customer service. i'm not going to do and everybody because i will forget somebody but you know who you are. you have done so much to be so responsive to the good folks of wisconsin, and trust me, we are dedicated customer service so

you can expect six additional years of great customer service as well. [applause] you know, the old washington, d.c. bays is pretty darn good, too. they gave me all the information i need, so thanks to all you guys. you come here to help campaign. [applause] i've got to thank the state-based campaign staff as well. betsy. where is the betsy? [applause] .. him.

have the privilege over the last six years serving with phenomenal people. and over the last couple of days traveling to the state i don't think wisconsin fully appreciate how lucky we are to have the men and women of integrity in our state legislature and the governorship serving in congress. where the governor walker go. a man of integrity. [applause]. a man of integrity a man of ideas. and those will be attached to

everyone else that i mentioned. all of the men and women of the state. paul ryan i am a big paul rain fan. he's can lead on it. [applause]. but other members of congress mike gallagher is a fabulous glenn and sean. shawn. these are fabulous members of congress.

paul ryan the other members of legislator we are gonna put america on the right path. god bless all of those folks. about six and half years ago a door was open to me gave me this opportunity to serve the folks of wisconsin about 18 months ago another door opened up to me through the senate staff and i meant a wonderful man and pastor jerome smith. working together we have created something called the joseph project. it is through the leadership

of a wonderful man named pastor jerome smith. we're using that as an example it's actually what works. so there certainly the guarantee. to grow and expand the project. god bless you pastor smith. i did speak with the senator. he congratulation -- he congratulated me. i told him best wishes on the next part of his life.

i have talked to our vice president nominee. i've talked to rance previous. my message has been pretty consistent. i promise to always tell you the truth. that is obvious. this is my final term. i approached the next six years with the purpose. we have a shot and a chance to put america on the right path. we will hear is the number one agreement that we start with. as americans we really do share the same goal. we all want to safe prosperous

america. we are concerned about each other. there is the fellow citizens that we want to succeed to have the opportunity to build a good life to themselves in their family. i've said this repeatedly. i can ruin your night. lena the challenges that we face. it's a night of celebration. thank you. this is a night of opportunity

we've been given a chance we will see that chance one group of people i haven't thing to get his all of you. we are praying for you. and working together as wisconsinites we will save this country. god bless all of you that bless all of you. just run away.

[inaudible] take it in but don't look down. [music] [inaudible] [music] take it in but don't

look down. [music] [music] [music] [music]

[music]

[music] [music]

[music]

[music] >> russ feingold delivered remarks to supporters at his

campaign headquarters in oshkosh wisconsin after being defeated by incumbent senator ron johnson. he previously served as a democratic u.s. senator. from the years 1983 to 2011. [applause]. all my friends. thank you. thank you. i did not expect this outcome. i'm sorry we did not get the job done.

she just retired as the university library and after 40 years. she registered to vote and went and voted with me and said she may have voted for me. her greatest wish in life was to have the first month of retirement be thrown into the united states senate campaign. no it wasn't, but thank you for your support. i cannot tell you how i feel about the support that i received from everybody, every day all over the state. wonderful families incredible campaign staff i just had such a good time with all of you guys in the campaign. you taught me a lot more than i taught you. i really wanted to get this done. but obviously something is happening in this country tonight i don't understand

completely. i don't think anybody does. but we as americans have to do the best we can to heal the pain in this country and to get people to come together i would urge you to be as restrained as you can be. as a next steps occur. i don't exactly what they're going to be. but it could be one of the most challenging times in the history of our country. and it's can be up to you particularly these wonderful young people that worked on this campaign were and had to heal the wounds. it's now up to you thanks so much.

[applause]. [music] >> new hampshire secretary of state is certified that democratic governor maggie hassan that hours after she said she would not give up until the official tally came in. in the end she beat them by 1,383 boats. elizabeth warren said today

that she's willing to work with president-elect trump she said it's no secret that i didn't want to see donald trump winning yesterday but the integrity of our democracy is more important than any individual election and those of us who supported hillary clinton will respect this result. they talked about the difficult shift of a campaigning to govern. the process has come along way since president truman first laid the modern groundwork. >> first of all the key point in my mind in a transition is the pivot from the campaign which we are currently in the governing. that is the key shift in this less than 80 day timeframe. i'm as with the next president of the united states in his or her team needs to focus on.

in the is a pretty difficult shift to make. after working so hard to get elected. secondly, it is a monumental task as i can say from the business side if you just think about it if you have less than 80 days to organize a company with 4,000 people that you need to get in place $4 trillion budget 2 million civilian employees and a tremendous diverse set of activities and portfolios. that usually makes even the most fearless competent ceo had spent a bit. as a monumental undertaking. thirdly, i would say that the transition process has come a

long way from one president truman first thought of this. by the way he was not warm and receptive from the overtures. they got the part written in note saying they're not giving you good advice. or something to that effect but since that time i think we have seen and josh can josh can speak to this readiness on the prior administration to work with the incoming administration even if they are of another party. and probably the best transition is taken place is the bush 43 transition to the obama administration. there has not been a lack of

goodwill what there has been a lack of his order definition and formality on the transition process and that's what max and his team was working diligently to really help frame that particularly with the dramatic changes that have taken place since 1992 in the clinton transition. but even in the last ten years. speemac were asking students to participate what is the most urgent issue. a competition is open to all middle school and high school students grades six through 12. it will go to the student or team with the best overall entry.

it will be awarded and shared between hundred 50 students and 53 teachers. this year's deadline is january 20. for more information about the competition go to our website. on veterans day c-span well had live coverage of the replayed ceremony. we will have that on friday at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. they discuss employment in the united states. he talks about entrepreneurship and technology as well as the impact on that. the speech at the manhattan.

speemac it is up polymath who tries to understand the world and figure out ways to improve the condition. always provocative. and very perceptive. they once remarked that before they burst onto the scene in the early '90s urban economics was dried up. no one have come up with new ways to look at cities. it continues to redefined economics particularly urban economics. he is taught since 1982. his published dozens of papers. it became a new york times bestseller. he served as director of the totten center in the manhattan desires to count them as well

as the contributing editor. it was titled why our skilled series getting more skilled. he is revisiting that. whether we had reached the end of work. some who just sent in his final college tuition bill let me say that the answer to that is a solid no. [applause]. thank you. i'm so thrilled to have that lecture. i'm also honored that you've given me airtime. this is an unusual election instead it's about the social problem that i think is the

largest. you may think it's very odd that an academic thinks what he works on is not the most important thing in the world. but this is something that has disturbed me and it should should disturb you as well. and when objective is not to convince you that i think i know the right answers about to convince you that this is the great social problem facing america today. what you're looking at here is the employment rate not unemployment rate. from roughly the late 1950s through today. 5% were jobless. that have been true. for 20 years before that. this is a enormous change. you can see from the data what happens during every crisis

the employment rate drops and then it comes back maybe half as much. i think that's what were seen in this crisis. when you parch together what's been happening lately. with a slight decline at the end. when you look at that see that in fact 25 to 30 employment. when they were 17 in 2007. they are reentering the labor force there working. it looks exactly the same. those drops are down and they appear to be permanent. that's exactly what you're seeing here. a report that has come out this month on this issue on the membership employment needless to say i don't agree with all of the

recommendations. what this shows you is that the triangle will show you where we were in 1990. it was 10% for non- employment. today we are at 17% we're not quite there yet. we're moving in the wrong direction. it's not immeasurable that you go in the wrong direction certainly they were significantly higher in 1990 than it was today. it reflects real and hard changes. i think that is a minimum of what we will be required to do here in this country.

just a series of facts 5%. in may 1996 there was 73.8 percent. a huge increase. the employment population rate differs nervously by reputation. 41.3% massive gaps with education in the groups. as a combination i will come back to this again. interacts with them in an absolutely poisonous manner. to 12.3 million. and there has been a massive rise in the number of disability assistance.

they're up to 9 million today. massive change in disability. it's not because americans have been sicker. but do strongly to strongly discourages people from working. there is not that there's anything wrong with this. i understand the impulse. when government policies but incredibly strong disincentives to people working. we all get upset when we think about high skilled people to face marginal taxes. but they have a relatively nice relatively nice jobs. they get respected. how about when we have effective tax rates. people who end up losing 30 cents on the dollar because their food stamps go down. they lose a bit more because

of the earned income tax credit. we can be close to hundred percent. we don't need to look further than that i think this is a really important point. if they weren't government policies every unemployed person is failure of entrepreneurial imagination. the recipe for this. the thing that needs to come out against that. and yet we are at a point in which we have a crisis in this country. they create a young and establishment. we were over $4.5 million per year. never number under $3 million. net employment being created.

look at the public policy response. the focus is on income and wages not on under employment. let me just give you a couple of quotes from our political leaders. equal pay for equal work. paid leave. all of these things matter to hard-working families. i agree. but of course it's probably not can be working after all of those things are done. bernie sanders leading the fight in the senate for $50 minimum wage all the focus is on the wages. no focus at all on the underemployment problem. unemployment insurance extension. for each month that you are on unemployment insurance you face a major disincentive.

they would make a difference of 600,000 jobs. i think we would agree with her on that. i think it's for more likely to eliminate that the to create it. i picked the view that nonemployment is a far worse social problem. making sure relative to making sure. feel like their lives have a purpose. let me just summarize. suicide.

the non- them limit has painful tendency to become permanent. this comes from my own work. on unhappy cities. relative to being employed in earning and earning over $75,000. let's say you earned that. one is miserable. you lose maybe .160. if you go down to 35 or 50. if you get this action of one on this scale. it's five times as large as any of these things. relative to making sure that they don't end up in this.

they understate the cost. anything i've taken away. it is the wrong way to think about unemployment. they are unable to muster some weight to change things. one of the tables is very helpful in this. it's just showing us what the time use as this is i think they would have that. actually they do a whole bunch of nice things. there is a lot of television.

socializing that. i don't think of them in the last year. maybe if you started with this and it made you happy you'd be surprised. i think in fact they do is sleep a little bit more. but they spend no more time caring for household members. this is from a paper last year showing what's should surprise you. in fact it's tightly tied to the labor force. to be socially disconnected. and this is a very big point.

we are social creatures. that's why cities are so successful. this has catastrophic impact. it was a very easy to read message. there's almost no different. is causing this huge difference. it is so powerful. the drug use.

very large effects. about 18% of the employees could use and on the illegal substance. as opposed to 8% of the population. what we have done here. as we have just looked at their relationship. and as you can see it was the data set the have the strongest correlation. what share was on beyond that. there are several things rolled up in that. it's about joblessness. it's about things that happened with disability as well. this is one of the many papers showing the long run impacts of unemployment. what happens if you get laid off at 22. you get back your job eventually. but you have a permanent impact about the 5% on the

wages going forward. these early unemployment spells are not free by any attempt in the situation. with the 15-year-old graph from a really great paper it's just the graphics are awful. what this is just showing as the unemployment rate over this time. as a combination here of their labor market protections and the shock. so you started having social democracy in the 60s and 70s. the safeguards can come into play. didn't start working there. by the 1980s when you have that. all of a sudden you had people laid off.

in the cocoon of the system takes over. all of a sudden they are in a system where they no longer head incentive to go to work. long-run long run unemployment. variety of social democracy. they understood they could not go on with the system. so they changed things. they loosened up the labor markets. whereas southern europe italy did nothing. those problems are still very much there. they're unable to make the change. are we germany or are we greece. were very much at that threshold right now as a

country. now, i'm just gonna go through a few of the policies that i think make up the war on work. they are motivated and very understandable reasons. by the desire to make the lives of people that do work better. but they're not motivated with any attempt to try to stop it. extended it is with i think they work in exactly the wrong direction. food stamps and housing badges. disability payments. with a 15-dollar minimum wage craze. because they had stayed so low for so long.

we came to forget that minimum wage is actually can have a major affect. these very tiny differences. it was the wrong conclusion. just how costly higher minimum wage was in the truth of that recession. let me just show you a little bit of the data you should know on this. there are debates around us. it is the weeks until the ui payments run out. just as they are running out. when the cash runs out you start looking for work. if i suddenly number -- double

the numbers of weeks. this is a paper by order. and what they're looking at is the extension of disability compensation for veterans. and for type two diabetes. and what this meant was at those people who had boots on the ground in vietnam had access to this and the people that served did not. they were able to compare these two groups. what you see is after 2001 there is a huge gap. 20% of them lead the labor force. it's a strong negative effect.

it's actually an idea with the guaranteed minimum. when people talk about minimum incomes they need a means tested thing. you don't get any. the economics of that no strings attached. it would be a personal --dash personally reasonable thing. but the idea of this is actually relevant. they are because they discouraged workers. i cannot tell you what an awful thing i think this is.

something that says when you get unemployed. we don't stop the payments when you go back to work. we give them a check. you give them that. in some sense this is a clear case. we should worry more about the fact that they're stopping people from using those talents. and don't make it dependable upon. the government needs to stop. this is a fundamental point.

it is a terrific new paper. twenty years ago. there is a serious. the actually hit poorer parts of america. places that are actually low-wage states. this shows you the unemployed of young high school dropouts. the states that were vowed. they started out with a lot more. they started out with more young high school dropouts. by the end of it they're all lower.

converged on each other. they cease to have the difference. with the overall decline. the minimum wage is not a free lunch. and certainly moving we just a $15 per hour is certainly could be a recipe for disaster. there is a paper. it is just too small. and the urges and sent to look at puerto rico which actually had much higher minimum wage relative to the earning. with the unemployment rates. gets quite high.

it sounds much more dramatic. when i think about this i think the thing that upsets me the most is the morality of it. it's a perverse notion that work and had reached distribution in this country you know who her to get to pay for not taxpayers, not people who had needs to get the customers of walmart to pay for the minimum wage. working to get the people who are buying hamburgers at mcdonald's in high poverty areas they are the people that work and ask. because when you impose higher wages. it's can be passed along to customers. that means we are in fact trying to do redistribution. that's what this is all about. it's an absolutely daunting thing. on top of the fact to the

extent of which the only groups in this world that are fighting hard to solve it. they should be held up as heroes not pleaded as the billions. now, is there a better path. can i problems that we will solve this whole thing. but there are obvious ways to move in the right direction rather than in the wrong direction. one of the bright lights that we have over the last 25 years in terms of getting people to work here. it is deeply complicated as a recipe for fraud in a lot of ways. make it simple. do it through the tax code. do it through the spending. illuminate the payroll tax for lower earning workers. make work pay as much as you can it will be costly it's not free.

it makes a lot more sense. for the service industries. get rid of any part that means payment contingent upon not working. it's a thing that could be done. we have to reduce the amount in some cases but there's no reason why you need to make these things contingent upon not working. i never want to see another government program that actually pays people not to work. deregulated. i will talk a little bit about innovation. an experimental skill program. i'm trying to evaluate in boston. does this stuff work. we have a great example from norway actually experiment it with a disability program.

i was up to a threshold. you could keep a buck for every two that you make. in this case you get to keep 50 cents on the dollar. it shows you that effective tax rate. this is the income that you're allowed to earn. it shows you the extra people working here. these are the people that didn't get this program. and the reason why there was that this difference was a hard date. it was a clear cut off very dramatic differences in terms of employment. for the people that had that. there is no reason why we cannot do this. nor reason why they should be

capable of that and we should not be able to. we have to reform our government program. we also had to think about providing trading. it does so in a way that starts off by having to sell things on ebay. and then walk them up. i don't know if this'll work. not to think that they know the answer. it's all the innovative ivy ideas ivy ideas that this room has.

if it doesn't work it will try something else. in this world. innovation centers. within the high poverty areas. i think that is almost surely not the way to go. in the other division is the report zone. you can try things that you couldn't get to the city as a whole. as it is a town in massachusetts. it deigned --dash mckay gained the commission. the beauty of this.

how awful if i can get that one step in boston as a whole i would take it. i can't. we do it with the most attractive area. unsurprisingly the city of boston. rather than actually deregulating. this involves some degree of training and social degree. they are our answer. and things need to be held together. and every time we put a barrier on were saying no to a point --dash make a poor kid who could've have a better future. they might be fulfilling their dreams.

i have to check whether told the story or not. what a my favorite stories and regulations. the story about detroit and maybe five years ago the cost of this. and she want to start the food truck. it's a cause of mine. it is a fantastic form. to actually do something new and creative. it is very appealing. this is at the last name on it.

there he was. he was being pummeled. and finally after an hour just go ahead and start your food truck. i wanted to end on that story because it does give me hope. and people who for centuries have been coming up with jobs and new ideas. we can do that again. that they improve the skill we need to figure how to do this. we need to start -- stop paying people not to work.

those are the fight ahead. i hope you can join me in this fight. and it is an important one for our country. [applause]. >> i have a question. what are the trends in the data. that's why they retire.

they get bored by not working. and what about the issue of the work ethics. how do we know that they are. there are two questions involved here. a source of misery. some people are able to find tremendous value. it's making sure that your life has purpose. she never ran out of things. every cab driver i have is a guy who retired two years ago and couldn't stand it. they were to so miserably and alone.

the second question was about work ethic. i think the government's job is not to work against that. i'm worried about trusting the federal government certainly. ..